sin x = x
Guessing that "organ" is a typo for "order", but somehow I kind of like envisioning Taylor series as living organisms, with terms being individual organelles.
Thanks for the smile in the morning.
(that is an assignment statement)
But even though the approximation has no value in a real world application, the description of getting to the approximation is really good. I've never heard of Pade approximations before, and I liked the lead in from small angle approximations and Taylor series. I'd say this post is accessible to (and can be appreciated by) advanced undergraduates in engineering or math or comp sci.
New submission here.
YouTube has become a fantastic place for this long tail of content, in this particular case a bunch of interesting math problems and tricks presented on a blackboard. Or, even full classes, from a person focused on honing pedagogy.
3blue1brown is another amazing channel for math as well.
I have a feeling that this sort of content is the seeds of very great things for humanity. In the 20th century, ET Jaynes talks about how people never get credit in academia for creating simpler paths to greater understanding. But with YouTube, creators can both reach an audience and also find patrons to support them, or maybe even make a living off of YouTube directly with enough viewers.
Motivated students have such resources at their fingertips just from an internet connection, if they happen to get lucky enough to find the right resources.
Take sqrt(2)^sqrt(2), which is either rational or not. If it's rational, we're done. If not, consider sqrt(2) ^ (sqrt(2) ^ sqrt(2)). Since (a^b)^c = a^bc, we get sqrt(2) ^ (sqrt(2))^2 = sqrt(2)^2 = 2, which is rational!
It feels like a bit of a sleight of hand, since we don't actually have to know whether sqrt(2)^sqrt(2) is rational for the proof to work.
The easiest I can think of offhand would be e^log(2). To prove that we need to prove that e is irrational and the log(2) is irrational.
To prove log(2) is irrational one approach is to prove that e^r is irrational for rational r != 0, which would imply that if log(2) is rational then e^log(2) would be irrational. To prove that e^r is irrational for irrational r it suffices to prove that e^n is irrational for all positive integers n.
We'd also get the e is irrational out of that by taking n = 1, and that would complete our proof that e^log(2) is an example of irrational a, b with a^b rational.
So, all we need now is a proof that e^n is irrational for integers n > 0.
The techniques used in Niven's simple proof that pi is irrational, which was discussed here [1], can be generalized to e^n. You can find that proof in Niven's book "Irrational Numbers" or in Aigner & Ziegler's "Proofs from THE BOOK".
That can also be proved by proving that e is transcendental. Normally proofs that specific numbers are transcendental (other than numbers specifically constructed to be transcendental) are fairly advanced but for e you can do it with first year undergraduate calculus. There's a chapter in Spivak's "Calculus" that does it, and there's a proof in the aforementioned "Irrational Numbers".
You mean for rational r, don’t you?
e^(i theta) = cos theta + i sin theta (Euler's identity) thus e^(i pi) = cos pi + i sin pi = -1 + i(0) = -1
We know that e and i pi are irrational (in fact i pi isn't even a real) and -1 is rational.
Therefore there exist two numbers a and b such that both a and b are irrational but a^b is rational.
In fact log of just about anything is irrational so e^(log x) works as well for just about all rational x, but Euler's identity is cool so I wanted to use that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelfond%E2%80%93Schneider_theo...