You are on page 1of 1

gamma, the Euler-Mascheroni constant According to Wolfram, “Hardy is alleged to have offered to give up his Savilian Chair

at Oxford to anyone who proved γ to be irrational”. Wow. Can we do it in one article? I doubt it but we can try. ;) The most intriguing and perhaps helpful definition of gamma follows: Σ (-1)n int(log2(n))/n where int is the integer/floor function and the sum is from 1 to infinity. Let's examine this sum component by component: the first part determines the sign of each term – a rational operation, the factor 1/n is also a rational 'operation' on each term, int takes any real number and truncates it – another rational operation, and finally, log 2 typically gives an irrational result but inside int makes the entire term rational. In English, above is 'an alternating linear diminishing truncated log sum'. It IS intriguing that a rational series is equivalent to an irrational gamma. But what we're actually 'measuring' with gamma is a sum of truncations. The original untruncated numbers were irrational; the fact the sum of truncations is irrational should not truly surprise us. Perhaps the simplest irrational number is sqrt(2). The fact it has a series 'expansion' that is fully rational should not surprise us. Perhaps the simplest representation of that is given by: Σ (-1)n+1 (2n-3)!!/2n!! where double-factorial means odd/even subsets and the sum is from 0 to infinity. Divide both sides by sqrt(2) implies 1, the prime whole number, is expressible as an infinite series of irrational terms. The fact any rational number is expressible as an irrational sum and irrational numbers are expressible as rational sums shows us the 'question' of the irrationality of gamma is an illposed problem at best. Gamma has been assigned historic significance in mathematics because of the initiator and those that followed that considered it seriously. Do I deserve the Savilian Chair if I can prove gamma is irrational? No, I won't demand that privilege. But I will use this opportunity to elucidate another important conjecture: Every rational number can be represented explicitly as an irrational series; every irrational number can be represented explicitly as a rational series. A more interesting sum, superseding gamma, is what I call delta: δ ≡ Σ (1/n)frac(ln(n)) where frac(f)=f-int(f) which gives the fractional part of any number and the sum is from 1 to infinity. I cannot guarantee delta converges but the reason it intrigues me is because it is one of the simplest irrational series I can envision. If indeed sqrt(2) is a 'simple' irrational number, the following series should prove interesting: δ2 ≡ Σ (1/n)frac(sqrt(n)) where components and sum are as above. If neither converges, we have several options: we can 'up' (1/n) to (1/n)^2 or introduce an alternating component as gamma includes. I'm currently attempting to determine convergence. Again, whether or not they do, we can 'force' them to converge with appropriate 'tweaking'. The resulting basis should be sufficient to construct all irrational numbers if the root-primes are deemed inadequate. Now we're ready for our 'final' conjecture: A sufficient basis for all irrationals are the deltas defined above along with the sequences of irrationals implied by their expansions. This is our final evidence the irrationals are equivalent to an order 4 set. Allowing for two rational components to scale and translate, the two deltas above represent two more. That totals four.. The first conjecture above is already half-proven. I leave the rest for posterity .. Indeed it can be shown each series above converges by upping (1/n) to (1/n)^2. Convergence is almost immaterial; the real question becomes: are ln and sqrt sufficient to create a basis from the naturals? Incidentally, for those curious, the numeric values for the modified sums are approximately: .331703 and .278487. Perhaps we can 'erect a temple' to those.. Just kidding..