What is the usefulness of classification into Transcedental and Algebraic numbers?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
6
down vote

favorite












Classification into rationals and irrationals makes complete sense because irrational numbers seem to be completely different from rational numbers, which are terminating or repeating.



We know that all irrational numbers have non-terminating non-repeating repeating decimal expansions, then why is there need for separating numbers which are roots of polynomial equations and those who aren't?



Is there anything special in the decimal expansion of pi which the decimal expansion of root 2 doesn't have?



Could this be true that all non-transcedental irrationals can be expressed by a terminating formula in terms of radicals, rationals and arithmetic operations while transcedentals can't be? If this is true, then classification into non-transcedental irrationals and transcedentals will make sense.



EDIT- But alphacapture points out in the comments that that isn't true because polynomial equations of degree greater than 4 have no solution formula in terms of radicals. So, to me, the solution of a degree 8 polynomial equation seems to be as weird as pi, but according to maths, pi is supposed to be weirder because it's 'transcedental' and so somehow inherently differs from roots of polynomial equations.




irrational-numbers transcendental-numbers




share|cite|improve this question

















  • 1




    I can answer the question at the end right away: No. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvable_by_radicals
    – alphacapture
    Aug 6 at 4:58










  • Related: mathoverflow.net/questions/232067/…
    – Luiz Cordeiro
    Aug 6 at 5:05






  • 1




    Algebraic numbers are "rare" in the sense that there are only countably many, so "most" numbers are transcendental.
    – Kusma
    Aug 6 at 5:25






  • 3




    Those numbers that are roots of an equation formed using algebra alone and rational numbers only are, in a sense, closer to being rational than numbers which are not. If I give you a number and tell you it's irrational but is the root of a simple equation formed using rational numbers, while another number is irrational and is not the root of any such equation, would you not say one of these two numbers is at least a little bit closer to being rational?
    – Ittay Weiss
    Aug 6 at 10:13






  • 5




    You seem to be focusing too much on decimal expansions, both in the question (viewing periodicity of the expansion as the crucial distinction) and in your answer (about approximation algorithms). In connection with the latter, note that an algebraic number is determined with complete precision by the information that it's the so-and-so many-th root of such-and-such polynomial with integer coefficients.
    – Andreas Blass
    Aug 6 at 13:02















up vote
6
down vote

favorite












Classification into rationals and irrationals makes complete sense because irrational numbers seem to be completely different from rational numbers, which are terminating or repeating.



We know that all irrational numbers have non-terminating non-repeating repeating decimal expansions, then why is there need for separating numbers which are roots of polynomial equations and those who aren't?



Is there anything special in the decimal expansion of pi which the decimal expansion of root 2 doesn't have?



Could this be true that all non-transcedental irrationals can be expressed by a terminating formula in terms of radicals, rationals and arithmetic operations while transcedentals can't be? If this is true, then classification into non-transcedental irrationals and transcedentals will make sense.



EDIT- But alphacapture points out in the comments that that isn't true because polynomial equations of degree greater than 4 have no solution formula in terms of radicals. So, to me, the solution of a degree 8 polynomial equation seems to be as weird as pi, but according to maths, pi is supposed to be weirder because it's 'transcedental' and so somehow inherently differs from roots of polynomial equations.




irrational-numbers transcendental-numbers




share|cite|improve this question

















  • 1




    I can answer the question at the end right away: No. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvable_by_radicals
    – alphacapture
    Aug 6 at 4:58










  • Related: mathoverflow.net/questions/232067/…
    – Luiz Cordeiro
    Aug 6 at 5:05






  • 1




    Algebraic numbers are "rare" in the sense that there are only countably many, so "most" numbers are transcendental.
    – Kusma
    Aug 6 at 5:25






  • 3




    Those numbers that are roots of an equation formed using algebra alone and rational numbers only are, in a sense, closer to being rational than numbers which are not. If I give you a number and tell you it's irrational but is the root of a simple equation formed using rational numbers, while another number is irrational and is not the root of any such equation, would you not say one of these two numbers is at least a little bit closer to being rational?
    – Ittay Weiss
    Aug 6 at 10:13






  • 5




    You seem to be focusing too much on decimal expansions, both in the question (viewing periodicity of the expansion as the crucial distinction) and in your answer (about approximation algorithms). In connection with the latter, note that an algebraic number is determined with complete precision by the information that it's the so-and-so many-th root of such-and-such polynomial with integer coefficients.
    – Andreas Blass
    Aug 6 at 13:02













up vote
6
down vote

favorite









up vote
6
down vote

favorite











Classification into rationals and irrationals makes complete sense because irrational numbers seem to be completely different from rational numbers, which are terminating or repeating.



We know that all irrational numbers have non-terminating non-repeating repeating decimal expansions, then why is there need for separating numbers which are roots of polynomial equations and those who aren't?



Is there anything special in the decimal expansion of pi which the decimal expansion of root 2 doesn't have?



Could this be true that all non-transcedental irrationals can be expressed by a terminating formula in terms of radicals, rationals and arithmetic operations while transcedentals can't be? If this is true, then classification into non-transcedental irrationals and transcedentals will make sense.



EDIT- But alphacapture points out in the comments that that isn't true because polynomial equations of degree greater than 4 have no solution formula in terms of radicals. So, to me, the solution of a degree 8 polynomial equation seems to be as weird as pi, but according to maths, pi is supposed to be weirder because it's 'transcedental' and so somehow inherently differs from roots of polynomial equations.




irrational-numbers transcendental-numbers




share|cite|improve this question













Classification into rationals and irrationals makes complete sense because irrational numbers seem to be completely different from rational numbers, which are terminating or repeating.



We know that all irrational numbers have non-terminating non-repeating repeating decimal expansions, then why is there need for separating numbers which are roots of polynomial equations and those who aren't?



Is there anything special in the decimal expansion of pi which the decimal expansion of root 2 doesn't have?



Could this be true that all non-transcedental irrationals can be expressed by a terminating formula in terms of radicals, rationals and arithmetic operations while transcedentals can't be? If this is true, then classification into non-transcedental irrationals and transcedentals will make sense.



