I have just seen a most remarkable theorem:
For every sequence of digits there is a power of 3 that starts with
that sequence.
Can anybody prove it?
Yatir
I would approach it as follows: for a
given integer, k, and a given sequence, a, then we need to find m
and n (integers) such that
a.10m < kn <(a+1).10m
Taking logs
ln(a) < n.ln(k) - m.ln(10) < ln(a+1)
I think you run into trouble finding m,n if ln(k) is a multiple of
ln(10)!
Andre
Actually, I would prefer taking logarithms
to the base 10. Then you need to find integers m and n such
that
log(a) < nlog(k) - m < log(a+1)
To prove the result you need a theorem (I think called the
equidistribution theorem) which says that if x is irrational then the sequence {nx} is equidistributed in (0,1). This means that for
any subinterval (a,b) of (0,1), if we let CN be the
number of appearences of {nx} in this
interval for n=1,2,...,N then we have that CN/N tends to
b-a as N tends to infinity.
This will complete the proof as long as log(k) is irrational. Can
you see why ?
I think log(k) should be irrational as long as k is not a power of
10 but I am not absolutely certain.
Ok I've just looked it up in mathworld
and log(k) is irrational for k not a power of 10.
Can you complete the proof now ?
Demetres
I think so.
({log(a)},{log(a+1)}) is a subinterval of (0,1) that means that for
every z we can find an n such that
{nz} is in our subinterval (because of
the equidistribution theorem).
If log(k) is an irrational number then obviously we can choose an n
and m such that they lie in the interval (log(a),log(a+1)) because
all we have to do is choose an n such that nlog(k)>log(a+1) and
choose an m in such way to make nlog(k)-m be in that
interval.
An interesting question would be how many different powers of 3 do
we have that start with a certain string a.
Yatir
Not exactly. You should say that you
choose an n such that nlog(k) > log(a+1) AND {nlogk} lies in the
interval. Then it is obvious that you can choose the m such that
nlogk-m lies in the interval. I believe that is what you
meant.
[Actually you need a bit more care in the case that {log(a+1)} is
less than {log(a)}]
If you have a closer look at the equidistibution theorem you will
see why there are infinitely many powers of 3 that start with the
same string a. If not then ask me to explain.
Demetres
Something more. Why is {log(a)} never
equal to {log(a+1)} ? You should also explain this because
otherwise you cannot apply the equidistribution theorem.
Demetres
Observation: The equidistribution theorem
is a bit strong for this problem; it is sufficient to use a
slightly weaker theorem called Kronecker's theorem which states
that {nz} is dense in (0,1). This is
vastly easier to prove (Hardy + Wright's Introduction to the
Theory of Numbers presents about a dozen different proofs, at
least one of which can be fiddled to give us an upper bound on how
large n will have to be.)
Fun exercise: prove that if k is not a power of 10,
log10 k is irrational. (Harder exercise: prove that it's
transcendental.)
Feel free to ignore this comment, I just thought somebody might
find it interesting.
David
if {loga}={log(a+1)} then
loga=n+R
log(a+1)=m+R
(where n and m are integers and R is the irrational fractional
part)
m>n because otherwise 0=1
log((a+1)/a)=m-n
because gcd(a+1,a)=1, this obviously wrong!
and thus
{loga}¹{log(a+1)}
David, what do you mean by dense? how is it different from the
equidistribution?
I will try your exercise, sounds fun!
Yatir
David,
I didn't prove it to be irrational, but if it is then it MUST be
transcendental by Gelfond's Theorem (which I know is
cheating!)
Yatir
Yatir, suppose we have two subsets A,B of
the such that AÍB. Then we say
that A is dense in B if for any point x of B and any e > 0 (however small it is) there is a y in A
such that |x-y| < e. What do we mean
by that ? We mean that for any x in B there are points in A as
close as we like to x. Tell me if you want me to explain more about
this. The difference between the terms equidistribution and dense
is very nicely explained in http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EquidistributedSequence.html.
Finally a hint about the irrationality of logmn for m,n
natural numbers where n is not a power of m: The result depends
only on the existence and uniqueness of prime factorisation.
Demetres
For the irrationality of log10 m can you use this
idea or am i assuming anything I'm not supposed to:
Assume log10 m = p/q (p, q are integers)
Therefore,
mq = 10p
Now, m, p and q are integers where HCF(m, 10) < 10
m will be divisible by 5 OR by 2 OR by neither. In
each case, using the fact that you can write a number as a product
of primes in only one way, mq will be "lacking" factors
and thus there exist no integer solutions for m, p and q [for
HCF(m, 10) < 10]
That's exactly the idea Marco, but can you
write it down in a better way ? (i.e. don't use phrases like
'lacking factors'.) The same idea works not only if the logarithmic
base is 10, but also if it is any other integer. Can you also prove
that ?
Demetres
I discovered a rather interesting page about algebraic numbers
yesterday; it requires a bit of basic knowledge about linear
algebra, but that is all.
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/galois.html
It contains a (in my opinion rather neat) way of showing that
certain numbers are algebraic, and also discusses what you get if
you consider the roots of polynomials with algebraic
coefficients.
Vicky