e and π are transcendental

Marty Ross
mathsmasters@qedcat.com www.QEDcat.com

September 18, 2018

The proofs below follow [1], [2] and [3].

1 e is transcendental

We start by assuming that e is the root of a non-zero integer-coefficient polynomial. Choosing such a
polynomial of lowest degree, we would then have
(1) an en + an−1 en−1 + · · · + a0 = 0 , a0 6= 0.
In order to prove that this is impossible, we’ll show that we can write
Nk + δ k
(2) ek = , k = 1, · · · , n,
N
with N and the Nk integers, and the δk tiny. Substituting into (1) and multiplying by N , we will then have
(3) a0 N + (a1 N1 + · · · + an Nn ) + (a1 δ1 + · · · + an δn ) = 0 .
We shall construct the approximations so that the integer part of this expression is non-zero and the δ part
has magnitude less than 1. That will then be a contradiction, proving (1) is impossible.

The proof uses an integral relation between the function e−x and factorials. Specifically, with p a large prime
to be determined later, we have1

Z∞  1, j = p − 1,
1 j!
(4) e−x xj dx = =
(p − 1)! (p − 1)! 
0 a multiple of p, j > p.
Note also that if f is any polynomial then, as long as the denominator is not zero, trivially
R∞
ek−x f (x) dx
k 0
(5) e = R∞ .
e−x f (x) dx
0

We now choose
(6) f (x) = xp−1 (x − 1)p (x − 2)p · · · (x − n)p .
1 This is a standard integration by parts exercise. See, for example, the Wikipedia page on the gamma function.

1
For k = 1, · · · , n we then define  Z∞
 1
N= e−x f (x) dx ,





 (p − 1)!


 0


Z∞


1


Nk = ek−x f (x) dx ,
 (p − 1)!
k







 Zk
1


δ = ek−x f (x) dx .


 k

 (p − 1)!
0

Noting that
f (x) = (−1)p (−2)p · · · (−n)p xp−1 + higher powers of x,
it follows from (4) that
p
N = (−1)np (n!) + a multiple of p.
So, N is an integer. Moreover, if we choose the prime p to be larger than n, then n! cannot be a multiple
of p, and so neither is N . In particular, N 6= 0 and (2) is now immediate from (5). If, further, we ensure
p > |a0 | then, noting a0 6= 0, it follows that a0 N also cannot be a multiple of p.

Next, we perform the substitution t = x − k in the integral for Nk , giving

Z∞
1
Nk = e−t f (t + k) dt .
(p − 1)!
0

Clearly f (t + k) has a factor tp , and so from (4) again, Nk is an integral multiple of p. It follows that the N
part of (3) is a non-zero integer, as desired.

It remains to show that if p is large then δk is tiny, and this is just the standard business. We just have to
note that |x − k| 6 n on [0, n], and so on this interval

|f | 6 n(np+p−1) .

Applying this estimate, we see

c · dp
δk 6 ,
(p − 1)!
with c = en and d = n(n+1) . It follows that δk → 0 as p → ∞, and we’re done.

2
2 π is transcendental

By way of contradiction, we assume that π is the root of a non-zero polynomial p with integer coefficients,
p(π) = 0 .
This would imply that iπ is a root of the integer polynomial
q(x) = p(ix)p(−ix) .
We show that this latter equation leads to a contradiction. We first give the main argument, and in §2.2 we
fill in some details on the symmetric polynomials employed in the argument.

2.1 The Main Argument

Write
(7) q(x) = a(x − α1 )(x − α2 ) · · · (x − αn ) , a 6= 0.
with α1 = iπ and a ∈ Z. Then 1 + eα1 = 0, and so trivially
(8) (1 + eα1 ) (1 + eα2 ) · · · (1 + eαn ) = 0 .
Expanding gives
(9) eβ1 + eβ2 + · · · + eβ2n = 0 ,
where βk ranges over all sums of distinct αj , including the empty sum. Letting β1 , β2 , · · · , βm be the non-zero
β, we then have the key identity
(10) r + eβ1 + eβ2 + · · · + eβm = 0 ,
where r = 2n − m. Note that r > 0, since at least the empty sum of α gives β = 0.

We can now mimic and adapt the proof that e is transcendental. To this end, for z complex define
(11) f (z) = z p−1 g p ,
where p is a large prime to be determined later, and
(12) g(z) = am (z − β1 )(z − β2 ) · · · (z − βm ) .

We now define the N and δ quantities analogously to the definitions in the e proof, but in terms of complex
line integrals:2
 Z∞
1
e−z f (z) dz ,

N= (along the positive real axis),


(p − 1)!





 0




 Z∞
1

eβk −z f (z) dz ,

Nk = (along the horizontal line from βk to +∞),
 (p − 1)!


 βk



Zβk




 1 βk −z
 δk = (p − 1)! e f (z) dz , (along the radial path from 0 to βk ).



