Prove that every real number x in [0,1] has a decimal expansion.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Every real number x in the interval [0,1] possesses a decimal expansion, as established through a proof by contradiction. The proof assumes the existence of a real number t in [0,1] without a decimal expansion, leading to a contradiction by demonstrating that the union of intervals I_{k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_n} covers the entire interval [0,1]. The intervals are defined such that each k_i is an integer between 0 and 9, and the intervals are constructed to show that t must belong to one of them, thereby confirming that every real number in [0,1] has a decimal representation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of real numbers and intervals
  • Familiarity with sequences and infinite series
  • Knowledge of proof by contradiction techniques
  • Basic concepts of decimal expansions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of real numbers in the context of topology
  • Explore the concept of Cantor sets and their relation to decimal expansions
  • Learn about the completeness of the real numbers
  • Investigate the implications of decimal expansions in numerical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in real analysis or the foundations of number theory will benefit from this discussion.

robertjordan
Messages
71
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that every real number x in [0,1] has a decimal expansion.


Homework Equations



Let x\in{[0,1]}, then the decimal expansion for x is an infinite sequence (k_{i})^{\infty}_{i=1} such that for all i, k_i is an integer between 0 and 9 and such that x\in\left[\frac{k_1}{10}+\frac{k_2}{10^2}+\cdots +\frac{k_n}{10^n},\frac{k_1}{10} +\frac{k_2}{10^2}+ \cdots +\frac{k_{n}+1}{10^n}\right].

We call that interval above I_{k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_n}

The Attempt at a Solution



Assume BWOC that there exists a real number t\in[0,1] with no decimal expansion. That means there exists an N\in{\mathbb{Z}} such that for all sequences (k_{i})^{N}_{i=1}, t{\notin}\left[\frac{k_1}{10}+\frac{k_2}{10^2}+\cdots +\frac{k_N}{10^N},\frac{k_1}{10}+ \frac{k_2}{10^2}+ \cdots +\frac{k_{N}+1}{10^N}\right].

But I_{0,0,\ldots,0}\cup I_{0,0,\ldots,0,1} \cup I_{0,0,\ldots,0,2} \cup \cdots \cup I_{9,9,9,\ldots,9} = [0,1]
(That big string of unions is supposed to denote breaking up [0,1] into the union of intervals of size 10-N, but I didn't know how exactly to write it... you get the idea though.)

So t{\notin}I_{0,0,\ldots,0}\wedge t{\notin}I_{0,0,\ldots,0,1} \wedge t{\notin}I_{0,0,\ldots,0,2} \wedge \cdots \wedge t{\notin}I_{9,9,9,\ldots,9} implies t{\notin}[0,1], which is a contradiction.



How does this look? Advice?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You have to be careful with the negation. "For all x exists a sequence such that for all i [...]" negated is "There is a t without a sequence such that for all i [...]", or "There is a t such that for all sequences, there is an i where [...] is wrong."
The problem here: Those intervals for different i are not independent. If you consider some specific i, it is possible to find an appropriate interval, sure. But that restricts the intervals for other i. The proof is still possible, but you have to take care of this. You could consider the first i where t is not in the interval, for example - if there are i with that property, there is a first one as well.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
13K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
11K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
12K