3
$\begingroup$

If we calculate the continued fraction of Champerowne's number $$0.1234567891011121314151617181920\cdots $$ it turns out that it contains very large entries

How can I understand this intuitively ?

The decimal representation of Champerowne's number must have parts which make the number look like a rational because of appearing periods, but it is not obvious where these (large) periods should be.

Many zeros (making the number look like to have a terminating decimal expansion) occur later, so they do not explain the large entries.

Any ideas ?

  • 0
    How many continuants have you sampled? Are you asking about the first few terms, or the longer term behavior? – 2017-01-14
  • 0
    Very large numbers occur quite soon. The sequence of the number of digits of the entries starts with : $$0 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 6 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 166 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 3 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 2504 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 1 $$ according to PARI/GP, which obviously gives the value $0$ for the number $0$ – 2017-01-14
  • 2
    Looking at the Wikipedia article, it seems to me the large entries occur when the decimal expansion is of the form $...9899100...$. – 2017-01-14
  • 0
    @hardmath I would be content to understant the $166$-digit entry and the $2504$-digit-entry – 2017-01-14
  • 1
    Also see [this paper](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022314X05800393), which proves that Champernowne's number has irrationality measure $10$. I don't totally understand it, but skimming it suggests that @RosieF's rational approximations are in fact the key ones (they appear in identity 3.1 of the paper). – 2017-01-14

1 Answers 1

6

As a first-order approximation, it is very close to

$ 10/81 = 0.1 + 0.02 + 0.003 + \dots = 0.123456790123\dots $

As a second,

$ 1/9801 = 0.0001 + 0.000002 + \dots = 0.0001020304050607080910111213\dots $

so it should not come as a surprise that Champernowne's [sic] number is close to the sum of $10/81$ and another rational which is a multiple of $1/(9801\cdot10^8)$, the factor $10^8$ being needed to shift the $10111213\dots$ part 8 decimal places to the right, to leave the initial $0.12345678$ alone (the $9$ is already in the correct place w.r.t. the following $10$). In fact

$ 10/81-1002/980100000000 \approx 0.12345678910111213\dots96979900010203040506070809\dots$

  • 0
    I knew the first approximtaion-fraction, but the second is very impressive indeed! – 2017-01-14