0

for example, the radial path from 0 to βk can be parametrised by z = βk t with 0 6 t 6 1. Then dz = dz
2 So,
dt
dt = βk dt, and
so on. The subsequent integral is complex-valued but it can be interpreted, computed and estimated with standard real-variable
techniques.

3
Then, by a routine application of Cauchy’s integral theorem,3

(13) Nk + δk = N eβk .

So, once we determine N 6= 0, it will follow from (10) that

(14) rN + (N1 + · · · + Nm ) + (δ1 + · · · + δm ) = 0 .

Now, q has integer coefficients, and g is symmetric in β1 , · · · , βm , with a suitably large power of a as a factor.
It then readily follows that g, and so also f , has integer coefficients; see §2.2, below. We can now choose the
prime p to be larger than the magnitude of the constant term of g. Then, as in the proof for e, (4) implies
that N is an integer and is not divisible by p, and in particular N 6= 0. If we further choose p larger than r,
then rN also will not be divisible by p.

Next, setting M = maxk |βk |, it is easy to see that if |z| 6 M then

mp
|f (z)| 6 |a|mp (2M ) M p−1 .

It follows that
c · dp
δk 6 ,
(p − 1)!
where c = eM and d = 2m |a|m M m+1 . So, δk → 0 as p → ∞.

It remains to consider the Nk , which will in general be complex. We can complete the contradiction, however,
by showing that the sum N1 + · · · + Nm is an integral multiple of p, implying that the integral part of (14)
is non-zero. In order to do this, we make the substitution w = z − βk in the integral for Nk . Summing then
gives
Z∞
1
N1 + · · · + Nm = e−w h(w) dw ,
(p − 1)!
0

with the integral along the positive real axis, and where

(15) h(w) = f (w + β1 ) + · · · + f (w + βm ) .

It is clear from the form of f that h(w) has a factor wp . As well, using that q has integer coefficients and
that h is symmetric in β1 , · · · , βm , it is straight-forward to show that h has integer coefficients; see §2.2. It
then follows from (4) that N1 + · · · + Nm is an integral multiple of p, and we have our contradiction.

3 Let T be a large real number and let γ be the closed parallelogram path through the vertices 0, β , β + T and T . Cauchy’s
R k k
theorem says γ F = 0 for our (complex differentiable) function F ; see Wikipedia or, for example, the nice presentation
at people.reed.edu/~jerry/311/cauchy.pdf. Now let T → +∞. Noting that e−T → 0 rapidly, it is easy to prove that
βkR+T
F → 0, and (13) follows.
T

4
2.2 Symmetric Polynomials

We need to show that f given by (11) and (12), and h given by (15), have integer coefficients. The arguments
are standard applications of the fundamental theorem of symmetric polynomials: any integer-coefficient
symmetric polynomial is an integer-coefficient polynomial function of the elementary symmetric polynomials.4

The theorem is of use to us because the integer coefficients of q are ±a times the elementary symmetric
polynomials of α1 , · · · , αn . It follows that any symmetric integer polynomial of aα1 , · · · , aαn is an integer,
and thus the same is also true for any symmetric integer polynomial of aβ1 , · · · , aβ2n .

We can now apply this to the polynomial

1
(16) G(z) = (z − aβ1 ) (z − aβ2 ) · · · (z − aβm ) = (z − aβ1 ) (z − aβ2 ) · · · (z − aβ2n ) .
zr
The coefficients of G are symmetric integer polynomials of the aβ1 , · · · , aβ2n , and thus are integers. It follows
that g(z) = G(az) also has integer coefficients, and therefore so does f .

A similar but messier argument shows that h is also integer coefficient. Let


 H(w) = wp−1 Gp (w) ,


2n
m
" #
1 X 1 X
 J(w) = wp

 H(w + aβk ) = p −rH(w) + H(w + aβk ) .
w

k=1 k=1

Noting that H has a zero of degree p at all of aβ1 , · · · , aβm , it follows from the fundamental theorem that
J is an integer coefficient polynomial. But then combining the definitions (11), (12), (15) and (16),
m m
X p−1 awp X h p−1 p
i
h(w) = (w + βk ) g p (w + βk ) = (aw + aβk ) G (aw + aβk ) = awp J(aw) .
(aw)p
k=1 k=1

It follows that h has integer coefficients.

References
[1] D. Hilbert, Ueber die Transcendenz der Zahlen e und π, Math. Ann., 43 (1893) 216-219.

[2] M. Spivak, Calculus 4th ed., Publish or Perish, 2008.

[3] R. Steinberg and R. M. Redheffer, Analytic proof of the Lindemann theorem, Pacific J. Math., 2 (1952)
231-242.

4 The presentation in http://www-users.math.umn.edu/ garrett/m/algebra/notes/15.pdf is as nice as we’ve found, though

~
the Wikipedia page on elementary symmetric polynomials is good enough. The theorem is standard and important, and not
difficult to prove, but we are unaware of any particularly pretty proof.