Periodicity of Decimal Expansion

Gear300
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
9
I am asked to prove that a real number is rational if and only if it has a periodic decimal expansion.

I have shown that any periodic decimal expansion has an integer p such that multiplication returns an integer. For the case of showing that all rational numbers have a periodic decimal expansion, I have shown that the expansion can eventually become periodic (repeated 9's being a trivial case)...but I'm not sure if this is what is being. If it isn't, then is it true that any rational number has an entirely periodic decimal expansion (I can't really come up with an example for some numbers)?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Gear300 said:
If it isn't, then is it true that any rational number has an entirely periodic decimal expansion (I can't really come up with an example for some numbers)?

Yes it is true (assuming that by "periodic" you mean either recurring or terminating).

I'm not sure of the best way to formalize this into a proof, but the standard way of demonstrating it is by long division (of "n" by "d"). Here it is obvious that with each division by "d" there can be at most "d" different remainders (including a zero remainder). So eventually (that is, after you've gone through all the digits of the dividend "n" and are working on the ".0000..." part at the end) if you ever get a zero remainder then the decimal expansion terminates right there. Now if no zero remainder occurs but the same remainder ever reoccurs then the decimal expansion must repeat from that point.

This demonstrates that the decimal expansion of the fraction "n/d" either terminates or it repeats with a maximum cycle length of "d-1" digits (corresponding the the "d-1" maximum number of possible different non zero remainders that you can get when you divide by "d").

Do the long hand division of 1 divide 7 (7 into 1.00000000...) and you'll soon see how this works in practice. You keep getting a different non-zero remainder for the first 6 divisions, but obviously that situation can't continue for ever and of course you eventually get a remainder that's you've already had, and at that point the decimal expansion repeats.
 
Last edited:
I would just put the specific calculation uart talks about in general terms:

Saying that a number has "periodic" decimal expansion means it is of the form "N.a_1a_2...a_nb_1b_2...b_mb_1b_2...b_m..." where "N" is the integer part, a_1a_2...a_n is the non-repeating decimal part, and b_1b_2...b_m is the part that now repeats endlessly.

Let x= N.a_1a_2...a_nb_1b_2...b_mb_1b_2...b_m.... Then 10^nx= 10^nN+ a_1a_2...a_n.b_1b_2...b_mb_1b_2...b_m... and 10^{n+m}x= 10^{n+ m}N+a_1a_2...a_nb_1b_2...b_m.b_1b_2...b_mb_1b_2...b_m... so that the difference is
(10^{n+m}- 10^n)x= 10^{n+ m}N+ a_1a_2...a_nb_1b_2...b_m- 10^nN+ a_1a_2...an

That is, an integer times x is equal to an integer so x is a fraction.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top