Question 1: Let $a$ be a real number with a base-10 decimal representation $a_1a_2\ldots a_n \ldots$ Denote the number of ways to write $a_n$ as the sum of positive integers as $p(a_n)$ - also called the partition of $a_n$. I write $A(n)=\sum_{k=1}^n p(a_k)$ and $B(n)= \sum_{k=1}^n a_k$ and set $$\beta(a)=\lim_{n\to \infty}{A(n)\above 1.5 pt B(n)}$$ If $a$ is a base-10 simply normal number is it true that $\beta(a)={97 \above 1.5 pt 45}$ ?

Attempted Solution: Let $a$ be a base-10 simply normal number with decimal representation $a_1a_2\ldots a_n \ldots$. Explicitly we can write \begin{equation}\lim_{n\to \infty}{A(n)\above 1.5 pt B(n)} =\lim_{n\to \infty}{p(a_1)+p(a_2)+\ldots +p(a_n)\above 1.5pt a_1+a_2\ldots +a_n }\end{equation} Surely $a_k \in [0,9]$ for every $1\leq k \leq n$. Now let $\nu_n(a_k)$ count occurrences of the digit $a_k$ up to and including the n-th decimal place of $a$. Observe the following: the numerator in the above equation can be written explicitly as:

$$ \underbrace{(p(0)+\ldots +p(0))}_{\nu_n(0)\text{ times}}+\ldots+\underbrace{(p(9)+\ldots + p(9))}_{\nu_n(9)\text{ times}}$$ and similarly the denominator may be written as

$$\underbrace{(0+\ldots +0)}_{\nu_n(0)\text{ times}}+\ldots+\underbrace{(9+\ldots + 9)}_{\nu_n(9)\text{ times}}$$ Combining those two observation together we can rewrite the RHS of our first equation as

$$ \lim_{n \to \infty}{\nu_n(0)\times p(0)+\nu_n(1)\times p(1)+\ldots + \nu_n(9)\times p(9)\above 1.5pt \nu_n(0)\times 0+ \nu_n(1)\times1+\ldots + \nu_n(9)\times9} $$

Recall that every digit of $a$ occurs with equal frequency. In particular since $a$ is simply normal we have that $\lim_{n \to \infty}\nu_n(a_j)=\lim_{n \to \infty}\nu_n(a_k)$ for every $j$ and $k$. With out loss to generality we can substitute $\nu_n(j)$ with $\nu_n(1)$ in the numerators and denominators of the equation above and evaluate the limit,

$$\lim_{n \to \infty}{\nu_n(1)\times p(1)+\ldots + \nu_n(1)\times p(9) \above 1.5pt \nu_n(1)\times1+\ldots + \nu_n(1)\times9}$$

We can then pull out the term $ \nu_n(1)$, noticing those terms cancel out in the limit, and make a final simplification to show that $$\lim_{n \to \infty}{\nu_n(1) \above 1.5pt \nu_n(1)}{p(1) +\ldots +p(9)\above 1.5 pt 1+ \ldots +9}={1+1+1+2+3+5+7+11+15+22+30 \above 1.5pt 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9}={ 97 \above 1.5pt 45}.$$

I believe the above solution to Question 1 is correct? Now my understanding is that we have the following implication: base-10 normal $\implies$ base-10 simply normal. So the follow up question seems natural.

Question 2: If $a$ is a base-10 normal is it true that $\beta(a)={97 \above 1.5 pt 45}$ ?

The answer to Question 2 should be yes by implication alone. Moreover it should be true for both algebraic and transcendental base-10 normal numbers. Since I believe I have shown every base-10 simply normal number converges to ${97 \above 1.5 pt 45}$ under $\beta$ and every base-10 normal number is simply normal then so to will every base-10 normal number converge to ${97 \above 1.5 pt 45}$ under $\beta$. It should be clear that the converse two Question 2 is false !