EDIT- But alphacapture points out in the comments that that isn't true because polynomial equations of degree greater than 4 have no solution formula in terms of radicals. So, to me, the solution of a degree 8 polynomial equation seems to be as weird as pi, but according to maths, pi is supposed to be weirder because it's 'transcedental' and so somehow inherently differs from roots of polynomial equations.





irrational-numbers transcendental-numbers





share|cite|improve this question












share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 6 at 4:59
























asked Aug 6 at 4:51









Ryder Rude

354110




354110







  • 1




    I can answer the question at the end right away: No. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvable_by_radicals
    – alphacapture
    Aug 6 at 4:58










  • Related: mathoverflow.net/questions/232067/…
    – Luiz Cordeiro
    Aug 6 at 5:05






  • 1




    Algebraic numbers are "rare" in the sense that there are only countably many, so "most" numbers are transcendental.
    – Kusma
    Aug 6 at 5:25






  • 3




    Those numbers that are roots of an equation formed using algebra alone and rational numbers only are, in a sense, closer to being rational than numbers which are not. If I give you a number and tell you it's irrational but is the root of a simple equation formed using rational numbers, while another number is irrational and is not the root of any such equation, would you not say one of these two numbers is at least a little bit closer to being rational?
    – Ittay Weiss
    Aug 6 at 10:13






  • 5




    You seem to be focusing too much on decimal expansions, both in the question (viewing periodicity of the expansion as the crucial distinction) and in your answer (about approximation algorithms). In connection with the latter, note that an algebraic number is determined with complete precision by the information that it's the so-and-so many-th root of such-and-such polynomial with integer coefficients.
    – Andreas Blass
    Aug 6 at 13:02













  • 1




    I can answer the question at the end right away: No. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvable_by_radicals
    – alphacapture
    Aug 6 at 4:58










  • Related: mathoverflow.net/questions/232067/…
    – Luiz Cordeiro
    Aug 6 at 5:05






  • 1




    Algebraic numbers are "rare" in the sense that there are only countably many, so "most" numbers are transcendental.
    – Kusma
    Aug 6 at 5:25






  • 3




    Those numbers that are roots of an equation formed using algebra alone and rational numbers only are, in a sense, closer to being rational than numbers which are not. If I give you a number and tell you it's irrational but is the root of a simple equation formed using rational numbers, while another number is irrational and is not the root of any such equation, would you not say one of these two numbers is at least a little bit closer to being rational?
    – Ittay Weiss
    Aug 6 at 10:13






  • 5




    You seem to be focusing too much on decimal expansions, both in the question (viewing periodicity of the expansion as the crucial distinction) and in your answer (about approximation algorithms). In connection with the latter, note that an algebraic number is determined with complete precision by the information that it's the so-and-so many-th root of such-and-such polynomial with integer coefficients.
    – Andreas Blass
    Aug 6 at 13:02








1




1




I can answer the question at the end right away: No. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvable_by_radicals
– alphacapture
Aug 6 at 4:58




I can answer the question at the end right away: No. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvable_by_radicals
– alphacapture
Aug 6 at 4:58












Related: mathoverflow.net/questions/232067/…
– Luiz Cordeiro
Aug 6 at 5:05




Related: mathoverflow.net/questions/232067/…
– Luiz Cordeiro
Aug 6 at 5:05




1




1




Algebraic numbers are "rare" in the sense that there are only countably many, so "most" numbers are transcendental.
– Kusma
Aug 6 at 5:25




Algebraic numbers are "rare" in the sense that there are only countably many, so "most" numbers are transcendental.
– Kusma
Aug 6 at 5:25




3




3




Those numbers that are roots of an equation formed using algebra alone and rational numbers only are, in a sense, closer to being rational than numbers which are not. If I give you a number and tell you it's irrational but is the root of a simple equation formed using rational numbers, while another number is irrational and is not the root of any such equation, would you not say one of these two numbers is at least a little bit closer to being rational?
– Ittay Weiss
Aug 6 at 10:13




Those numbers that are roots of an equation formed using algebra alone and rational numbers only are, in a sense, closer to being rational than numbers which are not. If I give you a number and tell you it's irrational but is the root of a simple equation formed using rational numbers, while another number is irrational and is not the root of any such equation, would you not say one of these two numbers is at least a little bit closer to being rational?
– Ittay Weiss
Aug 6 at 10:13




5




5




You seem to be focusing too much on decimal expansions, both in the question (viewing periodicity of the expansion as the crucial distinction) and in your answer (about approximation algorithms). In connection with the latter, note that an algebraic number is determined with complete precision by the information that it's the so-and-so many-th root of such-and-such polynomial with integer coefficients.
– Andreas Blass
Aug 6 at 13:02





You seem to be focusing too much on decimal expansions, both in the question (viewing periodicity of the expansion as the crucial distinction) and in your answer (about approximation algorithms). In connection with the latter, note that an algebraic number is determined with complete precision by the information that it's the so-and-so many-th root of such-and-such polynomial with integer coefficients.
– Andreas Blass
Aug 6 at 13:02











4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













Transcendental numbers are numbers that cannot be defined in the language of algebra. Their existence shows that the basic concepts of arithmetic are not enough to fully describe all of the phenomena that occur in the real numbers.



Polynomials are precisely the formulae in one variable that can be written down using only addition, subtraction, and multiplication. Yes, they can be written as a sum of monomials, and this is a useful canonical form, but that makes for a poor definition, despite the fact that it's repeated as such endlessly by high school teachers and even most university-level sources. Thus, a polynomial equation with rational coefficients is just any equation that can be written down using the rational numbers and the $+$ and $cdot$ signs. Of course by using negative coefficients, this also lets us use $-$ if we like. Furthermore, an equation that also uses division can always be reduced to the form $frac P(x) Q(x)=0$, where $P$ and $Q$ are polynomials, and from there to $P(x)=0$, so if $x$ solves an equation involving division, it also solves an equation without division. And finally, any rational number can always be written using the four arithmetic operations and the numbers $0$ and $1$.



