Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We prove that the irrationality exponent of log r is 2 for every positiverational number r different from 1. In particular, μ(log 3) = 2. The proof extends the separated-weight interpolation and determinantmethod of OpenAI's proof that the irrationality exponent of π is 2.The geometric extension permits distinct nonzero multiplicative centers,and the arithmetic extension accounts for denominators of rational andalgebraic bases. More generally, let F be a number field of degree d, let γ and ξ belongto F with γ nonzero, and let x be a nonzero real number. Ifexp(σ(γ)x) = σ(ξ) for s distinct embeddings σ from F to the complex numbers,where s ≥ 1, then x is irrational and 2 ≤ μ(x) ≤ 2d/s. The same algebraic determinant is estimated at every embedding; the fieldnorm supplies the factor d/s. The root-of-unity case is included.Consequences include an upper bound of twice the algebraic degree forμ(log α) when α is positive, algebraic, and different from 1, and exponenttwo for rational-power logarithms, nonzero rational arctangents, and certainquadratic-normalized logarithms. The endpoint statements and their fulldependency closure have been checked in Lean. The proof does not computenumerical denominator thresholds. The rational-logarithm theorem was obtained independently andcontemporaneously with Jingwen Liu, Kai Jiang, and Pingwen Zhang,"Irrationality exponents of logarithms of positive rational numbers"(arXiv:2610.10192v1; https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10192v1).We became aware of their preprint after completing our work. The presentpaper also establishes the compatible-embedding theorem and its additionalapplications. This record contains the manuscript PDF, its LaTeX sources, and the Leanformalization with pinned dependency versions and reproduction instructions. Version v1.1 adds the concurrent-work citation and comparison. The theoremstatements, proofs, and Lean sources are unchanged from v1.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rohit Kumar Jha (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: