0

I was using Wolfram Alpha for things, and I came across $I_{0}(2)$. For fun I tried asking Wolfram Alpha if the number was irrational, but said it's unknown. I believe this is an error, as its irrationality should already be confirmed, as by generalizing the Fourier's proof of the irrationality of $e$, you can prove that a whole class of numbers (That Wolfram Alpha considers unknown) is irrational, specifically

$A(m,n) = \sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(mk)!^{n+1}}$

is irrational. In particular,

$A(1,0) = e$

$A(1,1) = I_{0}(2)$ (Irrationality unknown for Wolfram Alpha)

$A(3,0) = \frac{1}{3}\left(e + \frac{2\cos\left(\frac{\sqrt 3}{2}\right)}{\sqrt e} \right)$ (Irrationality unknown for Wolfram Alpha)

$A(4,0) = \frac{1}{2}\left(\cos(1)+\cosh(1)\right)$ (Irrationality unknown for Wolfram Alpha)

For completeness, I'll add the generalized version of Fourier's proof:

If $A(m, n)$ is a rational number, then there exist $a_{m,n},b_{m,n} \in \mathbb{N}^+$ such that $A(m, n) = \frac{a_{m,n}}{b_{m,n}}$.

Let's define the number

$x_{m, n} = (mb_{m,n})!^{n+1}\left(A(m, n) - \sum\limits_{k=0}^{b_{m,n}}\frac{1}{(mk)!^{n+1}}\right)$

Under the previous assumption, we have

$x_{m, n} = (mb_{m,n})!^{n+1}\left(\frac{a_{m,n}}{b_{m,n}} - \sum\limits_{k=0}^{b_{m,n}}\frac{1}{(mk)!^{n+1}}\right) = \frac{a_{m,n}(mb_{m,n})!^{n+1}}{b_{m,n}} - \sum\limits_{k=0}^{b_{m,n}}\frac{(mb_{m,n})!^{n+1}}{(mk)!^{n+1}}$

$x_{m,n} \in \mathbb{Z}$ as the first term of the previous expression is an integer, and every term of the series is an integer too, as $k \leq b_{m,n}$ for each term.

Let's prove that $x_{m,n} > 0$ by inserting the corresponding series in place of $\frac{a_{m,n}}{b_{m,n}}$:

$x_{m,n} = (mb_{m,n})!^{n+1}\left(\sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(mk)!^{n+1}} - \sum\limits_{k=0}^{b_{m,n}}\frac{1}{(mk)!^{n+1}}\right) = \sum\limits_{k=b_{m,n}+1}^{\infty}\frac{(mb_{m,n})!^{n+1}}{(mk)!^{n+1}}$

Each term of the series is strictly positive.

Let's prove that $x_{m,n} < 1$, by first showing that, for all terms $k \geq b_{m,n}+1$, we have the upper estimate

$\frac{(mb_{m,n})!^{n+1}}{(mk)!^{n+1}} = \left(\frac{(mb_{m,n})!}{(mk)!}\right)^{n+1} \leq \left(\frac{1}{(mb_{m,n}+1)^{mk-b_{m,n}}}\right)^{n+1}$

Using the formula for infinite geometric series, we have

$x_{m,n} = \sum\limits_{k=b_{m,n}+1}^{\infty}\frac{(mb_{m,n})!^{n+1}}{(mk)!^{n+1}} = \sum\limits_{k=b_{m,n}+1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{(mb_{m,n})!}{(mk)!}\right)^{n+1} < \sum\limits_{k=b_{m,n}+1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{1}{(mb_{m,n}+1)^{mk-b_{m,n}}}\right)^{n+1} = \frac{1}{(mb_{m,n}+1)^{(n+1)(mb_{m,n}-b_{m,n})}((mb_{m,n}+1)^{m(n+1)}-1)}$

$(mb_{m,n}+1)^{(n+1)(mb_{m,n}-b_{m,n})} \geq 1$, because $n+1 \geq 1$ and $mb_{m,n}-b_{m,n} \geq 0$, while $(mb_{m,n}+1)^{m(n+1)}-1 \geq b_{m,n}$ because $m(n+1) \geq 1$. Follows that $x_{m,n} < 1$.

Because $x_{m,n} \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $0 < x_{m,n} < 1$, we have reached a contradiction, so $A(m,n)$ is irrational.

Now, I don't know which criterion Wolfram Alpha uses to test the irrationality of a number, but I'm pretty sure my proof is correct, so I guess this is just an error on their front?

YCor
  • 60,149
Frax
  • 101
  • 3
  • 1
    Yes, your proof is (to my eyes) perfectly natural and correct. Is unknown an error ? It could be unknown to the person who wrote it. There are other mistakes of that type in Wolfram Alpha (I know of one with respect to the loosest sphere packing, which has been shown two decades ago to be arbitrarily close to zero,, and yet is still announced as 0,055%). – username Jan 22 '23 at 12:33
  • 1
    chatGPT doesn't know either... "It is not known whether the value of I_0(2) (Modified Bessel function of the first kind) is irrational or not. While some special values of the Bessel functions are known to be irrational, there is no proof that all values are irrational, and it is not known if there are any general methods for determining whether a particular value is irrational." – Carlo Beenakker Jan 22 '23 at 13:24
  • 1
    Proof here ... https://mathoverflow.net/a/103161/454 – Gerald Edgar Jan 22 '23 at 15:00
  • @GeraldEdgar isn't that a proof about the standard Bessel function of the first kind? Does it still work here (Modified one)? Genuine question – Frax Jan 22 '23 at 15:04
  • 3
    @CarloBeenakker Well, ChatGPT has given me several elementary proofs of Fermat’s last theorem, so I’d take anything it says about maths with a massive pinch of salt. – Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda Jan 22 '23 at 15:23
  • I changed the title and added one more example to generalize the point of my question. – Frax Jan 23 '23 at 16:00
  • 1
    Wolfram Alpha is incapable of proving or disproving anything. Mainly it is just a symbolic manipulator, so unless it can reduce it to $e\sqrt 5$ or something else like that, it has no opinion about the irrationality of the number. On the other hand, chatGPT would be capable of doing such stuff by now if its creators hadn't wasted time on teaching it who Columbus was and how to appear nice and virtuous and answer clear and well-posed questions by long preaching about good and evil when the conversation makes a dangerous turn :-). – fedja Jan 24 '23 at 00:24
  • @fedja Sad part is that it's necessary, as it may have prevented further optimization of chatGPB in general if it were capable of solving very difficult math problems while at the same time considering Hitler the best candidate as the next USA president... – Frax Jan 24 '23 at 12:07
  • @Frax at the same time considering Hitler the best candidate as the next USA president If it does not know who Hitler was, it should be smart enough just to say "I don't know who that is, so I cannot tell whether it is a good candidate or not"; if it does know who that was and still considers him a good candidate, then, apparently, its logic led to that conclusion and it should show that logic. Hitler, BTW, has a huge advantage over many other politicians: he is already dead. So in some elections I would certainly vote for him over both main candidates :-) – fedja Jan 24 '23 at 13:20

0 Answers0