Understanding Normal Numbers
I am trying to understand what normal numbers are. Just for simplicity I want to talk about base 10. I understand that a number is normal in base 10 if there a probability of $frac{1}{10
} $ such that the numbers 0-9 pop up and a probability of $frac{1}{100}$ that the numbers $0-99$ pop up in the decimal expansion and so on...
However I am wondering, in this case when we talk about normal numbers we are only talking about irrational numbers since numbers like $2$ or $3$ don't have a decimal expansion so there is no sense in talking about them as normal numbers?
Or for example a number like $frac{1}{3} = 0.3333..$ is not normal base 10 since it's decimal expansion only contains the number 3.
I am just wondering if a normal number has to do anything with the normal form of a number.
decimal-expansion
edited Dec 1 '18 at 22:25
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.8k8158246
asked Dec 1 '18 at 20:39
Sasha
537
|
show 11 more comments
I am trying to understand what normal numbers are. Just for simplicity I want to talk about base 10. I understand that a number is normal in base 10 if there a probability of $frac{1}{10
} $ such that the numbers 0-9 pop up and a probability of $frac{1}{100}$ that the numbers $0-99$ pop up in the decimal expansion and so on...
However I am wondering, in this case when we talk about normal numbers we are only talking about irrational numbers since numbers like $2$ or $3$ don't have a decimal expansion so there is no sense in talking about them as normal numbers?
Or for example a number like $frac{1}{3} = 0.3333..$ is not normal base 10 since it's decimal expansion only contains the number 3.
I am just wondering if a normal number has to do anything with the normal form of a number.
decimal-expansion
edited Dec 1 '18 at 22:25
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.8k8158246
asked Dec 1 '18 at 20:39
Sasha
537
1
Numbers like 2 and 3 certainly do have decimal expansions. For example, $$2 = 2.000overline{0}. $$
– Xander Henderson
Dec 1 '18 at 20:42
A normal number (even one which is only normal in base ten) must necessarily be irrational, yes. Most real numbers are normal, yet the only numbers we know to be normal are the ones we have explicitly constructed to be normal.
– Arthur
Dec 1 '18 at 20:43
1
Normal doesn't just refer to single digits. Yes, each digit should occur with probability $frac 1{10}$ but each pair of digits should occur with probability $frac 1{100}$ and so on. See, e.g., this. But yes, normal implies irrational.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 20:46
1
@Sasha Yes. But that does not imply irrational. The rational number $.overline {0123456789}$ is simply normal in that sense. Proper normality is a much more interesting property.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 20:57
1
Actually my proof should be modified slightly to take into account the fact that the period may not start right away. Easy to handle...suppose there are $Q$ terms before the period of length $P$ starts and replace the $2P$ in my expression by $2(P+Q)$ or such.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 21:15
|
show 11 more comments
I am trying to understand what normal numbers are. Just for simplicity I want to talk about base 10. I understand that a number is normal in base 10 if there a probability of $frac{1}{10
} $ such that the numbers 0-9 pop up and a probability of $frac{1}{100}$ that the numbers $0-99$ pop up in the decimal expansion and so on...
However I am wondering, in this case when we talk about normal numbers we are only talking about irrational numbers since numbers like $2$ or $3$ don't have a decimal expansion so there is no sense in talking about them as normal numbers?
Or for example a number like $frac{1}{3} = 0.3333..$ is not normal base 10 since it's decimal expansion only contains the number 3.
I am just wondering if a normal number has to do anything with the normal form of a number.
decimal-expansion
edited Dec 1 '18 at 22:25
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.8k8158246
asked Dec 1 '18 at 20:39
Sasha
537
I am trying to understand what normal numbers are. Just for simplicity I want to talk about base 10. I understand that a number is normal in base 10 if there a probability of $frac{1}{10
} $ such that the numbers 0-9 pop up and a probability of $frac{1}{100}$ that the numbers $0-99$ pop up in the decimal expansion and so on...
However I am wondering, in this case when we talk about normal numbers we are only talking about irrational numbers since numbers like $2$ or $3$ don't have a decimal expansion so there is no sense in talking about them as normal numbers?
