1

The nature of irrational numbers

George

Mpantes

mathematics

teacher

www.mapantes.gr

The irrationals in mathematics

is the result of infinite divisibility of numbers.
Now in the new environment of continuity,
denumerable

and

the non-

continuum of numbers (R) we can study the irrational

numbers which restore the continuity in R.

Indeed we have seen that the importance of irrationals in number
system will not be found by the concept of the limit, the irrationals in
calculus are defined independently of the limit. They defined based on the
concept of continuity. The

continuity is precisely the abolition of

granularity, ie the abolition of denumerability.

The Greeks mathematicians did not accept their irrational numbers.
But modern mathematics are essentially

founded

in the irrational

numbers. Is the essential link between arithmetic and geometry, between

the measuring

calculations and spacetime. Without

irrationals, the

human moon landing would not happen! In mathematical history are

treated sometimes as

numbers (Wallis, Steven) sometimes as simple

symbols (Pascal, Barrow) who have no existence independent of the

continuous geometric sizes or with views as... .. the irrational number is not
a true number, but is hidden in a kind of cloud of infinity. (Stifel), but never had

a logical foundation.

2
It looks very good the Aristotelian view that thinks ontologically
the phenomenon of continuity beginning of distinct things, (the rationals)
which can be contacted, aligned in a succession and eventually stick
strongly together.(infinity Physics V). The mathematical representation of
the complete continuity, space, time, movement etc. requires the use of
irrational numbers, which are the abhesive material of continuity. Those
taken for granted in classical physics and even the types of quantum
mechanics. For example when we solve the equation of Schrdinger, we
assume that the resulting wave function is a function of continuou spatial
coordinates and a continuous time variable t.

Infinitessimal calculus is

utilized which is a mathematics of irrational numbers.

However , we Know that the essence of a number is the ordering
relation

with others, that is to talk with an image, its position in the real

line. Indeed for the rationals it is assured, rationals are a denumerable

set (there exists an 1-1 correspondence with natura l numbers that is the
act of countability ) In rationals there is a next number, there is always
a more next from the next, but which is determined by the formalism of
Cauchy. For example, the any next rational of 1 is given by 1+a n

where

an is a zero sequence of rationals where we can identify the class of the

next that will take, 1+ 1/100 or 1 +1/10000000 etc. (odered dense and
numerable number system).
In irrationals

this was held with Dedekinds

irrational number designated by

cuts .

2 is an

a Dedekind cut dividing the set of

rationals into two classes, one upper class rationals are larger than 2
and lower class with rationals smallest of 2, is a demarcation separating
the two classes and belongs to none. This is the cause of that what we
know about the irrationals is only undefined rational approximations,
which restore continuity to the numeric system.
So we approach them with the existing distinctness, the islets of
rationals

denumerability..

If we see the equation 2 = 1,4142135623730950488 ...... without

the first member can be said to be number? What we know about it? How
can we calculate the next decimal digit of?

Who's next? There is no

repetition as in rationals . We are in the area of non-denumerability , there

is no foresight,, order, category, namely assignments

that are the

3
cornerstones of our intuition of the visible world to the concept of
measurement. We can not grasp the non -denumerability, let everyone to
comprehend as he can. (After all, philosophers of science have accepted
that each theoretical concept used in a physical theory is not mandatory
to have its counterpart in the experience, unlike the logical positivism that
preached that the study of any other than measurable was necessarily
void of any content) . Even, how to name it? The 2 is a symbol not the
name of the number, trying to get numerical status of the rationals beside
it.

In continuum there is not a next number, otherwise it would be

denumerable. We

Just symbolize it , we approach it , but we do not

recognize it. This unknown value of irrationals

illustrates the non-

countability of continuum of R . Continuum exactly means: the departure

of intuition. But the system is a logical management of infinity and in
infinity the intuition recedes in favor of logic.

Result: the irrationals

approximations of

are

indeterminate or not measurable

rational numbers , their value are inherently

unknown, something like the principles of uncertainty, playing a role in

the theoretical consistency of Calculus. Dedekind
rationals

to restore continuity, but they remain

because continuity

has included them

in

misfit ... and it is

revealed a new numerical reality, this

of the non-

denumerable infinity of the real numbers. Just the irrational is this view of
Kants transcendental notion: its meaning is inaccessible to human
experience but the latter is unable to avoid.
A computer engineering team in Japan have calculated pi to 1.24
trillion decimals and still are not finished, which means that pi is truly
irrational. Its decimal goes on forever without repeating. For pi we have
some digits:

Pi= 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510
58209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
82148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128
48111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
44288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091
45648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273
72458700660631558817488152092096282925409171536436
78925903600113305305488204665213841469519415116094
33057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548

4
07446237996274956735188575272489122793818301194912
98336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798
60943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132
00056812714526356082778577134275778960917363717872
14684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235
42019956112129021960864034418159813629774771309960
51870721134999999837297804995105973173281609631859
50244594553469083026425223082533446850352619311881
71010003137838752886587533208381420617177669147303
59825349042875546873115956286388235378759375195778
18577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989...

