Sure, but assuming is irrational is assuming much more than assuming is. Moreover, while I'm sure is irrational, I wouldn't know how to prove it. (Though I can show is irrational!)
Sure, but assuming is irrational is assuming much more than assuming is. Moreover, while I'm sure is irrational, I wouldn't know how to prove it. (Though I can show is irrational!)
Suppose that then . You said you can prove that is irrational for rational values, yes?
Suppose that then . You said you can prove that is irrational for rational values, yes?
Yeah. I'm that tired!
But, in any case, the OP is certainly not expected to come up with the proof of 's irrationality. The proof I outlined is perfectly good (and the archetype of a non-constructive proof)!