315:
the correct decmial place, and we have 10203040.506070809101112... Now adjust it to get the first few digits right (which involves subtracting exactly 10203040.38261402), and we end up with 60499999499/490050000000 - which is indeed the 18th convergent of the continued fraction for
Champernowne's constant. In a similar way we could construct an approximation which went as far as the end of the 3-digit numbers, with a denominator only barely larger than that required to specify the 2-digit section, and so on. That's
84:
74:
53:
22:
166:
Of course my program could be faulty - the page itself does mention that
Champernowne's constant can stress naive continued-fraction calculation code - but I have two reasons to think it isn't faulty: firstly, the two previous very large terms start "457" and "4457", making me willing to believe that
569:
include those cases), say at 5 googol, we'd have more digits 1 to 4 than 5 to 9, but as we look at more and more decimals, these fluctuations start to "drown" in a "sea" of equifrequent trailing digits. Googol (included) to 5 googol (excluded) would contribute a total of 404 (no pun intended) googol
314:
So we can use this fact to directly construct a very good approximation to
Champernowne's constant which goes as far as (for example) the end of the 2-digit numbers. Simply start with 1/99^2, which actually contains the digit sequence 10111213...9697. Then multiply by 10^11 to bring that sequence to
633:
If this is the case, then I am not sure what approach should be used to rectify the situation. I assume that the original author of the graphs intended to use the log scale graph to include all of the points that are off scale on the linear graph. Going to 10 would greatly compress the scale of the
546:
These don't approximate the
Champernowne number, but we can count all digits except 0 easily and find that there are exactly (n/10) 10^n of each. The '0' digits are a bit nonstandard here, and when written in standard form, C, Ch, Cha... lose exactly n of them because they appear before the decimal
342:
The article says this number is "obviously" normal in base 10, which I know means all the digits occur with equal frequency. However, after the first 190 digits, 0.12345678910111213...9899, the digit 0 has occurred much less than the others because we do not write 01, 02, 03 etc. The same is true
162:
I think the nice image here containing the continued fraction terms is incorrect in the last partial term. I rediscovered this curious continued fraction for myself recently after writing a small program which accepted an infinite decimal expansion on standard input and produced its continued
233:
Also, I believe I understand why those extremely large terms show up in the expansion. However, I hesitate to add it to the page, because it might constitute original research (I thought of it for myself). On the other hand, it's pretty simple and was instantly obvious to me on examining the
1091:
372:
I just did some calculations. Let P(N) be the proportion of 0's in the concatenation of the integers 1 to N inclusive. Then P(9) = 0, P(99) = 0.047619047619, P(999) = 0.0654205607477, P(9,999) = 0.0742883591761, P(99,999) = 0.0795456637396, P(999,999) = 0.0830188852261, P(9,999,999) =
656:
While solving a
Project Euler problem, I came up with an alternative expression for the Champernowne constant in base 10, which I think is a little easier to read than the one given. I think it can also be easily generalized to other bases. Here's the expression:
240:
The decimal expansion of 1/99^2 is 0.0001020304..., that of 1/999^2 is 0.000001002003004..., and in general the expansion of 1/(10^n-1)^2 consists of a sequence of integers incrementing from zero at each n-digit position. (You can check this by working out
550:
On to the differences between digits of C, Ch, Cha... and the
Champernowne number: The latter doesn't use fixed-length numbers, but omits all leading 0 digits, of which there are none in C, 10 in Ch, 10+100 in Cha, and generally (10^n-10) / 9 in the
573:
I think we should say a few more sentences about the normalization of C10 in the article, but that would require an already published accessible (both in language that's easy to understand, and available free of charge) proof somewhere else as a
629:
I think that there is an error in the log scale graph of the continued fraction coefficients. The term at position 41 has 2504 decimal digits , so I think that the point for position 41 should be near 10 instead of 10.
880:
Is this formula (which is quite easy to derive, and therefore probably already well-known to mathematicians) worth including in the article? An advantage of this formula is that it enables one to efficiently find the
948:
829:
734:
310:
as a GP of GPs.) Of course the pattern in each of these expansions breaks once the integers start carrying from one n-digit segment into the previous one, and being rational they must end up repeating somehow.
