4

Allow us to diverge from the rules of math taught in schools and universities regarding infinities to consider this:

If I have a "number" (integer-like) that goes $$\cdots2222222222222222222222.0$$ "infinitely" to the left of the decimal point and I divide it by a number that goes $$\cdots1111111111111111111111.0$$ "infinitely" to the left of the decimal point, then I should get $2$, right?

These numbers could be rephrased as $A_\infty$ and $B_\infty$ where $A_n=\sum\limits_{i=0}^n2\cdot10^i$ and $B_n=\sum\limits_{i=0}^n1\cdot10^i$ and ∞ is just some number x satisfying "fixed point under addition by finite real or complex number" e.g. $\infty=\infty-1=1+\infty$

if I take $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty}{\frac{A_x}{B_x}}$ I get 2. In fact I get 2 for any finite positive integer value of x.

Is there some sort of "Theory of infinite-digited integers"?

UPDATE: Thanks for the feedback it has been helpful, although I have one problem with the p-adic way of handling things; saying $x = 2+10x$ means $x=2+10(2+10\cdots)=\cdots 2222222.0$ but also equal $-\frac{2}{9}$ except that I think Feynman and others have overlooked something

we have a $\phi=1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{\cdots}}}}}}$ which is (mostly) equal to saying $\phi=1+\frac{1}{\phi}$. The real problem comes when $x=1+\frac{1}{x}$ has more than one known solution! one being $\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$ and other being $-\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}+1$ of course this specific case is just related to the square-root having 2 values for every nonzero complex number $x$, but it gets worse. I think that, $x=2+10x$ has at least 2 solutions, one being $-2/9$ and the other being the $\cdots2222222222.0$ number. The reasons why to keep them separate? Like how phi and its "counterpart" number both satisfy $x=1+\frac{1}{x}$, but they fail to match at other things and are not equal. For one thing, $\cdots22222222222.0$ number is a positive, "infinite" number (solving a sum with it as the number of iterations would turn the sum into a series) whereas $-\frac{2}{9}$ is not.

TL;DR only problem I have, $\cdots22222222222.0\neq-\frac{2}{9}$ because one is positive, infinite, and integer-y and the other is a negative fraction, though they are both counterparts for $x=2+10x$

Thanks for reading my input!

cmarangu
  • 387
  • 6
  • 1
    The problem with this is that you could also understand it as $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty}{\frac{A_{2n}}{B_{n}}}$ which is not 1. – N. S. Oct 12 '20 at 04:10
  • 1
    Yes, the $p$-adic approach destroys the ordering. However, this isn't really avoidable: which is larger, $$...121212\quad\mbox{ or }\quad ...212121?$$ When we try to look at infinitely long expressions of this type, basic ideas about order start breaking down badly. – Noah Schweber Oct 16 '20 at 20:59
  • Noah Schweder good point. I guess if your sequence is 1, 121, 12121, ... instead of 1, 12, 121, 1212, ... then the former diverges faster, use limit notation with the same parameter, maybe use "multiple solutions" and stuff to fix some stuff, – cmarangu Oct 17 '20 at 06:53

2 Answers2

6

Yes, there is a theory of such numbers; these numbers are called 10-adic numbers, denoted $\mathbb{Z}_{10}$, and in the $10$-adic numbers the following manipulations are valid: we have

$$\dots 111 = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 10^n = \frac{1}{1 - 10} = - \frac{1}{9}$$

and

$$\dots 222 = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 2 \cdot 10^n = \frac{2}{1 - 10} = - \frac{2}{9}$$

and dividing them gives $2$ as expected. A related funny identity is

$$\dots 999 = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 9 \cdot 10^n = \frac{9}{1 - 10} = -1$$

the idea being that if you add $\dots 999$ and $1$ then you get $\dots 000$! The key feature of the $10$-adic numbers that makes all of this work is that large powers of $10$ are regarded as "small," and in particular there is a topology on the $10$-adic numbers with respect to which the series above converge.

The $10$-adic numbers have funny properties, though, the main one being that it's not true that if $ab = 0$ then either $a = 0$ or $b = 0$ (although the divisions we did above turn out to be fine). Here's a recent math.SE question where this sort of thing came up.

Via the Chinese remainder theorem $10$-adic numbers can be understood as pairs consisting of a $2$-adic number and a $5$-adic number, which are defined in the same way except that we work in base $2$ and base $5$ respectively. Because these bases are prime the resulting numbers turn out to be better behaved and mathematicians work almost exclusively with these.

A nice exercise is to show that for every prime $p$ other than $2$ or $5$ there is a $10$-adic number that deserves to be called $\frac{1}{p}$ in the sense that when you multiply by $p$ you get $1$; for example,

$$\frac{1}{7} = \dots \overline{857142}857143.$$

A harder exercise is to show that there exists a $10$-adic number that deserves to be called $\sqrt{41}$ in the sense that when you square it you get $41$ (actually there are four of them, rather than the expected two), and an even harder exercise is to determine exactly which square roots exist.

Qiaochu Yuan
  • 468,795
  • 1
    Richard Borcherds recently made a nice video on the 10-adics for high school students at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTtBDSWR1Ac – Mark S. Oct 13 '20 at 00:52
  • @Qiaochu Yuan, Thank you for your input. I am trying to follow and getting that we say the number ⋯22222222.0 "equals" -2/9 and there are other things like 1/7 creats a terminating to the left of the decimal, most of this is new to me lol, though I have one problem for you to consider and I have updated my question with it (also I upvoted your answer) – cmarangu Oct 13 '20 at 05:50
  • @cmarangu: $10$-adic numbers are not real numbers, they're a different concept and have to be understood on their own terms. In particular they don't come equipped with an ordering, and there's no notion of "positive" or "negative" in the $10$-adic numbers, nor is there a notion of "infinitely big." They just happen to have infinitely many digits going to the left the same way a real number can have infinitely many digits going to the right. – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 13 '20 at 05:57
  • @QiaochuYuan ok thanks. However I still think that -2/9 is "Counterpart" of ⋯2222222222.0 the latter being a "greater than finite" positive "integer-like" "number" where as the former is a negative finite rational number – cmarangu Oct 13 '20 at 17:49
  • 2
    @cmarangu: in the $10$-adic numbers that is not correct, they are literally equal. It is true that you need to get used to $-\frac 2 9$ meaning something different than what you’re used to. It is not quite a rational number in the ordinary sense. – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 13 '20 at 18:07
  • @QiaochuYuan okay. Thats all fine and stuff, even if my belief's contradict it. In any case I am glad to see people have explored computation in "infinite-digited-like" numbers! – cmarangu Oct 15 '20 at 00:23
  • also I guess maybe its worth visualizing the series on the Riemann sphere, where some stuff like tan(x) and (1+x)/(1-x)can "loop around" from positive infinite to negative finite numbers if you keep going farther – cmarangu Oct 15 '20 at 00:24
-1

$$\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \frac{2 \sum\limits_{i=0}^n 10^n}{\sum\limits_{i=0}^n 10^n} = 2$$

or

$$\frac{2 \sum\limits_{i=0}^\infty 10^i}{\sum\limits_{i=0}^\infty 10^i} = 2$$

Never heard of a "theory of infinite digit numbers," though infinite sums are everywhere in math.

  • The second equation is not true for any common definition of $\Sigma$, because the sum diverges and $(2\infty)/\infty$ is undefined, so you would need to have some additional "theory of infinite numbers" to make sense of it anyway. – JiK Feb 14 '23 at 12:28