Thus, one definition for an algebraic number is a number which satisfies a formula written using only $+, -,cdot,div, 0, 1$, and $=$. If we consider this alphabet (and associated grammar) to be the "language of algebra", then such a formula can be taken as a definition of that number written in that language. $sqrt 2$ can be given such a definition. $pi$ is usually defined by making reference to geometry, and what its transcendence means is that we need geometry (or at least something bigger than algebra) to define it. A transcendental number is one such that the only predicates written in the language of algebra that the number verifies are the trivial predicates verified by all numbers, like $x+x=2x$.



You might object that something like $x^2=2$ doesn't really define $sqrt 2$, since after all that equation is also true for $-sqrt 2$. This is true, and in fact this insight eventually leads to Galois theory. The numbers $sqrt 2$ and $-sqrt 2$ cannot be distinguished using algebra and the rational numbers, in much the same way that $pi$ cannot be defined using algebra and the rational numbers. In Galois theory we have the notion of conjugate numbers over a given field $F$, which are numbers which cannot be distinguished "from the point of view of $F$". This means that any sentence written in the "language of $F$" is either true for both elements, or true for neither. In turns out that there's always a fundamental "minimal sentence" - the minimal polynomial - such that the conjugate numbers of $a$ are precisely all of the numbers making that sentence true. Thus we cannot do better than the minimal polynomial as a definition for $a$ in the language of $F$ - it is the sentence true for $a$ which is true for the fewest other elements.



I remember reading somewhere that there's a general notion in logic called a "transcendental element" over a language or a formal system, or something like that, which is basically exactly what I outlined above: an element which verifies no sentences in the language other than the tautologies. Someone who knows more might leave a comment or an answer.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    The relevant subject is model theory, incidentally. One precise statement along the lines above is: the numbers definable in the structure $mathcalR=(mathbbR; +,times)$ are exactly the algebraic numbers. In particular, we can distinguish in reals between $sqrt2$ and $-sqrt2$, since the ordering of real numbers is definable in $mathcalR$: $ale b$ iff for some $c$ we have $c^2=b-a$ (note that this does not work for the rationals).
    – Noah Schweber
    Aug 6 at 23:01


















up vote
3
down vote













I'd like to give three examples which highlight the usefulness of classifying a number as transcendental. We start with a problem stated thousands of years ago.





  • Squaring the circle



    This is a famous problem dating back to the ancient Greeks. Given a circle with radius one, find a construction in a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge only to obtain a square with the same area.



    We know the area of the circle with radius one is $pi$. On the one hand it can be shown that each length started from unit length, which is constructed in a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge only, is algebraic. On the other hand it was Ferdinand von Lindemann who could show that $pi$ is transcendental (1882).



    It is the transcendence of $pi$ which clarified that this ancient problem is unsolvable.





The next example demonstrates the relevance of transcendental numbers in the 20th century.





  • Hilbert's seventh problem



    It was one of the great moments of the development of mathematics, when David Hilbert presented 23 problems to the mathematical community at the Paris conference of the International Congress of Mathematicians in 1900.



    These problems had an enourmous influence to the development of mathematics, they even paved the way for new mathematical disciplines and inspired many of the most creative mathematicians in the 20th century.



    The seventh problem, titled by Hilbert Irrationality and Transcendence of Certain Numbers addresses transcendent numbers, indicating how important a classification of them has been considered by the leading mathematicians. The problem can be stated as:




  • Is $displaystyle a^b$ always transcendental, for algebraic $ displaystyle anot in 0,1$ and irrational algebraic $displaystyle b$?



    It needed more than three decades until an affirmative answer could be given by Aleksandr Gelfond (April 1, 1934) and independently by Theodor Schneider (May 28, 1934).





With the last example we jump right into the 21st century.





  • Periods



    represent another fascinating class of numbers introduced by D. Zagier and M. Kontsevich in 2000. They form a countable class of numbers lying between $overlinemathbbQ$, the set of algebraic numbers and $mathbbC$.



    The properties of these numbers are an inspiring source for mathematicians and transcendent periods are highly attractive as shown in the survey
    Transcendence of Periods by Michel Waldschmidt (2005).



    In the abstract of the paper he indicates the relevance of transcendental numbers.



    Abstract: The set of real numbers and the set of complex numbers have the power of continuum. Among these numbers, those which are “interesting”, which appear “naturally”, which deserve our attention, form a countable set. Starting from this point of view we are interested in the periods as defined by M. Kontsevich and D. Zagier. We give the state of the art on the question of the arithmetic nature of these numbers: to decide whether a period is a rational number, an irrational algebraic number or else a transcendental number is the object of a few theorems and of many conjectures. We also consider the approximation of such numbers by rational or algebraic numbers.








share|cite|improve this answer






























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    The notion of algebraic number is a starting point for areas of mathematics such as Galois theory and algebraic number theory. Sets of algebraic numbers can he used to form finite extension fields of $mathbf Q$, which behave in many ways like covering spaces in topology and Riemann surfaces (which are closely related to finite extensions of the field $mathbf C(z)$).






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      up vote
      -2
      down vote













      One possible explanation I thought of myself is that there is a common iterative algorithm (like Newton's method) for all algebraic numbers (i.e. Roots of polynomials), to determine them with as much accuracy as one wants. But there are separate algorithms for e, pi, etc. And then there are non-computable transcendentals for which no algorithm exists. I guess this makes them weirder than non-transcendental irrationals.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • This should be a comment, or included in the body of the question itself, rather than an answer.
        – Noah Schweber
        Aug 6 at 22:57











      Your Answer




      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );








       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2873600%2fwhat-is-the-usefulness-of-classification-into-transcedental-and-algebraic-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest

















      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      3
      down vote













      Transcendental numbers are numbers that cannot be defined in the language of algebra. Their existence shows that the basic concepts of arithmetic are not enough to fully describe all of the phenomena that occur in the real numbers.



