13
$\begingroup$

If we have an irrational number, consisting of only $2$ distinct digits, for example:

$$0.01011011101111011111 \cdots$$

Can we conclude that the number is transcendental?

It is conjectured that every irrational algebraic number is normal in base $10$. This would imply that the answer to my question is yes. But can we prove it?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This can well be a duplicate, if so, I apologize in advance. $\endgroup$ – Peter Jan 20 '17 at 20:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DanUznanski I don't really think this constitutes killing a mosquito with a dubious howitzer; rather, the OP is observing that their question can't have an easy negative answer, which is useful data for someone trying to solve it. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Jan 20 '17 at 20:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Peter A household pest control device. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Jan 20 '17 at 20:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well not in base $2$, and it might be that base $3$ is an easier place to start, because the Cantor Set is well studied. $\endgroup$ – Mark Bennet Jan 20 '17 at 21:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This problem is wide open. As far as we know, all algebraic irrationals could have expansions which eventually only use two digits, in all bases. $\endgroup$ – Wojowu Jan 20 '17 at 22:35
2
$\begingroup$

You may want to look at this answer in mathoverflow. Our conditions are not strong enough to use the theorem though, as we just have $c_x(n)\leq 2^n$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Can you explain the complexity in this context ? When can we conclude that a number is either rational or transcendental with the complexity ? In particular, is $0.ababbabbbabbbbabbbbb\cdots$ with distinct digits $a$ and $b$ always transcendental ? $\endgroup$ – Peter Jan 20 '17 at 22:02
  • $\begingroup$ when there is a $k$ such that the number of distinct blocks of length $n$ that appear in the word is less than $kn$ for all $n$. $\endgroup$ – Jorge Fernández Hidalgo Jan 20 '17 at 22:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Peter that one wont work. The number of blocks of length $n$ is not bounded by $kn$ for any $k$. $\endgroup$ – Jorge Fernández Hidalgo Jan 20 '17 at 22:06
  • $\begingroup$ no, a block of length $n$ is a substring of length $n$. For example, the number $0.00000000$ has only one block of every length. $\endgroup$ – Jorge Fernández Hidalgo Jan 20 '17 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ So, the distinct blocks of length $3$ in my example would be $bbb,abb,bab,bba,aba$ ? $\endgroup$ – Peter Jan 20 '17 at 22:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.