570:
digits: 40 googol '0' digits, (40+1) googol digits 1 to 4 each, and 40 googol digits 5 to 9. Again, deviations from equifrequency are within O(m) if we stop at m, and average digit frequencies are O(m log m).
529:
In reply to the section creator, and working out a formula in support of DanBishop's argument, the "best" proof I could think of is to construct similar numbers C, Ch, Cha, Cham, Champ, etc. defined as
308:
140:
180:(it's unfortunately slightly wider because of my available fonts), but I hesitate to unilaterally replace the image on this page without somebody doing an independent check of my findings.
163:
fraction terms on standard output as they became uniquely determined; but my program says that the 163rd term begins "44457", not "40012" as claimed in the picture on this page.
343:
after we add all the 3-digit numbers, all the 4-digit numbers and so on. Why it is "obvious" that the probability of a random digit being 0 eventually catches up, so to speak?
511:
Of course. I was specifically addressing the OP's "cut the number off after X digits" approach, and why that's exactly never going to give you 1/10 for the frequencies.
855:
899:
875:
1124:
130:
392:. While any finite termination of the number will have fewer 0s, all digits will occur a countably infinite number of times over its infinite extent.
1119:
319:
there are extremely good approximations available for this number, and hence why the continued fraction contains very large terms after each of them.
1086:{\displaystyle C_{m}=\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {n}{10_{m}^{~\left(\sum \limits _{k=1}^{n}\left\lceil \log _{10_{m}}(k+1)\right\rceil \right)}}}}
234:
convergents, so perhaps it's not original enough to be a problem. I'd like a judgment call from an experienced
Wikipedian, if one is available.
106:
611:
739:
591:
577:
344:
213:
662:
97:
58:
190:
will give the same answer as I got! But if someone disagrees with my result, they might wish to point out to me where the bug is.)
460:
is even; obviously, the sequence contains an infinite number of odd and even numbers, yet the odd terms occur with twice the
184:
33:
244:
170:
which agrees to the last digit with my 163rd term and not with the one here. (That page, incidentally, also shows the
358:
Excellent question. I suppose it has something to do with leading digits mattering less as the numbers get longer.
516:
397:
322:(I don't, however, understand why there are intermediate large terms, such as the 102nd which begins "97867".)
615:
21:
595:
581:
348:
217:
909:
1101:
642:
39:
1097:
638:
83:
498:
401:
352:
329:
209:
197:
512:
393:
378:
363:
634:
log graph, but keeping the scale as it is would mean that the point at position 41 is off scale.
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
905:
89:
73:
52:
565:
Finally, if we truncate elsewhere (not at a power of 10 - and a complete proof of normality
178:
541:
Champ = 00000.00001 00002 00003 00004 00005 00006 00007 00008 00009 00010...99998 99999...
494:
834:
482:
374:
359:
884:
860:
1113:
389:
1105:
913:
901:
th decimal digit in the constant without directly finding the preceding digits.
646:
619:
599:
585:
520:
502:
382:
367:
332:
221:
200:
102:
326:
194:
186:. I don't recommend using it to check my findings, obviously, since of course
79:
174:
ludicrously large number starting with "444457", continuing the pattern.)
637:
Am I correct, and if so, does anyone have any ideas on the best remedy?
471:
is normal, then the proportional of zero digits should have a limit of
168:
481:. Since Champernowne proved that it is indeed normal, we should see
824:{\displaystyle f(m)=m(1+n)-{\frac {10^{n+1}}{9}}+{\frac {10}{9}}+n}
729:{\displaystyle C_{10}=\sum _{m=1}^{\infty }{\frac {m}{10^{f(m)}}}}
411:
of each digit. Consider a infinite sequence composed of the terms
15:
610:
Can someone start a section giving the uses of this number?
562:
10^n) and becomes negligible for truly long excerpts of C10.
183:(If anyone cares, my program - in Python - is available at
931:
206:
I confirmed that the image was incorrect and removed it.
464:
177:
So I've prepared a replacement image and uploaded it to
167:
the next one starts "44457", and secondly I googled up
388:
This is similar to the argument that the integers are
951:
887:
863:
837:
742:
665:
547:
point. (But n in (n/10)10^n soon becomes negligible.)
247:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1085:
893:
869:
849:
823:
728:
303:{\displaystyle \sum _{i=0}^{\infty }10^{-(i+1)n}i}
302:
407:Yes, but that does not say anything about the
8:
538:Ch = 00.0102030405060708091011...979899, ...
19:
47:
1043:
1038:
1023:
1012:
1000:
995:
986:
980:
969:
956:
950:
886:
862:
857:is defined to be the number of digits in
836:
805:
785:
779:
741:
709:
700:
694:
683:
670:
664:
273:
263:
252:
246:
532:the sum of 10^n terms (k / 10^kn). E.g.
924:
49:
558:That grows like O(10^n) rather than O(
493:increases, which it appears to do. —
7:
95:This article is within the scope of
1009:
338:Something that's always bothered me
38:It is of interest to the following
981:
695:
652:Alternative expression in base 10?
337:
264:
14:
1125:Low-priority mathematics articles
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
1120:Start-Class mathematics articles
489:) above increase towards 0.1 as
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
590:Formatting and decimals fixed.
135:This article has been rated as
1066:
1054:
773:
761:
752:
746:
719:
713:
289:
277:
1:
521:09:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
353:01:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
158:Error in continued fraction?
914:21:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
647:04:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
383:21:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
368:21:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
237:My argument is as follows:
1141:
333:08:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
222:01:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
201:08:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
625:Error in log scale graph?
600:14:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
586:07:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
503:20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
1106:13:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
620:14:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
402:04:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
141:project's priority scale
932:http://oeis.org/A143534
98:WikiProject Mathematics
1087:
1028:
985:
895:
871:
851:
825:
730:
699:
304:
268:
229:Reason for large terms
28:This article is rated
1088:
1008:
965:
896:
872:
852:
826:
731:
679:
305:
248:
949:
885:
861:
835:
740:
663:
409:relative frequencies
245:
121:mathematics articles
1080:
850:{\displaystyle n+1}
1083:
991:
891:
867:
847:
821:
726:
300:
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
1081:
1002:
945:Could I add that
894:{\displaystyle n}
870:{\displaystyle m}
813:
800:
724:
456:are odd and each
373:0.0854838724428.
212:comment added by
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
1132:
1092:
1090:
1089:
1084:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1027:
1022:
1001:
999:
987:
984:
979:
961:
960:
934:
929:
906:Tanmay Mudholkar
900:
898:
897:
892:
876:
874:
873:
868:
856:
854:
853:
848:
830:
828:
827:
822:
814:
806:
801:
796:
795:
780:
735:
733:
732:
727:
725:
723:
722:
701:
698:
693:
675:
674:
535:C = 0.123456789,
480:
479:
475:
448:≥ 0, where each
309:
307:
306:
301:
296:
295:
267:
262:
224:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1140:
1139:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1110:
1109:
1039:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1007:
1003:
952:
947:
946:
943:
938:
937:
930:
926:
921:
883:
882:
859:
858:
833:
832:
781:
738:
737:
705:
666:
661:
660:
654:
627:
608:
477:
473:
472:
470:
443:
432:
421:
340:
269:
243:
242:
231:
207:
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1138:
1136:
1128:
1127:
1122:
1112:
1111:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1053:
1046:
1042:
1037:
1032:
1026:
1021:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1006:
998:
994:
990:
983:
978:
975:
972:
968:
964:
959:
955:
942:
939:
936:
935:
923:
922:
920:
917:
890:
866:
846:
843:
840:
820:
817:
812:
809:
804:
799:
794:
791:
788:
784:
778:
775:
772:
769:
766:
763:
760:
757:
754:
751:
748:
745:
721:
718:
715:
712:
708:
704:
697:
692:
689:
686:
682:
678:
673:
669:
653:
650:
626:
623:
612:81.129.181.145
607:
604:
603:
602:
588:
575:
571:
563:
556:
555:th of the lot.
