The infinite sequence of the digits of pi

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Delta2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pi
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the digits in the infinite decimal expansion of pi, specifically focusing on whether the occurrences of each digit (0-9) are finite or infinite, and the implications of these occurrences on the properties of pi, such as its irrationality and potential pseudo-randomness. Participants explore various bases (decimal, binary, ternary) and their relationships to the digits of pi.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the occurrences of each digit in the decimal expansion of pi are countably infinite, while others express uncertainty about how to prove this.
  • It is suggested that at least two digits must occur infinitely often to avoid pi being a rational number, but proving that all ten digits occur infinitely often remains unresolved.
  • A comparison is made to the ternary expansion, questioning whether each numeral must occur infinitely often and the consequences if they do not.
  • Some participants speculate on the nature of a modified number derived from pi that would have a finite number of zeros yet remain irrational.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of pseudo-randomness in mathematics and whether pi could be considered pseudo-random with only finitely many zeros.
  • Participants discuss the possibility of transcendental numbers having non-uniform digit distributions and the implications for proving certain numbers as transcendental.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the countability of digit occurrences in pi, with some asserting countability and others questioning the ability to prove it. There is no consensus on whether pi has a finite or infinite number of zeros, nor on the implications of digit distribution for pi's properties.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to mathematical concepts such as irrationality, pseudo-randomness, and transcendental numbers, but lacks definitive proofs or resolutions regarding the claims made.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in mathematical properties of irrational numbers, digit distributions in number theory, and the implications of these properties in broader mathematical contexts may find this discussion relevant.

  • #31
Algr said:
But the point is this: As you go from countable to uncountable, the value of the string changes from exactly equal to Pi, to "won't converge".
Even if the construction that you describe were a construction, it does not go from countable to uncountable. A countable collection of countable collections is countable.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker and PeroK
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32
But doesn't Cantor's Diagonal show that the decimals are uncountable? Putting Pi in that format would show that Pi's digits are uncountable too.
 
  • #33
Algr said:
But doesn't Cantor's Diagonal show that the decimals are uncountable? Putting Pi in that format would show that Pi's digits are uncountable too.
It shows that any countable list of countable decimal strings must be incomplete. Every such list must miss at least one decimal string.

It does not show anything about the cardinality of the set of digit positions in a decimal string. It does serve to show that regardless of the cardinality of the set of digit positions, the cardinality of the set of all strings with decimal digits in those positions must exceed that.

If you decide to consider decimal "strings" with ##\aleph_1## many digit positions then you will have a set of decimal "strings" with a cardinality in excess of ##\aleph_1##.

If you decide to consider decimal strings with 2 digit positions then you will have a set of decimal strings with a cardinality in excess of 2. Indeed, 100 is greater than 2.

It is not clear what "putting ##\pi## in that format" even means.

Edit: Some people glance over Cantor's diagonal argument and think that it is an algorithm for creating an uncountable list by iteratively appending more and more numbers at the end of a countable list. That is not how the argument works. It works as @FactChecker outlines below.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Algr said:
But doesn't Cantor's Diagonal show that the decimals are uncountable? Putting Pi in that format would show that Pi's digits are uncountable too.
The diagonal proof constructs one number that is not on the proposed countable list. That number is still represented by a countable number of digits. It is not the countable digits that keeps the list countable. The thing that keeps the list countable is that you can count the members on the list.

PS. If you look at a Cantor diagonal proof that uses the decimal system to represent numbers, you can see that there are enormously more ways to construct numbers not on the list than there are numbers on the list.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444
  • #35
The sequence of decimal digits of any number written in decimal digits is countable per construction. Just count them, one by one. This will be short in the case you count ##0.5## and will take a bit longer in the case of ##\pi.##

However, it could be interesting to discuss the term pseudo-randomness or whether ##\pi## is or is not pseudo-random, but this would be another subject. The digits themselves are only one - and insufficient - way to write ##\pi.## We still do not know enough members of A000796 and its properties. Countability, at least, is certain.

This thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K