      Polynomials are precisely the formulae in one variable that can be written down using only addition, subtraction, and multiplication. Yes, they can be written as a sum of monomials, and this is a useful canonical form, but that makes for a poor definition, despite the fact that it's repeated as such endlessly by high school teachers and even most university-level sources. Thus, a polynomial equation with rational coefficients is just any equation that can be written down using the rational numbers and the $+$ and $cdot$ signs. Of course by using negative coefficients, this also lets us use $-$ if we like. Furthermore, an equation that also uses division can always be reduced to the form $frac P(x) Q(x)=0$, where $P$ and $Q$ are polynomials, and from there to $P(x)=0$, so if $x$ solves an equation involving division, it also solves an equation without division. And finally, any rational number can always be written using the four arithmetic operations and the numbers $0$ and $1$.



      Thus, one definition for an algebraic number is a number which satisfies a formula written using only $+, -,cdot,div, 0, 1$, and $=$. If we consider this alphabet (and associated grammar) to be the "language of algebra", then such a formula can be taken as a definition of that number written in that language. $sqrt 2$ can be given such a definition. $pi$ is usually defined by making reference to geometry, and what its transcendence means is that we need geometry (or at least something bigger than algebra) to define it. A transcendental number is one such that the only predicates written in the language of algebra that the number verifies are the trivial predicates verified by all numbers, like $x+x=2x$.



      You might object that something like $x^2=2$ doesn't really define $sqrt 2$, since after all that equation is also true for $-sqrt 2$. This is true, and in fact this insight eventually leads to Galois theory. The numbers $sqrt 2$ and $-sqrt 2$ cannot be distinguished using algebra and the rational numbers, in much the same way that $pi$ cannot be defined using algebra and the rational numbers. In Galois theory we have the notion of conjugate numbers over a given field $F$, which are numbers which cannot be distinguished "from the point of view of $F$". This means that any sentence written in the "language of $F$" is either true for both elements, or true for neither. In turns out that there's always a fundamental "minimal sentence" - the minimal polynomial - such that the conjugate numbers of $a$ are precisely all of the numbers making that sentence true. Thus we cannot do better than the minimal polynomial as a definition for $a$ in the language of $F$ - it is the sentence true for $a$ which is true for the fewest other elements.



      I remember reading somewhere that there's a general notion in logic called a "transcendental element" over a language or a formal system, or something like that, which is basically exactly what I outlined above: an element which verifies no sentences in the language other than the tautologies. Someone who knows more might leave a comment or an answer.






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 1




        The relevant subject is model theory, incidentally. One precise statement along the lines above is: the numbers definable in the structure $mathcalR=(mathbbR; +,times)$ are exactly the algebraic numbers. In particular, we can distinguish in reals between $sqrt2$ and $-sqrt2$, since the ordering of real numbers is definable in $mathcalR$: $ale b$ iff for some $c$ we have $c^2=b-a$ (note that this does not work for the rationals).
        – Noah Schweber
        Aug 6 at 23:01















      up vote
      3
      down vote













      Transcendental numbers are numbers that cannot be defined in the language of algebra. Their existence shows that the basic concepts of arithmetic are not enough to fully describe all of the phenomena that occur in the real numbers.



      Polynomials are precisely the formulae in one variable that can be written down using only addition, subtraction, and multiplication. Yes, they can be written as a sum of monomials, and this is a useful canonical form, but that makes for a poor definition, despite the fact that it's repeated as such endlessly by high school teachers and even most university-level sources. Thus, a polynomial equation with rational coefficients is just any equation that can be written down using the rational numbers and the $+$ and $cdot$ signs. Of course by using negative coefficients, this also lets us use $-$ if we like. Furthermore, an equation that also uses division can always be reduced to the form $frac P(x) Q(x)=0$, where $P$ and $Q$ are polynomials, and from there to $P(x)=0$, so if $x$ solves an equation involving division, it also solves an equation without division. And finally, any rational number can always be written using the four arithmetic operations and the numbers $0$ and $1$.



      Thus, one definition for an algebraic number is a number which satisfies a formula written using only $+, -,cdot,div, 0, 1$, and $=$. If we consider this alphabet (and associated grammar) to be the "language of algebra", then such a formula can be taken as a definition of that number written in that language. $sqrt 2$ can be given such a definition. $pi$ is usually defined by making reference to geometry, and what its transcendence means is that we need geometry (or at least something bigger than algebra) to define it. A transcendental number is one such that the only predicates written in the language of algebra that the number verifies are the trivial predicates verified by all numbers, like $x+x=2x$.



      You might object that something like $x^2=2$ doesn't really define $sqrt 2$, since after all that equation is also true for $-sqrt 2$. This is true, and in fact this insight eventually leads to Galois theory. The numbers $sqrt 2$ and $-sqrt 2$ cannot be distinguished using algebra and the rational numbers, in much the same way that $pi$ cannot be defined using algebra and the rational numbers. In Galois theory we have the notion of conjugate numbers over a given field $F$, which are numbers which cannot be distinguished "from the point of view of $F$". This means that any sentence written in the "language of $F$" is either true for both elements, or true for neither. In turns out that there's always a fundamental "minimal sentence" - the minimal polynomial - such that the conjugate numbers of $a$ are precisely all of the numbers making that sentence true. Thus we cannot do better than the minimal polynomial as a definition for $a$ in the language of $F$ - it is the sentence true for $a$ which is true for the fewest other elements.



      I remember reading somewhere that there's a general notion in logic called a "transcendental element" over a language or a formal system, or something like that, which is basically exactly what I outlined above: an element which verifies no sentences in the language other than the tautologies. Someone who knows more might leave a comment or an answer.






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 1




        The relevant subject is model theory, incidentally. One precise statement along the lines above is: the numbers definable in the structure $mathcalR=(mathbbR; +,times)$ are exactly the algebraic numbers. In particular, we can distinguish in reals between $sqrt2$ and $-sqrt2$, since the ordering of real numbers is definable in $mathcalR$: $ale b$ iff for some $c$ we have $c^2=b-a$ (note that this does not work for the rationals).
        – Noah Schweber
        Aug 6 at 23:01













      up vote
      3
      down vote










      up vote
      3
      down vote









      Transcendental numbers are numbers that cannot be defined in the language of algebra. Their existence shows that the basic concepts of arithmetic are not enough to fully describe all of the phenomena that occur in the real numbers.