Or for example a number like $frac{1}{3} = 0.3333..$ is not normal base 10 since it's decimal expansion only contains the number 3.
I am just wondering if a normal number has to do anything with the normal form of a number.
decimal-expansion
decimal-expansion
edited Dec 1 '18 at 22:25
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.8k8158246
asked Dec 1 '18 at 20:39
Sasha
537
edited Dec 1 '18 at 22:25
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.8k8158246
asked Dec 1 '18 at 20:39
Sasha
537
edited Dec 1 '18 at 22:25
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.8k8158246
edited Dec 1 '18 at 22:25
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.8k8158246
edited Dec 1 '18 at 22:25
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.8k8158246
64.8k8158246
asked Dec 1 '18 at 20:39
Sasha
537
asked Dec 1 '18 at 20:39
Sasha
537
asked Dec 1 '18 at 20:39
Sasha
537
537
1
Numbers like 2 and 3 certainly do have decimal expansions. For example, $$2 = 2.000overline{0}. $$
– Xander Henderson
Dec 1 '18 at 20:42
A normal number (even one which is only normal in base ten) must necessarily be irrational, yes. Most real numbers are normal, yet the only numbers we know to be normal are the ones we have explicitly constructed to be normal.
– Arthur
Dec 1 '18 at 20:43
1
Normal doesn't just refer to single digits. Yes, each digit should occur with probability $frac 1{10}$ but each pair of digits should occur with probability $frac 1{100}$ and so on. See, e.g., this. But yes, normal implies irrational.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 20:46
1
@Sasha Yes. But that does not imply irrational. The rational number $.overline {0123456789}$ is simply normal in that sense. Proper normality is a much more interesting property.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 20:57
1
Actually my proof should be modified slightly to take into account the fact that the period may not start right away. Easy to handle...suppose there are $Q$ terms before the period of length $P$ starts and replace the $2P$ in my expression by $2(P+Q)$ or such.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 21:15
|
show 11 more comments
1
Numbers like 2 and 3 certainly do have decimal expansions. For example, $$2 = 2.000overline{0}. $$
– Xander Henderson
Dec 1 '18 at 20:42
A normal number (even one which is only normal in base ten) must necessarily be irrational, yes. Most real numbers are normal, yet the only numbers we know to be normal are the ones we have explicitly constructed to be normal.
– Arthur
Dec 1 '18 at 20:43
1
Normal doesn't just refer to single digits. Yes, each digit should occur with probability $frac 1{10}$ but each pair of digits should occur with probability $frac 1{100}$ and so on. See, e.g., this. But yes, normal implies irrational.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 20:46
1
@Sasha Yes. But that does not imply irrational. The rational number $.overline {0123456789}$ is simply normal in that sense. Proper normality is a much more interesting property.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 20:57
1
Actually my proof should be modified slightly to take into account the fact that the period may not start right away. Easy to handle...suppose there are $Q$ terms before the period of length $P$ starts and replace the $2P$ in my expression by $2(P+Q)$ or such.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 21:15
1
1
Numbers like 2 and 3 certainly do have decimal expansions. For example, $$2 = 2.000overline{0}. $$
– Xander Henderson
Dec 1 '18 at 20:42
Numbers like 2 and 3 certainly do have decimal expansions. For example, $$2 = 2.000overline{0}. $$
– Xander Henderson
Dec 1 '18 at 20:42
A normal number (even one which is only normal in base ten) must necessarily be irrational, yes. Most real numbers are normal, yet the only numbers we know to be normal are the ones we have explicitly constructed to be normal.
– Arthur
Dec 1 '18 at 20:43
A normal number (even one which is only normal in base ten) must necessarily be irrational, yes. Most real numbers are normal, yet the only numbers we know to be normal are the ones we have explicitly constructed to be normal.
