Prove that $2^n\alpha-[2^n\alpha]$ is dense in $[0,1]$, if $\alpha$ is a positive irrational number.
$[x]$ represents the largest integer smaller than $x$.
I only know how to prove $n\alpha-[n\alpha]$ is dense in $[0,1]$, using pigeon hole principle.
I am looking for similar method to solve this problem.
- 848
- 4
- 14
-
1Hi, and welcome! Can you please share your thoughts on the problem and explain what tools you have available, and what you've tried? Without context or details, it's difficult to answer the question and your question might be closed; so please edit your post. – Dec 16 '13 at 05:46
-
As a note, from wikipedia, we have this problem is true for almost $\alpha$. – Du Phan Dec 16 '13 at 07:06
1 Answers
The statement is not true.
Recall that a number is rational if and only if the decimal representation (in any base) terminates or is eventually repeating.
Let $0< \beta < 1 $ be any irrational number. Let it's base 3 representation be $0. b_1 b_2 b_3 \ldots$. (I'm using base 3 to reduce confusion with the latter part. If you want, you can use base 2 here.)
Henceforth, we are working in base 2.
Construct the following irrational number $\alpha$ (in base 2).
Start with 0.1,
then add $b_1+1$ 0's and then a 1,
then add $b_2+1$ 0's and then a 1,
then add $b_3+1$ 0's and then a 1, etc.
For example, if $b_1 = 0, b_2 = 1, b_3 = 2, b_4 = 0, b_5=2 \ldots$, we get the number $ \alpha = 0.1010010001010001\ldots$.
This number is irrational because the binary representation doesn't terminate nor eventually repeat (from the construction).
Claim: The sequence $2^n \alpha - \lfloor 2^n \alpha \rfloor $ does not have $\frac{1}{2} = 0.1_2$ as a limit point.
This is obvious since it never takes on any value in the range $(0.\overline{01}_2, 0.\overline{1000}_2)$, which has a length of $\frac{1}{5}$! Pretty amazing eh?
- 68,864
-
Sorry if I missunderstand something. Is $4\alpha$ mod $1$ in base $2$ is: $0.100\ldots$? Then it is in your interval. – Du Phan Dec 16 '13 at 06:59
-
@DuPhan That is true. I've changed the upper limit, and it's open on that side. – Calvin Lin Dec 16 '13 at 07:09
-
Excellent! I understand your approach now. $0.10001$ is enough. Thanks! – Du Phan Dec 16 '13 at 07:18
-
-
-
@DuPhan Ah, but the best bound is the one I stated lol. It doesn't really matter, as long as you get why $0.1$ is avoided. That was what led to my construction, and you should see why I needed a sequence of 1, 2, 3 (which doesn't include 0). – Calvin Lin Dec 16 '13 at 07:49
-
@CalvinLin: I know, just see you edit your bound, so I think you want :) By the way, i think it is easier to see there is no 11 and 0000 in the sequence. Ah, I see now, your bound is better. :) – Du Phan Dec 16 '13 at 08:16