      Polynomials are precisely the formulae in one variable that can be written down using only addition, subtraction, and multiplication. Yes, they can be written as a sum of monomials, and this is a useful canonical form, but that makes for a poor definition, despite the fact that it's repeated as such endlessly by high school teachers and even most university-level sources. Thus, a polynomial equation with rational coefficients is just any equation that can be written down using the rational numbers and the $+$ and $cdot$ signs. Of course by using negative coefficients, this also lets us use $-$ if we like. Furthermore, an equation that also uses division can always be reduced to the form $frac P(x) Q(x)=0$, where $P$ and $Q$ are polynomials, and from there to $P(x)=0$, so if $x$ solves an equation involving division, it also solves an equation without division. And finally, any rational number can always be written using the four arithmetic operations and the numbers $0$ and $1$.



      Thus, one definition for an algebraic number is a number which satisfies a formula written using only $+, -,cdot,div, 0, 1$, and $=$. If we consider this alphabet (and associated grammar) to be the "language of algebra", then such a formula can be taken as a definition of that number written in that language. $sqrt 2$ can be given such a definition. $pi$ is usually defined by making reference to geometry, and what its transcendence means is that we need geometry (or at least something bigger than algebra) to define it. A transcendental number is one such that the only predicates written in the language of algebra that the number verifies are the trivial predicates verified by all numbers, like $x+x=2x$.



      You might object that something like $x^2=2$ doesn't really define $sqrt 2$, since after all that equation is also true for $-sqrt 2$. This is true, and in fact this insight eventually leads to Galois theory. The numbers $sqrt 2$ and $-sqrt 2$ cannot be distinguished using algebra and the rational numbers, in much the same way that $pi$ cannot be defined using algebra and the rational numbers. In Galois theory we have the notion of conjugate numbers over a given field $F$, which are numbers which cannot be distinguished "from the point of view of $F$". This means that any sentence written in the "language of $F$" is either true for both elements, or true for neither. In turns out that there's always a fundamental "minimal sentence" - the minimal polynomial - such that the conjugate numbers of $a$ are precisely all of the numbers making that sentence true. Thus we cannot do better than the minimal polynomial as a definition for $a$ in the language of $F$ - it is the sentence true for $a$ which is true for the fewest other elements.



      I remember reading somewhere that there's a general notion in logic called a "transcendental element" over a language or a formal system, or something like that, which is basically exactly what I outlined above: an element which verifies no sentences in the language other than the tautologies. Someone who knows more might leave a comment or an answer.






      share|cite|improve this answer















      Transcendental numbers are numbers that cannot be defined in the language of algebra. Their existence shows that the basic concepts of arithmetic are not enough to fully describe all of the phenomena that occur in the real numbers.



      Polynomials are precisely the formulae in one variable that can be written down using only addition, subtraction, and multiplication. Yes, they can be written as a sum of monomials, and this is a useful canonical form, but that makes for a poor definition, despite the fact that it's repeated as such endlessly by high school teachers and even most university-level sources. Thus, a polynomial equation with rational coefficients is just any equation that can be written down using the rational numbers and the $+$ and $cdot$ signs. Of course by using negative coefficients, this also lets us use $-$ if we like. Furthermore, an equation that also uses division can always be reduced to the form $frac P(x) Q(x)=0$, where $P$ and $Q$ are polynomials, and from there to $P(x)=0$, so if $x$ solves an equation involving division, it also solves an equation without division. And finally, any rational number can always be written using the four arithmetic operations and the numbers $0$ and $1$.



      Thus, one definition for an algebraic number is a number which satisfies a formula written using only $+, -,cdot,div, 0, 1$, and $=$. If we consider this alphabet (and associated grammar) to be the "language of algebra", then such a formula can be taken as a definition of that number written in that language. $sqrt 2$ can be given such a definition. $pi$ is usually defined by making reference to geometry, and what its transcendence means is that we need geometry (or at least something bigger than algebra) to define it. A transcendental number is one such that the only predicates written in the language of algebra that the number verifies are the trivial predicates verified by all numbers, like $x+x=2x$.



      You might object that something like $x^2=2$ doesn't really define $sqrt 2$, since after all that equation is also true for $-sqrt 2$. This is true, and in fact this insight eventually leads to Galois theory. The numbers $sqrt 2$ and $-sqrt 2$ cannot be distinguished using algebra and the rational numbers, in much the same way that $pi$ cannot be defined using algebra and the rational numbers. In Galois theory we have the notion of conjugate numbers over a given field $F$, which are numbers which cannot be distinguished "from the point of view of $F$". This means that any sentence written in the "language of $F$" is either true for both elements, or true for neither. In turns out that there's always a fundamental "minimal sentence" - the minimal polynomial - such that the conjugate numbers of $a$ are precisely all of the numbers making that sentence true. Thus we cannot do better than the minimal polynomial as a definition for $a$ in the language of $F$ - it is the sentence true for $a$ which is true for the fewest other elements.



      I remember reading somewhere that there's a general notion in logic called a "transcendental element" over a language or a formal system, or something like that, which is basically exactly what I outlined above: an element which verifies no sentences in the language other than the tautologies. Someone who knows more might leave a comment or an answer.







      share|cite|improve this answer















      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Aug 6 at 23:04


























      answered Aug 6 at 22:59









      Jack M

      17k33473




      17k33473







      • 1




        The relevant subject is model theory, incidentally. One precise statement along the lines above is: the numbers definable in the structure $mathcalR=(mathbbR; +,times)$ are exactly the algebraic numbers. In particular, we can distinguish in reals between $sqrt2$ and $-sqrt2$, since the ordering of real numbers is definable in $mathcalR$: $ale b$ iff for some $c$ we have $c^2=b-a$ (note that this does not work for the rationals).
        – Noah Schweber
        Aug 6 at 23:01













      • 1




        The relevant subject is model theory, incidentally. One precise statement along the lines above is: the numbers definable in the structure $mathcalR=(mathbbR; +,times)$ are exactly the algebraic numbers. In particular, we can distinguish in reals between $sqrt2$ and $-sqrt2$, since the ordering of real numbers is definable in $mathcalR$: $ale b$ iff for some $c$ we have $c^2=b-a$ (note that this does not work for the rationals).
        – Noah Schweber
        Aug 6 at 23:01








