I'm doing self study out of Apostol's Calculus vol. I and I got stuck trying to prove what the author writes is easy to verify, but I can't get my head around it. Basically, this is the problem statement from page 31, last paragraph:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Given a positive real number x, let a0 denote the largest integer <= x. Having chosen a0, we let a1 denote the largest integer such that

a0 + (a1)/10 <= x.

More generally, having chosen a0, a1,...,an-1, we let an denote the largest integer such that

a0 + (a1)/10 + ... + (an)/10^n <= x.

Then let S denote the set of all numbers obtained this way for n = 0, 1, 2, ...

I understand the construction of set S because I have proven before that the greatest integer in a positive real number exists, hence the set is nonempty. I also see that

a0 + (a1)/10 + ... + (an + 1)/10^n is an upper bound, so this property with the nonemptyness of S guarantees that S has a supremum, say b. The punchline is that I want to verify that x = b.

I'm not trying to prove here that .999... = 1. I know that and can prove it using geometric series and algebraic arguments. I want to rigorously prove the above using just the bare essentials (ie. axioms) of the real number system.

I was thinking of arguing by contradiction that x > b or x < b is impossible. My other thought for a rough sketch was that to prove that the infinum of the set for decimal expansion of x - b is 0, but I don't know where to start really. Thanks in advance.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Decimal representation of real numbers

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**