0
$\begingroup$

According to this video, $\varphi$ is the most irrational number, due to its continued fraction form having $1$, the smallest natural number, in the denominators.

Is it not possible to construct a "more irrational" number by using $0$?

For example,

$\iota = 1 + \cfrac{1}{0 + \cfrac{1}{1 + \cfrac{1}{0 + \cfrac{1}{1+\cdots} } } }$

Based on the argument in the video, this would appear to be more irrational.

What am I missing?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This number is $1+1+1+1+...$ because the recipricals cancel. $\endgroup$
    – Empy2
    Sep 25 '18 at 20:11
3
$\begingroup$

No because $$\iota = 1 + \cfrac{1}{0 + \cfrac{1}{1 + \cfrac{1}{0 + \cfrac{1}{1+\cdots} } } } = 1 + \cfrac{1}{ \cfrac{1}{1 + \cfrac{1}{ \cfrac{1}{1+\cdots} } } }$$\ $$=1 + 1+\cfrac{1} {\cfrac{1}{1+\cdots}}=1+1+1+\ldots $$

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand how you go from form two to three, if anything, it looks like the $1/1$s would cancel, and it would be identical to the continued fraction form of $\varphi$ - which I guess also answers my question. $\endgroup$
    – RoadieRich
    Sep 25 '18 at 20:30
  • $\begingroup$ No, when two of the $1$’s cancel the rest is in the numerator, not the denominator $\endgroup$ Sep 25 '18 at 20:59

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.