      1




      1




      The relevant subject is model theory, incidentally. One precise statement along the lines above is: the numbers definable in the structure $mathcalR=(mathbbR; +,times)$ are exactly the algebraic numbers. In particular, we can distinguish in reals between $sqrt2$ and $-sqrt2$, since the ordering of real numbers is definable in $mathcalR$: $ale b$ iff for some $c$ we have $c^2=b-a$ (note that this does not work for the rationals).
      – Noah Schweber
      Aug 6 at 23:01





      The relevant subject is model theory, incidentally. One precise statement along the lines above is: the numbers definable in the structure $mathcalR=(mathbbR; +,times)$ are exactly the algebraic numbers. In particular, we can distinguish in reals between $sqrt2$ and $-sqrt2$, since the ordering of real numbers is definable in $mathcalR$: $ale b$ iff for some $c$ we have $c^2=b-a$ (note that this does not work for the rationals).
      – Noah Schweber
      Aug 6 at 23:01











      up vote
      3
      down vote













      I'd like to give three examples which highlight the usefulness of classifying a number as transcendental. We start with a problem stated thousands of years ago.





      • Squaring the circle



        This is a famous problem dating back to the ancient Greeks. Given a circle with radius one, find a construction in a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge only to obtain a square with the same area.



        We know the area of the circle with radius one is $pi$. On the one hand it can be shown that each length started from unit length, which is constructed in a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge only, is algebraic. On the other hand it was Ferdinand von Lindemann who could show that $pi$ is transcendental (1882).



        It is the transcendence of $pi$ which clarified that this ancient problem is unsolvable.





      The next example demonstrates the relevance of transcendental numbers in the 20th century.





      • Hilbert's seventh problem



        It was one of the great moments of the development of mathematics, when David Hilbert presented 23 problems to the mathematical community at the Paris conference of the International Congress of Mathematicians in 1900.



        These problems had an enourmous influence to the development of mathematics, they even paved the way for new mathematical disciplines and inspired many of the most creative mathematicians in the 20th century.



        The seventh problem, titled by Hilbert Irrationality and Transcendence of Certain Numbers addresses transcendent numbers, indicating how important a classification of them has been considered by the leading mathematicians. The problem can be stated as:




      • Is $displaystyle a^b$ always transcendental, for algebraic $ displaystyle anot in 0,1$ and irrational algebraic $displaystyle b$?



        It needed more than three decades until an affirmative answer could be given by Aleksandr Gelfond (April 1, 1934) and independently by Theodor Schneider (May 28, 1934).





      With the last example we jump right into the 21st century.





      • Periods



        represent another fascinating class of numbers introduced by D. Zagier and M. Kontsevich in 2000. They form a countable class of numbers lying between $overlinemathbbQ$, the set of algebraic numbers and $mathbbC$.



        The properties of these numbers are an inspiring source for mathematicians and transcendent periods are highly attractive as shown in the survey
        Transcendence of Periods by Michel Waldschmidt (2005).



        In the abstract of the paper he indicates the relevance of transcendental numbers.



        Abstract: The set of real numbers and the set of complex numbers have the power of continuum. Among these numbers, those which are “interesting”, which appear “naturally”, which deserve our attention, form a countable set. Starting from this point of view we are interested in the periods as defined by M. Kontsevich and D. Zagier. We give the state of the art on the question of the arithmetic nature of these numbers: to decide whether a period is a rational number, an irrational algebraic number or else a transcendental number is the object of a few theorems and of many conjectures. We also consider the approximation of such numbers by rational or algebraic numbers.








      share|cite|improve this answer



























        up vote
        3
        down vote













        I'd like to give three examples which highlight the usefulness of classifying a number as transcendental. We start with a problem stated thousands of years ago.





        • Squaring the circle



          This is a famous problem dating back to the ancient Greeks. Given a circle with radius one, find a construction in a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge only to obtain a square with the same area.



          We know the area of the circle with radius one is $pi$. On the one hand it can be shown that each length started from unit length, which is constructed in a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge only, is algebraic. On the other hand it was Ferdinand von Lindemann who could show that $pi$ is transcendental (1882).



          It is the transcendence of $pi$ which clarified that this ancient problem is unsolvable.





        The next example demonstrates the relevance of transcendental numbers in the 20th century.





        • Hilbert's seventh problem



          It was one of the great moments of the development of mathematics, when David Hilbert presented 23 problems to the mathematical community at the Paris conference of the International Congress of Mathematicians in 1900.



          These problems had an enourmous influence to the development of mathematics, they even paved the way for new mathematical disciplines and inspired many of the most creative mathematicians in the 20th century.



          The seventh problem, titled by Hilbert Irrationality and Transcendence of Certain Numbers addresses transcendent numbers, indicating how important a classification of them has been considered by the leading mathematicians. The problem can be stated as:




        • Is $displaystyle a^b$ always transcendental, for algebraic $ displaystyle anot in 0,1$ and irrational algebraic $displaystyle b$?



          It needed more than three decades until an affirmative answer could be given by Aleksandr Gelfond (April 1, 1934) and independently by Theodor Schneider (May 28, 1934).





        With the last example we jump right into the 21st century.





        • Periods



          represent another fascinating class of numbers introduced by D. Zagier and M. Kontsevich in 2000. They form a countable class of numbers lying between $overlinemathbbQ$, the set of algebraic numbers and $mathbbC$.



          The properties of these numbers are an inspiring source for mathematicians and transcendent periods are highly attractive as shown in the survey
          Transcendence of Periods by Michel Waldschmidt (2005).



          In the abstract of the paper he indicates the relevance of transcendental numbers.



