Non-Negative Integer Binary Concatenation: Is This an Irrational Number?

In summary, the number spoken about is called Jimmy's snide remark and is one tenth the Champernowne constant.
  • #1
Jimmy Snyder
1,127
20
I am interested in the following number which is obtained by concatenting the binary representations of the non-negative integers:

.011011100101110111...

i.e. dot 0 1 10 11 100 101 110 111 ...

This is a little bigger than .43 and I assume it irrational since no pattern of bits repeats forever. I assume that I am not the first to become interested in it, so I wonder if it has already been given a name.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It is actually called Jimmy's snide Remark.
 
  • #3
arildno said:
It is actually called Jimmy's snide Remark.
Is this a pun on my name, or did I inadvertently say something snide?
 
  • #4
when watching that i have a doubt...

once i read in a number theory book that existed a series (i think it was over primes) that gives you a sequence of primes in the form:

[tex] 0.p100p2000p30000p4.... [/tex] or something similar i think it

was related to the calculation of the series [tex] f(x)=\sum_{p}10^{-p} [/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #5
The number that I posted has this obvious characteristic: Every finite sequence of 1's and 0's is found in it. Therefore, every idea that can be written down in finitely many bits is there. For instance, all of the works of Shakespeare are there, complete with typesetting commands. And yet it's just a single irrational number like [itex]\pi[/itex] or e.
 
  • #6
It looks to be one tenth the Champernowne constant, the base 2 version that is. What's usually called the Champernowne constant is the base 10 version, just writing all the numbers in order, 0.123456789101112131415..., and of course you can do this for any base. They're built to be normal numbers (and are of course irrational).
 
  • #7
You mean one half of the base 2 Campernowne constant?
 
  • #8
jimmysnyder said:
Is this a pun on my name, or did I inadvertently say something snide?
Do you think Newton declared the units of force to be Newtons?
Do you think Gauss called Gauss' theorem Gauss' theorem?
 
  • #9
shmoe said:
It looks to be one tenth the Champernowne constant.
Thanks shmoe, you and this forum are an invaluable resource.
 
  • #10
arildno said:
Do you think Newton declared the units of force to be Newtons?
Do you think Gauss called Gauss' theorem Gauss' theorem?
It was intended as a joke. Sorry you didn't get it.
Newton said:
I assume that I am not the first to become interested in it, so I wonder if it has already been given a name.
 
  • #11
Anyhow, it was an interesting number, I'll grant you that.
 
  • #12
Nimz said:
You mean one half of the base 2 Campernowne constant?

I mean the Champernowne constant divided by 10.:tongue:

Thanks for the correction.
 
  • #13
shmoe said:
I mean the Champernowne constant divided by 10.
According to this article, there is more than one Champernowne constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champernowne_constant
In particular, the number I spoke of in the original post is in the notation of that site [itex]C_2 / 2[/itex]. I am not concerned about the factor of 1/2, and so I transfer my interest to [itex]C_2[/itex]. Thanks again to everyone for your interest and help.
 
  • #14
jimmysnyder said:
According to this article, there is more than one Champernowne constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champernowne_constant
In particular, the number I spoke of in the original post is in the notation of that site [itex]C_2 / 2[/itex]. I am not concerned about the factor of 1/2, and so I transfer my interest to [itex]C_2[/itex]. Thanks again to everyone for your interest and help.

That's what I meant by the 'base 2 version'. Divided by 10 was a weak attempt at correcting my one tenth gaff with some binary humour.
 
  • #15
shmoe said:
That's what I meant by the 'base 2 version'. Divided by 10 was a weak attempt at correcting my one tenth gaff with some binary humour.
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who know binary when they see it and those who don't. I didn't, but now I do.
 
  • #16
-I don,t know if Gauss called his law "Gauss Theorem" (perhaps by humility scientist don,t give his name or baptize it with other people name) but Gauss and Newton were very arrogant, in fact you will now the "Egregium theorem by Gauss" in latin egregium meaning supreme or best..so i don,t think he was very "humble" ...:) :) :) :)
 

1. What is a non-negative integer binary concatenation?

Non-negative integer binary concatenation is a mathematical operation where two or more non-negative integers are combined by placing them side by side. For example, the concatenation of the numbers 4 and 6 would result in the number 46.

2. What is an irrational number?

An irrational number is a number that cannot be represented as a simple fraction, and its decimal representation does not terminate or repeat. Examples of irrational numbers include pi and the square root of 2.

3. Is the non-negative integer binary concatenation of two irrational numbers always irrational?

No, it is possible for the concatenation of two irrational numbers to result in a rational number. For example, the concatenation of the irrational numbers pi and 0.333... (repeating decimal of 1/3) would result in the rational number 3.141592653...

4. Can the non-negative integer binary concatenation of two rational numbers result in an irrational number?

Yes, it is possible for the concatenation of two rational numbers to result in an irrational number. For example, the concatenation of the rational numbers 0.5 and 0.333... (repeating decimal of 1/3) would result in the irrational number 0.5333333...

5. How can we determine if the non-negative integer binary concatenation of two numbers is irrational?

The irrationality of the concatenation of two numbers cannot be determined solely by the numbers themselves. It would depend on the specific numbers being concatenated and whether their decimal representations result in a repeating pattern or not. In some cases, it may also require further mathematical analysis to prove the irrationality of the resulting number.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
7
Views
10K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
8
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
955
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
2
Replies
59
Views
16K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top