7.

Irrationality and transcendence of certain numbers

Hermite's arithmetical theorems on the exponential function and their extension
by Lindemann are certain of the admiration of all generations of mathematicians.
Thus the task at once presents itself to penetrate further along the path here
entered, as A. Hurwitz has already done in two interesting papers,19 "Ueber arit
hmetische Eigenschaften gewisser transzendenter Funktionen." I should like, ther
efore, to sketch a class of problems which, in my opinion, should be attacked as
here next in order. That certain special transcendental functions, important in
analysis, take algebraic values for certain algebraic arguments, seems to us pa
rticularly remarkable and worthy of thorough investigation. Indeed, we expect tr
anscendental functions to assume, in general, transcendental values for even alg
ebraic arguments; and, although it is well known that there exist integral trans
cendental functions which even have rational values for all algebraic arguments,
we shall still con sider it highly probable that the exponential function eiz,
for example, which evidently has algebraic values for all rational arguments z,
will on the other hand always take transcendental values for irrational algebrai
c values of the argument z. We can also give this statement a geometrical form,
as follows:
If, in an isosceles triangle, the ratio of the base angle to the angle at the ve
rtex be algebraic but not rational, the ratio between base and side is always tr
anscendental.
In spite of the simplicity of this statement and of its similarity to the proble
ms solved by Hermite and Lindemann, I consider the proof of this theorem very di
fficult; as also the proof that
The expression , for an algebraic base and an irrational algebraic exponent , e
. g., the number 2 or e = i-2i, always represents a transcendental or at least a
n irrational number.
It is certain that the solution of these and similar problems must lead us to en
tirely new methods and to a new insight into the nature of special irrational an
d transcendental numbers.
2 or e = i-2i
eiz
[the number 2 or e = i-2i]
Kinetic E kinetic mc kinetic
E/mc
2 of 2 or e*3.14 =i*-2i
2 of 2 or mc*-mc*2 given 3.14
One cannot finish the equation.
E/mc
e*3.14 2 of 2
e*3.14 e = mc (-2) mc*mc*2
E applied against 3.14 produces 2 of 2.
or
E applied against 3.14 produces --e =-- mc (-2) mc*-mc*2
e applied 3.14 failed 2 of 2 =0 test.
It does not function. It did not function. It did not open.
e applied against 3.14 produced mc or = mc.
e*i 3.14 z
e pi 3.14 z rational argument test of i.
They must reach 0. This tests zero.
i = mc
e*3.14 = i (mc)* i (-2 mc)
Incorrect.
5,378
Nuclear.
e*i 3.14 z
e*-2mc 3.14 z(underlined)
e*3.14 produced 2 of 2.
or
e*3.14 produced --e =-- mc without (-2) mc*-mc*2
Thus,
E/mc
Thus, kinetic remedies.
I offer to the best of one's ability.