– Arthur
Dec 1 '18 at 20:43
1
1
Normal doesn't just refer to single digits. Yes, each digit should occur with probability $frac 1{10}$ but each pair of digits should occur with probability $frac 1{100}$ and so on. See, e.g., this. But yes, normal implies irrational.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 20:46
Normal doesn't just refer to single digits. Yes, each digit should occur with probability $frac 1{10}$ but each pair of digits should occur with probability $frac 1{100}$ and so on. See, e.g., this. But yes, normal implies irrational.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 20:46
1
1
@Sasha Yes. But that does not imply irrational. The rational number $.overline {0123456789}$ is simply normal in that sense. Proper normality is a much more interesting property.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 20:57
@Sasha Yes. But that does not imply irrational. The rational number $.overline {0123456789}$ is simply normal in that sense. Proper normality is a much more interesting property.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 20:57
1
1
Actually my proof should be modified slightly to take into account the fact that the period may not start right away. Easy to handle...suppose there are $Q$ terms before the period of length $P$ starts and replace the $2P$ in my expression by $2(P+Q)$ or such.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 21:15
Actually my proof should be modified slightly to take into account the fact that the period may not start right away. Easy to handle...suppose there are $Q$ terms before the period of length $P$ starts and replace the $2P$ in my expression by $2(P+Q)$ or such.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 21:15
|
show 11 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
As you noted a normal number ( in some basis) is necessarily irrational. We know (it was proved by E. Borel) that ''almost all'' (in the sense of measure theory) real numbers are absolutely normal normal, that is normal in all basis, but the proof is not constructive, and it is not clear if there is some computable normal number. What we can say is that we dont know if nubers as $pi, e, sqrt{2}$ are normal also in base $10$ .
We know that the Champernowne number is normal in base $10$ but it is not normal in all basis.
You can also see here for the problem of construction of a normal number.
answered Dec 1 '18 at 21:01
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
It actually known that it's not normal in all bases, or just unknown whether it is? I've always thought it was the latter, but I don't have any support for that. If the former, do you know of a reference?
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:03
I did not verify the proof, but here (google.it/… ) the autors say that Champernowne’s number fails to be strongly normal.
– Emilio Novati
Dec 1 '18 at 21:20
Thank you. I'll enjoy reading this, I'm sure.
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:37
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021804%2funderstanding-normal-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As you noted a normal number ( in some basis) is necessarily irrational. We know (it was proved by E. Borel) that ''almost all'' (in the sense of measure theory) real numbers are absolutely normal normal, that is normal in all basis, but the proof is not constructive, and it is not clear if there is some computable normal number. What we can say is that we dont know if nubers as $pi, e, sqrt{2}$ are normal also in base $10$ .
We know that the Champernowne number is normal in base $10$ but it is not normal in all basis.
You can also see here for the problem of construction of a normal number.
answered Dec 1 '18 at 21:01
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
It actually known that it's not normal in all bases, or just unknown whether it is? I've always thought it was the latter, but I don't have any support for that. If the former, do you know of a reference?
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:03
I did not verify the proof, but here (google.it/… ) the autors say that Champernowne’s number fails to be strongly normal.
– Emilio Novati
Dec 1 '18 at 21:20
Thank you. I'll enjoy reading this, I'm sure.
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:37
add a comment |
As you noted a normal number ( in some basis) is necessarily irrational. We know (it was proved by E. Borel) that ''almost all'' (in the sense of measure theory) real numbers are absolutely normal normal, that is normal in all basis, but the proof is not constructive, and it is not clear if there is some computable normal number. What we can say is that we dont know if nubers as $pi, e, sqrt{2}$ are normal also in base $10$ .
We know that the Champernowne number is normal in base $10$ but it is not normal in all basis.
You can also see here for the problem of construction of a normal number.
answered Dec 1 '18 at 21:01
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
It actually known that it's not normal in all bases, or just unknown whether it is? I've always thought it was the latter, but I don't have any support for that. If the former, do you know of a reference?
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:03
I did not verify the proof, but here (google.it/… ) the autors say that Champernowne’s number fails to be strongly normal.
– Emilio Novati
Dec 1 '18 at 21:20
Thank you. I'll enjoy reading this, I'm sure.
