B Squaring finite decimals of 2/3 and 1/3 - growing patterns

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter bahamagreen
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the patterns observed when squaring finite decimal approximations of 2/3 and 1/3, revealing a series of growing segments of identical digits. Squaring these approximations, such as 0.666 and 0.333, produces results that exhibit a consistent structure, with the digits separating into distinct segments. This phenomenon is linked to the properties of base 10 and the nature of recurring decimals, particularly how they interact during multiplication. The mathematical expressions provided illustrate how these patterns emerge through specific calculations involving the digits and their placements. Overall, the regularity in the results stems from the unique characteristics of fractions like 1/3 and 2/3 in decimal form.
bahamagreen
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
52
TL;DR Summary
The number of decimal repeats feeds segments of the square with same digits
I was doing some probability calculations that include squaring a number between 0 and 1.
When I approximate 2/3 using 0.6 or 0.66 or 0.666 etc. I get an interesting series of growing same digit segments...

0.6^2=0.36
0.66^2=0.4356
0.666^2=0.443556
0.6666^2=0.44435556
0.66666^2=0.4444355556
0.666666^2=0.444443555556

And (2/3)^2=0.4444444444444...

Similar thing squaring 1/3 approximated as 0.3 or 0.33 or 0.333 etc.

What is this called?
Is it an artifact of base 10?
Sometimes a long division yields a repeating remainder so a similar string of repeats forms, but this is multiplication that produces two growing strings that preserve the digits that separate the strings.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You can investigate this by observing that the n-th item in your sequence is
\begin{align*}\left(\frac23 \times (1 - 10^{-n})\right)^2
&=\left(\frac23\right)^2 \times \left(1 - 2 \times 10^{-n} + 10^{-2n}\right)
\\&=0.\dot4 - 0.0...(n\mathrm{\ zeros})...0\dot8 + 0.0...(2n\mathrm{\ zeros})...0\dot4
\end{align*}
That gives a decimal with zero before the decimal point and 2n digits after the decimal point, with those digits given by:
$$0.4...(n\mathrm{\ fours})...40...(n\mathrm{\ zeros})...0 - 0.0...(n\mathrm{\ zeros})...04...(n\mathrm{\ fours})...4$$
eg the 3rd number is:
\begin{align*}
&0.444000-\\
&0.000444\\
=&0.443556\end{align*}
You can see how the regularity arises from the regularity of that subtraction.

Similarly, with 1/3 we have that the n-th item is
$$0.1...(n\mathrm{\ ones})...10...(n\mathrm{\ zeros})...0 - 0.0...(n\mathrm{\ zeros})...01...(n\mathrm{\ ones})...1$$
eg the 3rd number is:
\begin{align*}
&0.111000-\\
&0.000111\\
=&0.110889\end{align*}

The neat patterns arise for 1/3 and 2/3 because d/9 has base 10 representation of d-recurring. Other bases will have similar patterns for different numerals.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes dextercioby, e_jane, DrClaude and 1 other person
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
14K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Back
Top