          Abstract: The set of real numbers and the set of complex numbers have the power of continuum. Among these numbers, those which are “interesting”, which appear “naturally”, which deserve our attention, form a countable set. Starting from this point of view we are interested in the periods as defined by M. Kontsevich and D. Zagier. We give the state of the art on the question of the arithmetic nature of these numbers: to decide whether a period is a rational number, an irrational algebraic number or else a transcendental number is the object of a few theorems and of many conjectures. We also consider the approximation of such numbers by rational or algebraic numbers.








        share|cite|improve this answer

























          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          I'd like to give three examples which highlight the usefulness of classifying a number as transcendental. We start with a problem stated thousands of years ago.





          • Squaring the circle



            This is a famous problem dating back to the ancient Greeks. Given a circle with radius one, find a construction in a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge only to obtain a square with the same area.



            We know the area of the circle with radius one is $pi$. On the one hand it can be shown that each length started from unit length, which is constructed in a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge only, is algebraic. On the other hand it was Ferdinand von Lindemann who could show that $pi$ is transcendental (1882).



            It is the transcendence of $pi$ which clarified that this ancient problem is unsolvable.





          The next example demonstrates the relevance of transcendental numbers in the 20th century.





          • Hilbert's seventh problem



            It was one of the great moments of the development of mathematics, when David Hilbert presented 23 problems to the mathematical community at the Paris conference of the International Congress of Mathematicians in 1900.



            These problems had an enourmous influence to the development of mathematics, they even paved the way for new mathematical disciplines and inspired many of the most creative mathematicians in the 20th century.



            The seventh problem, titled by Hilbert Irrationality and Transcendence of Certain Numbers addresses transcendent numbers, indicating how important a classification of them has been considered by the leading mathematicians. The problem can be stated as:




          • Is $displaystyle a^b$ always transcendental, for algebraic $ displaystyle anot in 0,1$ and irrational algebraic $displaystyle b$?



            It needed more than three decades until an affirmative answer could be given by Aleksandr Gelfond (April 1, 1934) and independently by Theodor Schneider (May 28, 1934).





          With the last example we jump right into the 21st century.





          • Periods



            represent another fascinating class of numbers introduced by D. Zagier and M. Kontsevich in 2000. They form a countable class of numbers lying between $overlinemathbbQ$, the set of algebraic numbers and $mathbbC$.



            The properties of these numbers are an inspiring source for mathematicians and transcendent periods are highly attractive as shown in the survey
            Transcendence of Periods by Michel Waldschmidt (2005).



            In the abstract of the paper he indicates the relevance of transcendental numbers.



            Abstract: The set of real numbers and the set of complex numbers have the power of continuum. Among these numbers, those which are “interesting”, which appear “naturally”, which deserve our attention, form a countable set. Starting from this point of view we are interested in the periods as defined by M. Kontsevich and D. Zagier. We give the state of the art on the question of the arithmetic nature of these numbers: to decide whether a period is a rational number, an irrational algebraic number or else a transcendental number is the object of a few theorems and of many conjectures. We also consider the approximation of such numbers by rational or algebraic numbers.








          share|cite|improve this answer















          I'd like to give three examples which highlight the usefulness of classifying a number as transcendental. We start with a problem stated thousands of years ago.





          • Squaring the circle



            This is a famous problem dating back to the ancient Greeks. Given a circle with radius one, find a construction in a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge only to obtain a square with the same area.



            We know the area of the circle with radius one is $pi$. On the one hand it can be shown that each length started from unit length, which is constructed in a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge only, is algebraic. On the other hand it was Ferdinand von Lindemann who could show that $pi$ is transcendental (1882).



            It is the transcendence of $pi$ which clarified that this ancient problem is unsolvable.





          The next example demonstrates the relevance of transcendental numbers in the 20th century.





          • Hilbert's seventh problem



            It was one of the great moments of the development of mathematics, when David Hilbert presented 23 problems to the mathematical community at the Paris conference of the International Congress of Mathematicians in 1900.



            These problems had an enourmous influence to the development of mathematics, they even paved the way for new mathematical disciplines and inspired many of the most creative mathematicians in the 20th century.



            The seventh problem, titled by Hilbert Irrationality and Transcendence of Certain Numbers addresses transcendent numbers, indicating how important a classification of them has been considered by the leading mathematicians. The problem can be stated as:




          • Is $displaystyle a^b$ always transcendental, for algebraic $ displaystyle anot in 0,1$ and irrational algebraic $displaystyle b$?



            It needed more than three decades until an affirmative answer could be given by Aleksandr Gelfond (April 1, 1934) and independently by Theodor Schneider (May 28, 1934).





          With the last example we jump right into the 21st century.





          • Periods



            represent another fascinating class of numbers introduced by D. Zagier and M. Kontsevich in 2000. They form a countable class of numbers lying between $overlinemathbbQ$, the set of algebraic numbers and $mathbbC$.



            The properties of these numbers are an inspiring source for mathematicians and transcendent periods are highly attractive as shown in the survey
            Transcendence of Periods by Michel Waldschmidt (2005).



            In the abstract of the paper he indicates the relevance of transcendental numbers.



            Abstract: The set of real numbers and the set of complex numbers have the power of continuum. Among these numbers, those which are “interesting”, which appear “naturally”, which deserve our attention, form a countable set. Starting from this point of view we are interested in the periods as defined by M. Kontsevich and D. Zagier. We give the state of the art on the question of the arithmetic nature of these numbers: to decide whether a period is a rational number, an irrational algebraic number or else a transcendental number is the object of a few theorems and of many conjectures. We also consider the approximation of such numbers by rational or algebraic numbers.









          share|cite|improve this answer















          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Aug 7 at 10:47


























          answered Aug 6 at 22:31









          Markus Scheuer

          56.2k450135




          56.2k450135




















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              The notion of algebraic number is a starting point for areas of mathematics such as Galois theory and algebraic number theory. Sets of algebraic numbers can he used to form finite extension fields of $mathbf Q$, which behave in many ways like covering spaces in topology and Riemann surfaces (which are closely related to finite extensions of the field $mathbf C(z)$).