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:37
add a comment |
As you noted a normal number ( in some basis) is necessarily irrational. We know (it was proved by E. Borel) that ''almost all'' (in the sense of measure theory) real numbers are absolutely normal normal, that is normal in all basis, but the proof is not constructive, and it is not clear if there is some computable normal number. What we can say is that we dont know if nubers as $pi, e, sqrt{2}$ are normal also in base $10$ .
We know that the Champernowne number is normal in base $10$ but it is not normal in all basis.
You can also see here for the problem of construction of a normal number.
answered Dec 1 '18 at 21:01
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
As you noted a normal number ( in some basis) is necessarily irrational. We know (it was proved by E. Borel) that ''almost all'' (in the sense of measure theory) real numbers are absolutely normal normal, that is normal in all basis, but the proof is not constructive, and it is not clear if there is some computable normal number. What we can say is that we dont know if nubers as $pi, e, sqrt{2}$ are normal also in base $10$ .
We know that the Champernowne number is normal in base $10$ but it is not normal in all basis.
You can also see here for the problem of construction of a normal number.
answered Dec 1 '18 at 21:01
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
edited Dec 1 '18 at 21:14
answered Dec 1 '18 at 21:01
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
answered Dec 1 '18 at 21:01
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
answered Dec 1 '18 at 21:01
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
51.5k43472
It actually known that it's not normal in all bases, or just unknown whether it is? I've always thought it was the latter, but I don't have any support for that. If the former, do you know of a reference?
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:03
I did not verify the proof, but here (google.it/… ) the autors say that Champernowne’s number fails to be strongly normal.
– Emilio Novati
Dec 1 '18 at 21:20
Thank you. I'll enjoy reading this, I'm sure.
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:37
add a comment |
It actually known that it's not normal in all bases, or just unknown whether it is? I've always thought it was the latter, but I don't have any support for that. If the former, do you know of a reference?
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:03
I did not verify the proof, but here (google.it/… ) the autors say that Champernowne’s number fails to be strongly normal.
– Emilio Novati
Dec 1 '18 at 21:20
Thank you. I'll enjoy reading this, I'm sure.
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:37
It actually known that it's not normal in all bases, or just unknown whether it is? I've always thought it was the latter, but I don't have any support for that. If the former, do you know of a reference?
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:03
It actually known that it's not normal in all bases, or just unknown whether it is? I've always thought it was the latter, but I don't have any support for that. If the former, do you know of a reference?
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:03
I did not verify the proof, but here (google.it/… ) the autors say that Champernowne’s number fails to be strongly normal.
– Emilio Novati
Dec 1 '18 at 21:20
I did not verify the proof, but here (google.it/… ) the autors say that Champernowne’s number fails to be strongly normal.
– Emilio Novati
Dec 1 '18 at 21:20
Thank you. I'll enjoy reading this, I'm sure.
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:37
Thank you. I'll enjoy reading this, I'm sure.
– saulspatz
Dec 1 '18 at 21:37
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021804%2funderstanding-normal-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Numbers like 2 and 3 certainly do have decimal expansions. For example, $$2 = 2.000overline{0}. $$
– Xander Henderson
Dec 1 '18 at 20:42
A normal number (even one which is only normal in base ten) must necessarily be irrational, yes. Most real numbers are normal, yet the only numbers we know to be normal are the ones we have explicitly constructed to be normal.
– Arthur
Dec 1 '18 at 20:43
1
Normal doesn't just refer to single digits. Yes, each digit should occur with probability $frac 1{10}$ but each pair of digits should occur with probability $frac 1{100}$ and so on. See, e.g., this. But yes, normal implies irrational.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 20:46
1
@Sasha Yes. But that does not imply irrational. The rational number $.overline {0123456789}$ is simply normal in that sense. Proper normality is a much more interesting property.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 20:57
1
Actually my proof should be modified slightly to take into account the fact that the period may not start right away. Easy to handle...suppose there are $Q$ terms before the period of length $P$ starts and replace the $2P$ in my expression by $2(P+Q)$ or such.
– lulu
Dec 1 '18 at 21:15