Why ฯ Is Less Than 22/7
Evaluate
Then:
- Explain why your answer proves the inequality .
- (Bonus) With one more line of work, show
Hint to resist: Try to predict the remainder of modulo without doing long division.
Field: Integration / Real Analysis (with a pinch of algebra)
Why it is interesting / classic: This is Putnam 1968 A1, and the identity goes back to D. P. Dalzell (1944). A positive integrand on produces exactly . That turns the schoolbook approximation of into a one-line rigorous inequality. The numerator looks arbitrary, but the exponent is the reason everything is rational except for a single .
Difficulty: 2 / 5
Tags: polynomial division, evaluation at , rational approximations of , Beta integral
Answer: Why ฯ Is Less Than 22/7
Key Idea / Intuition
Dividing a polynomial by leaves a polynomial quotient, which integrates to a rational number, plus a remainder over , which produces and hence . The remainder is the polynomial's value at , and is a real constant. So the remainder is just , and the " part" of the integral is exactly . The integrand is visibly positive, so . The rational number turns out to be .
Formal Proof / Solution
Step 1: Find the remainder without long division. Write with . Substituting gives
Since has real coefficients, forces and . So the remainder is the constant .
Step 2: Find the quotient. Expand the numerator:
Then
Check: . Subtracting gives . โ
Step 3: Integrate.
Step 4: The inequality. On the integrand is continuous, non-negative, and not identically zero. Hence , which gives
Step 5 (Bonus): Bracketing the error. On we have , with strict inequalities on the interior. Therefore
The remaining integral is a Beta integral:
Hence
which gives .
Remarks
- Why the exponent 4? You need to be real. Since , this happens exactly when . With other exponents the remainder has an -term, and integrating it produces a alongside .
- Generalization (Lucas, 2005): The integrals all equal (rational) , up to a power-of-4 factor. As grows they give increasingly sharp rational approximations to .
- Sources: Putnam 1968, Problem A1; D. P. Dalzell, J. London Math. Soc. 19 (1944).
Source: Putnam 1968 A1; D. P. Dalzell (1944)