Irrationals in reality- the incommensurable magnitudes .

Is the result of the infinite divisibility of magnitudes.

The appearance of the irrationals in reality (geometry, physics ..) is

visible when connecting the famous incommensurables magnitudes. The
discovery of incommensurables magnitudes , was the most brilliant
triumph of the thinking mind upon the imperfections of the senses, since
in practical approach all sizes are commensurable, the world of the senses
is the world of rational numbers (Pythagorean). The side and the diagonal
of the square, the circumference and the radius of the circle were
incommensurable sizes. But the incommensurable

sizes,

were a

phenomenon of continuity that was the driving force behind them, i.e the
vision of space, initially, and other basic magnitudes
coincidence that the first incommensurable
geometry of

later. It is no

sizes appeared in the

Greeks, space the eminently viewed as a continuum. The

perimeter of the circle is calculated, not measured, because its

are regarded as continuous. The inscribed

points

regular polygons

by

Archimedes to calculate perimeter, is an infinite process because the

points of the circle are considered arbitrarily close. If they were discrete,
the result would be a rational number.

But physics is counting. Physical observables are operationally

defined by counting processes and so in principle should always be
represented by rational numbers-integers or ratios of integers. The
observable in physics are only approximately

represented by

continuous, irrational numbers, despite the widespread belief of the

opposite-that the irrationals are fundamental and the rationals are

approximations.

Irrational

numbers

as

applied

to

physical

quantities , occur only in a universe without granularity , or in a

granual universe as a process of approximation that should not be
taken as valid to unlimited precision. In the second century B.C.E.
Euclid assuming a continuum of space , proved that the length of
the diagonal of a unit square was not a rational number. The length
is conventionally written as 2. However, if you measure the
diagonal of a square by counting the number of spatial units from
one end to the other , you will have an integer in those units. The
diagonal becomes an irrational number only if space is a continuum.
Discreteness , manifested by rational numbers , is built into the
way in which we operationally define and perform actual numerical
calculations on the quantities of physics. Continuity , manifested by
irrational numbers and associated with mathematical tools as
calculus , is applied in physics only as a convenient approximation.
What is the reflection of incommensurable sizes on numbers? Simply
they are not numerically linked, the irrational is not a number of counting.
We saw that the first can not be measured with measurement unit the
other. Why;

Because this measure happens to fall into a gap in the

rationals in the

model of cuts of

Dedekind, since it is possible.

indefinitely dividing the numbers and sizes when

The

eventually result in a

gap of rationals, will continue to approach the non-countable infinity. This

non-countability is the nature of the irrationals. This is the mathematical
limit of continuity. So is located in the world of thinkable measurements
and interpretations , the world of visible reality is exhausted in rationals.
Now, in the problems of connection of incommensurable sizes, irrationals
are playing the role of a constant of continuity and even fuzzy as the
continuity , to approach the continuity, with more known values p, e, 2,
reminding the constants in the laws of physics and chemistry.
For example, the constant k in Hooke's Law F = kx, linking strength
with extension of each spring and k is related to the length, the thickness,
the material etc.
Or the

constant in Stefan-Boltzmann law for the density of the

emitted radiation I =4 with = 5,67.10-8. The fundamental physical and

6
chemical constants playing a key role in the fundamental laws of nature,
the three major constants characterizing three main theories is the speed
of light c, ( c is the same in all inertial frames as pi is the same in all
circles), the constant of gravity G and the Planck constant h, and the
experimental

control of these laws means in practice to define precisely

the fundamental constants of the laws. Let us recall the procedures of

Archimedes, with the circle and polygons, to determine accurately the
value of pi.
So the irrationals are interpreted as a physical-geometrical constants
expressing the continuous subject. The appearance of irrationals
conceals the continuum of sizes:
The continuity of line when connecting the side and the diagonal of
the square (is 2), or the circumference and radius of the circle (is pi), the
ratio of the golden section is , the continuity of space in doubling of the
cube(is 2), the continuity of harmonic motion (is e) and so on , and
because the crowd of irrationals is greater than the number of rationals ,
much more remains to be revealed.
The area of the catenoid is

pia 2 2 2
(e e +4 )
4

1+ x
pi()
The density function of Cauchys distribution is
1
( x )=
The damping of an harmonic oscillator is x=et (cos t+ a)
Even equations Einsteins field equations contain pi, which occurs in
wave physics even in the double helix of DNA.
But we know that in practical applications every vague constant
that appears in a formula can be approximated as necessary, so that the
theoretical formula (eg previous forms) to help the problem of the real
world. ... Ten decimal places of pi are sufficient to give the circumference of the
earth to a fraction of an inch, and thirty decimal places would give the
circumference of the visible universe to a quantity imperceptible to the most
powerful microscope. .... Simon Newcomb 1835-1909)

Serres 11 November 2015 George Mpantes .

From my book the infinitesimal magnitudes