548:
544:
543:
542:
539:
536:
530:
526:
525:
524:
523:
513:Law of Entropy
506:
505:
468:
437:
426:
415:
394:Law of Entropy
386:
385:
370:
339:
336:
299:
294:
291:
288:
285:
282:
279:
276:
272:
266:
261:
258:
255:
251:
230:
227:
226:
225:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1137:
1126:
1123:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1115:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1094:
1075:
1070:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1051:
1044:
1040:
1035:
1030:
1024:
1019:
1016:
1013:
1004:
996:
992:
988:
976:
973:
970:
966:
962:
957:
953:
940:
933:
928:
925:
918:
916:
915:
911:
907:
902:
888:
878:
864:
844:
841:
838:
818:
815:
810:
807:
802:
797:
792:
789:
786:
782:
776:
770:
767:
764:
758:
755:
749:
743:
716:
710:
706:
702:
690:
687:
684:
680:
676:
671:
667:
658:
651:
649:
648:
644:
640:
635:
631:
624:
622:
621:
617:
613:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:84.140.35.194
589:
587:
583:
579:
578:84.140.35.194
576:
572:
568:
564:
561:
557:
554:
549:
545:
540:
537:
534:
533:
531:
528:
527:
522:
518:
514:
510:
509:
508:
507:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
441:
436:
430:
425:
419:
414:
410:
406:
405:
404:
403:
399:
395:
391:
384:
380:
376:
371:
369:
365:
361:
357:
356:
355:
354:
350:
346:
345:91.105.60.254
335:
334:
331:
328:
323:
320:
318:
312:
297:
292:
286:
283:
280:
274:
270:
259:
256:
253:
249:
238:
235:
228:
223:
219:
215:
214:24.19.214.109
211:
205:
204:
203:
202:
199:
196:
191:
189:
185:
181:
179:
175:
173:
169:
164:
157:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1098:Bexandre2002
1095:
944:
941:Infinite sum
927:
903:
879:
659:
655:
639:Aginourmidst
636:
632:
628:
609:
566:
559:
552:
490:
486:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
439:
434:
428:
423:
417:
412:
408:
387:
341:
327:Simon Tatham
324:
321:
316:
313:
239:
236:
232:
208:— Preceding
195:Simon Tatham
192:
187:
182:
176:
171:
165:
161:
137:Low-priority
136:
96:
62:Low‑priority
40:WikiProjects
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
30:Start-class
1114:Categories
919:References
495:Loadmaster
444:, for all
330:86.6.4.136
198:86.6.4.136
483:DanBishop
462:frequency
390:countable
375:DanBishop
360:DanBishop
210:unsigned
831:; here
574:source.
139:on the
736:where
433:, and
36:scale.
606:Uses?
485:'s P(
1102:talk
910:talk
643:talk
616:talk
596:talk
582:talk
567:must
517:talk
499:talk
452:and
398:talk
379:talk
364:talk
349:talk
218:talk
188:that
172:next
1036:log
317:why
131:Low
1116::
1104:)
1096:-
1093:?
1052:
1041:10
1010:∑
993:10
982:∞
967:∑
912:)
904:--
877:.
808:10
783:10
777:−
707:10
696:∞
681:∑
672:10
645:)
618:)
598:)
584:)
519:)
501:)
478:10
469:10
442:+2
431:+1
422:,
420:+0
400:)
381:)
366:)
351:)
325:-
275:−
271:10
265:∞
250:∑
220:)
193:-
1100:(
1076:)
1071:⌉
1067:)
1064:1
1061:+
1058:k
1055:(
1045:m
1031:⌈
1025:n
1020:1
1017:=
1014:k
1005:(
997:m
989:n
977:1
974:=
971:n
963:=
958:m
954:C
908:(
889:n
865:m
845:1
842:+
839:n
819:n
816:+
811:9
803:+
798:9
793:1
790:+
787:n
774:)
771:n
768:+
765:1
762:(
759:m
756:=
753:)
750:m
747:(
744:f
720:)
717:m
714:(
711:f
703:m
691:1
688:=
685:m
677:=
668:C
641:(
614:(
594:(
580:(
560:n
553:n
515:(
497:(
491:N
487:N
476:⁄
474:1
466:C
458:c
454:b
450:a
446:n
440:n
438:3
435:c
429:n
427:3
424:b
418:n
416:3
413:a
396:(
377:(
362:(
347:(
298:i
293:n
290:)
287:1
284:+
281:i
278:(
260:0
257:=
254:i
216:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
