I'm starting as a private Math tutor for a high school kid; in one of his Math Laboratories (that came with an answer sheet) I was stumped by an answer I encountered in the True or False section (I'm certain it should've been a False):

The number 4.212112111211112... is a rational number.

I've been searching through several threads and search results, but I haven't found anything that confirms or denies this.

My reasoning to answer 'False' is that, since the pattern is non-terminating and will never repeat, then it must be an Irrational number; granted, there is a predictable pattern ... but it is not repeating.

Am I wrong? I just want to make sure I give this kid the correct answer.


A number is rational if and only if it has an eventually repeating decimal representation. So a number like


or $$4.999212121...$$

is rational, while the number


is not.


A real number is rational if and only if its decimal expansion terminates or eventually repeats.

Lemma: Every prime $p \neq 2, 5$ divides a repunit.

Proof of Lemma:

Fix a prime $p \neq 2,5$. Let $\textbf{A}$ be the set of repunits, so

$$\textbf{A} = \left\{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n} 10^{k-1} \, \mid \, n \in \mathbb{N} \right\} = \left\{\frac{10^n -1}{9} \, \mid \, n \in \mathbb{N} \right\}$$

Consider the repunits, modulo $p$. Since $\mathbb{N}$ is not a finite set, neither is $\textbf{A}$. There are a finite number of remainders modulo $p$ (specifically, $p$ possible remainders).

There are (infinitely) more repunits than remainders modulo $p$. Thus, there must exist two distinct repunits with the same residue modulo $p$. So $$ \exists \, a, b \in \textbf{A} \,\, \text{s.t.} \,\,\,\,\,\, a \equiv b \pmod{p}, \,\, a \neq b$$

Without loss of generality, assume $a > b$.

Since $a, b \in \textbf{A}$, $\exists \, x, y \in \mathbb{N}$ with $x > y$ such that

$$a = \frac{10^x - 1}{9}$$

$$b = \frac{10^y - 1}{9}$$

We can substitute in to $a \equiv b \pmod{p}$ to get:

$$\frac{10^x - 1}{9} \equiv \frac{10^y - 1}{9} \pmod{p}$$

$$\frac{\left(10^x - 1\right)-\left( 10^y - 1\right)}{9}\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$$

$$\frac{10^x-10^y}{9} \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$$

$$\frac{\left(10^y\right)\left(10^{x-y}-1 \right)}{9}\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$$

We know that $p \nmid 10^y$, because $p$ is not $2$ or $5$. Since $\mathbb{Z}/p\,\mathbb{Z}$, the ring of integers modulo $p$, has no zero divisors (because $p$ is prime),

$$\frac{10^{x-y}-1}{9}\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$$

This is a repunit.

Since our choice of $p \neq 2, 5$ was arbitrary, we have proved that every prime that is not $2$ or $5$ divides a repunit. It follows that every prime that is not $2$ or $5$ divides nine times a repunit (a positive integer whose digits are all nines).

Note that this proof applies to any value of $p$ (not necessarily prime) so that $p$ is not divisible by $2$ or $5$. The step involving the absence of zero divisors in $\mathbb{Z}/p\,\mathbb{Z}$ can be modified to state that $\gcd\left(10^y, p\right) = 1$ when $2 \nmid p$ and $5 \nmid p$.

Every rational number has a decimal representation that either terminates or eventually repeats.


Consider a positive rational number $N = r/s$ for $r, s \in \mathbb{N}$ with $\gcd(r,s) = 1$.

If $s=1$, $N$ trivially has a terminating decimal expansion. Suppose $s \neq 1$.

Let $m_i$ be positive integers and $q_i \in \mathbb{N}$ be $n$ primes with $q_k < q_{k+1}$ so that

$$s = q_{1}^{m_1} \cdot q_{2}^{m_2} \cdots q_{n}^{m_n} = \displaystyle\prod\limits_{k=1}^{n} q_{k}^{m_k}$$

We'll do casework on the prime factorization of $s$, the denominator of $N$.

  • Case $1$: The $q_i$ consist only of a $2$ and/or a $5$.

In this case, the decimal expansion of $r/s$ terminates because $N$ can be written as $M/\left(10^z\right)$ for some $M, z \in \mathbb{N}$.

  • Case $2$: $q_i \neq 2, 5$ for all $i \in \mathbb{N}, \, 1 \leq i \leq n$

As noted above (below the proof of the lemma), every natural number that is not divisible by $2$ or $5$ divides nine times a repunit. Thus, in this case, $s$ divides nine times a repunit. There exist $x_0, y_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $$x_0 \cdot s = 10^{y_0}-1$$

$$ s = \frac{10^{y_0}-1}{x_0}$$

Now we can rewrite $N$:

$$N = \frac{r}{s} = \frac{r \cdot x_0}{10^{y_0}-1}$$

Since $r \cdot x_0 \in \mathbb{N}$, this is a positive integer divided by nine times a repunit. We know that this gives a repeating decimal, with a period that divides $y_0$.

  • Case $3$: The $q_i$ consist of a mix of primes equal to $2$ or $5$, and other primes.

In this case $N$ can be written as the product of two rational numbers, call them $N_1$ and $N_2$, that fit cases $1$ and $2$, respectively. Then there exist, $M, z, r, x_0, y_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $$ N = N_1 \cdot N_2 = \frac{M}{10^z} \cdot \frac{x_0 \cdot r}{10^{y_0}-1}$$

$$ N = \frac{1}{10^z} \cdot \frac{M \cdot x_0 \cdot r}{10^{y_0} -1}$$

The factor of $1/\left(10^z\right)$ only shifts the decimal representation by $z$ places. The other factor must be a repeating decimal with a period that divides $y_0$. Thus, the decimal expansion of $N$ eventually repeats.

Thus, every rational number has a decimal representation that either terminates or eventually repeats.

The contrapositive of the statement we just proved shows that the number you encountered is irrational. If a real number does not have a terminating or eventually repeating decimal expansion, then it is not rational.

Note that the converse is also true: every decimal number that either terminates or eventually repeats is a rational number. This is easier to prove.

The number you encountered was not rational, not a terminating decimal, nor an eventually repeating decimal.

Well-known examples of other real numbers that have predictable patterns but are not rational include Champernowne's number and Liouville's constant.

  • $\begingroup$ I apologize for the lengthiness of this answer, and for the abundance of variables used. $\endgroup$ – Zubin Mukerjee Nov 29 '13 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ No need to apologize; I'm still digesting the length of the proof, but I'm amazed at the quality of your response. Thank you very much! $\endgroup$ – rolandog Dec 2 '13 at 15:30

The number 4.212112111211112... is not a rational number , since the pattern is non-terminating and will never repeat .

You can not write this as a ratio of rational number .


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.