Why do we need a set larger than the rationals ? The historical answer springs from a crisis. For the followers of Pythagoras of Samos (6th century BC) the motto was “all is number”: they were convinced that every length could be expressed as a ratio of two integers. Two segments are called commensurable if there exists a small common unit of measure that fits a whole number of times into both; for the Pythagoreans every pair of segments had to be so.
The discovery that shatters this belief concerns the simplest thing in the world: a square of side . By the Pythagorean theorem its diagonal satisfies Tradition attributes to Hippasus of Metapontum (5th century BC), a Pythagorean from Magna Graecia, the proof that is not a ratio of integers: the side and the diagonal of the square are incommensurable. This was the birth of the irrational numbers and the first great scandal of Greek mathematics (Boyer).
Why is not rational
Suppose, for contradiction, that with integers having no common factors (a fraction already reduced to lowest terms). Squaring: Then is even, hence too is even: write . Substituting, , so : therefore is even and hence is even. But if and are both even they share the factor , against the hypothesis that the fraction was in lowest terms. The contradiction shows that cannot be written as : it is irrational.
The legend — almost certainly embellished — has it that Hippasus was punished by drowning for disclosing this unacceptable secret (Dunham). Beyond the anecdote, the significance is enormous: the rationals are not even enough to measure the diagonal of a square, and one needs the wider set of the real numbers , which also contains the irrationals such as and (Kline). The rigorous construction of this extension would arrive only in the nineteenth century, but the question that makes it necessary is twenty-five centuries old.
Links
Topics: Numbers and operations
Concepts: Number sets · Rational numbers · Real numbers · Irrational numbers
People: Hippasus · Pythagoras