- #1

dynamic998

is a simple proportion one that is a one to one function of some sort. I dont understand this term.

Last edited by a moderator:

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter dynamic998
- Start date

- #1

dynamic998

is a simple proportion one that is a one to one function of some sort. I dont understand this term.

Last edited by a moderator:

- #2

Integral

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,212

- 56

With that said I am going to bump this into the Math Forum

- #3

r637h

I'm trying to determine whether there's a relationship between Phi=Golden Mean, and the natural log base=e. If there's a relationship, (other than by a simple constant - not what I'm looking for) it is almost certainly irrational.

I'm running into a brick wall; perhaps because there is no relationship. Can anyone help?

Gratefully,

- #4

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,847

- 966

- #5

- 171

- 1

Originally posted by HallsofIvy

Some people might have once said that about Pi!

Although this number does not seem to be as important as Pi.

- #6

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,847

- 966

You are not going to find a "simple" relationship between an algebraic number and a transcendental number.

Of course, it is possible to make up some formula that changes phi into e. Given any two numbers, it's possible to make up a formula that will change one into the other. That's clearly not what r637h meant.

- #7

r637h

I would like to avoid number theory (very uncomfortable):

Phi is an algebraic number, granted, and satifies the quadratic, x^2-x-1=0. (Although that contains the irrational square root of 5.)

But e is transcendental, and cannot satisy a quadratic or any other algebraic expression, as far as I know.

But Phi is also an irrational number, which can satisfy a Taylor Series or be expressed as a continued fraction.

I thought a number had to be either irrational or algebraic. Is that the flaw in my thinking?

Or is Phi "unique", in that it is both? Surely not.

Anyway, Pi and e can easily be related, and although the relationship may be complex, can be demonstrated in several series.

Am I running around in circles? Is the reasoning non-sequetur?

Help!

Phi is an algebraic number, granted, and satifies the quadratic, x^2-x-1=0. (Although that contains the irrational square root of 5.)

But e is transcendental, and cannot satisy a quadratic or any other algebraic expression, as far as I know.

But Phi is also an irrational number, which can satisfy a Taylor Series or be expressed as a continued fraction.

I thought a number had to be either irrational or algebraic. Is that the flaw in my thinking?

Or is Phi "unique", in that it is both? Surely not.

Anyway, Pi and e can easily be related, and although the relationship may be complex, can be demonstrated in several series.

Am I running around in circles? Is the reasoning non-sequetur?

Help!

Last edited by a moderator:

- #8

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,847

- 966

Both rational and irrational numbers can be "algebraic".

An algebraic number is any number that can be found as a root of polynomial equation with integer coefficients. (If "n" is the lowest possible degree of such a polynomial, the roots are "algebraic of order n".)

Rational numbers are precisely those numbers that are algebraic of order 1: x= a/b if and only if x satifies bx- a= 0, a polynomial equation of order 1 with integer coefficients.

Square root of 2, on the other hand, is not rational but is algebraic of order 2.

Phi, since it satisfies the equation x^2- x- 1= 0, is also algebraic of order 2.

Transcendental numbers are those numbers that are not algebraic of any order. Pi and e are the best known of those, but, technically speaking, "almost all" numbers are transcendental.

- #9

r637h

Thanks. I was confusing "rational" with "algebraic."

Right: Order 2.

Any thoughts on "constructing" a relationship of Phi with e.(other than a simple constant)?

If Pi with e, then why not Phi with e?

Again, Thanks.

- #10

- 171

- 1

Originally posted by HallsofIvy

pi is transcendental like e.

Am I meant to be aware of some result which states that there exists no 'simple' relationship between any transcendental number and a non transcental number.

Clearly e^1 = e,

Which gives a simple relationship between e and 1.

I think that we require a working definition of 'simple'.

- #11

r637h

phi=2cos(pi/5), etc. and the identity:

e^(i.pi)+1=0, (special case of Euler's Formula, with x=pi)

From there, a simple matter of substitution.

Now, the answer may be a complex number (I haven't figured it out, yet), but at least the relationship is expressed.

Now comes a tougher job: Trying to relate fundamental (or natural) # like i,pi,e,phi, to physical # such as Planck's constant, c, gravity acceleration, Avogadro's Number, etc.

Any thoughts?

Share: