home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.math
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!emu.pmms.cam.ac.uk!rgep
- From: rgep@emu.pmms.cam.ac.uk (Richard Pinch)
- Subject: Re: Looking for help
- Message-ID: <1993Jan4.153124.29758@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
- Sender: news@infodev.cam.ac.uk (USENET news)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: emu.pmms.cam.ac.uk
- Organization: Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Cambridge
- References: <1993Jan4.140128.20155@choate.edu> <1993Jan4.152944.29631@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:31:24 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <1993Jan4.152944.29631@infodev.cam.ac.uk> I wrote
- >In article <1993Jan4.140128.20155@choate.edu> jburne@spock.uucp (John Burnette) writes:
- >>[...]
- >>x = .10100100010000....
- >>y = .01011011101111....
- >>
- >>Obviously x+y=1/9 (and, please, let's not start that thread again...)
- >>but I've always been at a lost about x*y.
- >>
- >>Over the years, I've come to *believe* that x*y is irrational, but I've
- >>been stumped by the proof. If anyone could direct me to something which
- >>would get me moving again on this problem it would be appreciated.
- >>
- >Just a suggestion: if x+y and xy are rational, then x and y are roots
- >of the equation (Z-x)(Z-y) = Z^2 - (x+y)Z + xy = 0. So - 9xy = 9x^2 - x
- >must be rational, i.e. a recurring decimal. But it should be fairly
- >easy to prove that this has arbitrarily long sequences of 0s in its
- >decimal expansion.
- >
- Otherwise it might be possible to use Liouville's theorem, since x and y
- would have to be quadratic irrationals.
- >
-
-
-