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                The notion of algebraic number is a starting point for areas of mathematics such as Galois theory and algebraic number theory. Sets of algebraic numbers can he used to form finite extension fields of $mathbf Q$, which behave in many ways like covering spaces in topology and Riemann surfaces (which are closely related to finite extensions of the field $mathbf C(z)$).






                share|cite|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  The notion of algebraic number is a starting point for areas of mathematics such as Galois theory and algebraic number theory. Sets of algebraic numbers can he used to form finite extension fields of $mathbf Q$, which behave in many ways like covering spaces in topology and Riemann surfaces (which are closely related to finite extensions of the field $mathbf C(z)$).






                  share|cite|improve this answer













                  The notion of algebraic number is a starting point for areas of mathematics such as Galois theory and algebraic number theory. Sets of algebraic numbers can he used to form finite extension fields of $mathbf Q$, which behave in many ways like covering spaces in topology and Riemann surfaces (which are closely related to finite extensions of the field $mathbf C(z)$).







                  share|cite|improve this answer













                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  answered Aug 7 at 11:04









                  KCd

                  16.3k3872




                  16.3k3872




















                      up vote
                      -2
                      down vote













                      One possible explanation I thought of myself is that there is a common iterative algorithm (like Newton's method) for all algebraic numbers (i.e. Roots of polynomials), to determine them with as much accuracy as one wants. But there are separate algorithms for e, pi, etc. And then there are non-computable transcendentals for which no algorithm exists. I guess this makes them weirder than non-transcendental irrationals.






                      share|cite|improve this answer





















                      • This should be a comment, or included in the body of the question itself, rather than an answer.
                        – Noah Schweber
                        Aug 6 at 22:57















                      up vote
                      -2
                      down vote













                      One possible explanation I thought of myself is that there is a common iterative algorithm (like Newton's method) for all algebraic numbers (i.e. Roots of polynomials), to determine them with as much accuracy as one wants. But there are separate algorithms for e, pi, etc. And then there are non-computable transcendentals for which no algorithm exists. I guess this makes them weirder than non-transcendental irrationals.






                      share|cite|improve this answer





















                      • This should be a comment, or included in the body of the question itself, rather than an answer.
                        – Noah Schweber
                        Aug 6 at 22:57













                      up vote
                      -2
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      -2
                      down vote









                      One possible explanation I thought of myself is that there is a common iterative algorithm (like Newton's method) for all algebraic numbers (i.e. Roots of polynomials), to determine them with as much accuracy as one wants. But there are separate algorithms for e, pi, etc. And then there are non-computable transcendentals for which no algorithm exists. I guess this makes them weirder than non-transcendental irrationals.






                      share|cite|improve this answer













                      One possible explanation I thought of myself is that there is a common iterative algorithm (like Newton's method) for all algebraic numbers (i.e. Roots of polynomials), to determine them with as much accuracy as one wants. But there are separate algorithms for e, pi, etc. And then there are non-computable transcendentals for which no algorithm exists. I guess this makes them weirder than non-transcendental irrationals.







                      share|cite|improve this answer













                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      answered Aug 6 at 11:23









                      Ryder Rude

                      354110




                      354110











                      • This should be a comment, or included in the body of the question itself, rather than an answer.
                        – Noah Schweber
                        Aug 6 at 22:57

















                      • This should be a comment, or included in the body of the question itself, rather than an answer.
                        – Noah Schweber
                        Aug 6 at 22:57
















                      This should be a comment, or included in the body of the question itself, rather than an answer.
                      – Noah Schweber
                      Aug 6 at 22:57





                      This should be a comment, or included in the body of the question itself, rather than an answer.
                      – Noah Schweber
                      Aug 6 at 22:57













                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded


























                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2873600%2fwhat-is-the-usefulness-of-classification-into-transcedental-and-algebraic-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest
































































                      Comments

                      Post a Comment

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalised tilt?

                      Image
                      Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalized tilt? I've noticed that in most equations given to represent a cone, there is no parameter which defines the tilt of the cone in 3D space and that most of them have their point at the origin $(0,0,0)$ - I was wondering if anyone could give me a more generalized cone equation for a cone in any position in 3D space 3d share | cite | improve this question edited Jul 25 '16 at 0:05 ervx 9,425 3 13 36 asked Jul 24 '16 at 15:38 Charlene 11 2 2 Welcome to Math.SE! Could you please explain a few things to help people give an answer useful to you: 1. What do you mean by "generalized tilt"? 2. Are you asking about a right circular cone? Does the angle at the vertex matter? 3. What form of answer (implicit, parametric...?) are you looking for? 4. If this is homework, what tools do you have available, an...
                      Read more

                      Color the edges and diagonals of a regular polygon

                      Image
                      Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 5 down vote favorite 1 Here is the problem: For what $n$ is it possible to color the edges and diagonals of an $n$-side regular polygon with $dfracbinomn23$ colors, such that you use every color exactly three times and for every color the three segments (edges or diagonals) with that color form a triangle? Trivially $nequiv 0 text or 1 pmod3$. I can also prove that if the statement is true for $k$ than it is true for $3k$ as well. How to finish? Please help! Thanks combinatorial-geometry share | cite | improve this question edited Aug 6 at 21:57 alcana 118 4 asked Aug 6 at 21:15 Leo Gardner 356 11 Even assuming "polyhpn" in the title is a typo for polygon , it is unclear what you mean by "the edges and sides". Aren't the side of a regular polygon the same as the edges? A regular $n$-sided polygon has $n$ edges. – hardmath Aug 6 at 21:20 3 $n$ ne...
                      Read more

                      Relationship between determinant of matrix and determinant of adjoint?

                      Image
                      Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite We are studying adjoints in class, and I was curious if there is a relationship between the determinant of matrix A, and the determinant of the adjoint of matrix A? I assume there would be a relationship because finding the adjoint requires creating a cofactor matrix and then transposing it. linear-algebra determinant adjoint-operators share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 17 '17 at 17:32 CluelessCoder 32 5 For a square matrix $A$ of order $n$, we have $A(operatornameadj A)=(operatornameadj A)A=|A|I_n$ where $I_n$ is the identity matrix of order $n$. This should tell you about the determinant of the adjoint in terms of that of $A$ (use multiplicative property and other elementary properties of determinants). – Prasun Biswas Nov 17 '17 at 17:35 1 @CluelessCoder: see here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/516127/…...
                      Read more