If we believe Questions 1 and 2 are true then we would expect several well known provably base-10 normal constants to converge to ${97 \above 1.5pt 45}$ under $\beta$. So I ran an experiment using data from Sloan's Database on the Erdos-Copeland constants which is proven to be normal in base-10. Using the first $2\text{ }000$ digits I plotted the values of $\beta(\text{Erdos-Copeland})$. The graph below illustrates the convergence. The blue line is the value of ${97 \above 1.5 pt 45}$ and the green graph are the values of the Erdos-Copeland constant under $\beta$. Up to the $2\text{ }000$-th digit $\beta(\text{Erdos-Copeland})=2.12999037999\ldots$ enter image description here

I believe given enough terms one can plot a similar graph for the Champernowne constant and one should expect the convergence to be significantly slower.

Finally it is not known if $\pi$ is normal in base-10. Out of curiosity I computed $\beta(\pi)$ up to the first $500\text{ }000$ digits of $\pi$. See the graph below. Again the blue line is the value of ${97 \above 1.5 pt 45}$ and the orange graph are the values of the $\pi$ under $\beta$. Up to the $500\text{ }000$-th digit $\beta(\pi)=2.153781\ldots$. $\pi$ appears to converge faster under $\beta$ than any other mathematical constant I have looked into. enter image description here

I have numerous plots for zeta values and square roots and they all appear to approach ${97 \above 1.5 pt 45}$ which can be written numerically as $2.15555\ldots$. I have not attempted to plot numbers that are known to be abnormal in base-10.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Instead of replacing $\nu_n(d)$ with $\nu_n(1)$, you might rather divide top and bottom by $n$ and observe that $\frac1n\nu_n(d)\to \frac19$. $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen May 26 '17 at 17:15
  • $\begingroup$ @HagenvonEitzen I cannot quite follow you ? I thought my substitution move was intuitive ? $\endgroup$ – Antonio Hernandez Maquivar May 26 '17 at 17:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think that would make the argument more stringent. But of course the result remains: For simply normal numbers, $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{\sum_{n=1}^N f(a_n)}{\sum_{n=1}^N a_n}= \frac{\sum_{d=0}^9f(d)}{\sum_{d=0}^9d}$$ $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen May 26 '17 at 17:20
  • $\begingroup$ @HagenvonEitzen I think I now understand your comment. $\endgroup$ – Antonio Hernandez Maquivar May 26 '17 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ What exactly is your question? $\endgroup$ – orlp May 26 '17 at 18:23

For simply normal numbers in base $b$ we have $\displaystyle \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{k=1}^n f(a_k) = \frac{n}{b}\sum_{d=0}^{b-1} f(d),$ as for simply normal numbers the digits in the limit all have frequency $\frac{1}{b}$. With that we have

$$\displaystyle \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{A(n)}{B(n)} = \frac{\sum_{d=0}^{b-1}p(d)}{\sum_{d=0}^{b-1}d},$$

which for base 10 does result in $\frac{97}{45}$.

Since base-10 normal implies base-10 simply normal, yes, this also holds for base-10 normal numbers.

  • $\begingroup$ I think I was looking for affirmation to my proof - and maybe this is not the right forum for that. However both you and @HagenvonEitzen have given succinct and more stringent proofs as better alternatives. $\endgroup$ – Antonio Hernandez Maquivar May 26 '17 at 19:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AnthonyHernandez Generally that is fine, but it should be clear that you're looking for verification. $\endgroup$ – orlp May 26 '17 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ Very random comment but a Chaitin's constant $\Omega$ (also called the halting probability) is apparently a normal number that is uncomputable - only a finite number of digits can be written. On the other hand $\beta(\Omega)={97 \above 1.5 pt 45}$ over all it's digits ? $\endgroup$ – Antonio Hernandez Maquivar May 26 '17 at 20:01
  • $\begingroup$ @AnthonyHernandez If it's proven to be normal in base 10, then yes. $\endgroup$ – orlp May 26 '17 at 20:24

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.