Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Puzzle Time - after the decimal point

Puzzle Time - after the decimal point

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
16 Posts 2 Posters 87 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • KlausK Offline
    KlausK Offline
    Klaus
    wrote on last edited by
    #5

    Hm, using the binomial equation (a+b)(a-b)=a^2-b^2, I can transform sqrt3 + sqrt2 to 1/(sqrt3-sqrt2). Right direction?

    1 Reply Last reply
    • jon-nycJ Online
      jon-nycJ Online
      jon-nyc
      wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
      #6

      That’s not where I was headed.

      I can give a bigger hint.

      Let sqrt(3) be a, sqrt(2) be b.

      We’re looking for (a+b)^n for n=10^9

      Here’s the big hint:

      :::

      What happens if you do the binomial expansion of (a+b)^n then add (a-b)^n to it?

      :::

      Only non-witches get due process.

      • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
      1 Reply Last reply
      • KlausK Offline
        KlausK Offline
        Klaus
        wrote on last edited by Klaus
        #7

        Too big of a hint 😉 (sqrt3 -sqrt2)^10^9 is too small to influence the first digit after the dot.

        1 Reply Last reply
        • jon-nycJ Online
          jon-nycJ Online
          jon-nyc
          wrote on last edited by
          #8

          It is a huge hint

          Only non-witches get due process.

          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
          1 Reply Last reply
          • KlausK Offline
            KlausK Offline
            Klaus
            wrote on last edited by Klaus
            #9

            I'd say the digit must be 9. Or 0 if I screwed up.

            If you apply the binomial theorem to the term you suggest and do some simplification, you get a whole number minus (sqrt3 - sqrt2)^n, which gets very small.

            1 Reply Last reply
            • jon-nycJ Online
              jon-nycJ Online
              jon-nyc
              wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
              #10

              Right. We know that by adding an infinitesimal positive number to the number we seek, we get an integer.

              Therefore the first many many digits after the decimal must be 9.

              Note this works for any even n sufficiently large.

              Only non-witches get due process.

              • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
              1 Reply Last reply
              • jon-nycJ Online
                jon-nycJ Online
                jon-nyc
                wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                #11

                You can already see the pattern with quite small n.

                f5b69dba-a6b9-4d89-a6aa-d89faee3f576-image.png

                Only non-witches get due process.

                • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                KlausK 1 Reply Last reply
                • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                  You can already see the pattern with quite small n.

                  f5b69dba-a6b9-4d89-a6aa-d89faee3f576-image.png

                  KlausK Offline
                  KlausK Offline
                  Klaus
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #12

                  @jon-nyc said in Puzzle Time - after the decimal point:

                  You can already see the pattern with quite small n.

                  f5b69dba-a6b9-4d89-a6aa-d89faee3f576-image.png

                  Yes, but I was confused for a while because that pattern switches when you try larger numbers.

                  I was at first thinking that this was a rounding error and then tried again with a "big float" library, but still, with n >=50 the first digit seems to be 0.

                  8973a130-fec9-4a1f-ba5d-a4847d59ab45-image.png

                  However, I assume that it's just a particularly numerically unstable formula.

                  jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
                  • KlausK Klaus

                    @jon-nyc said in Puzzle Time - after the decimal point:

                    You can already see the pattern with quite small n.

                    f5b69dba-a6b9-4d89-a6aa-d89faee3f576-image.png

                    Yes, but I was confused for a while because that pattern switches when you try larger numbers.

                    I was at first thinking that this was a rounding error and then tried again with a "big float" library, but still, with n >=50 the first digit seems to be 0.

                    8973a130-fec9-4a1f-ba5d-a4847d59ab45-image.png

                    However, I assume that it's just a particularly numerically unstable formula.

                    jon-nycJ Online
                    jon-nycJ Online
                    jon-nyc
                    wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                    #13

                    @Klaus

                    Has to be because (sqrt(3)-sqrt(2))^n stays tiny and positive. Same thing happened on my excel, too.

                    Only non-witches get due process.

                    • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • KlausK Offline
                      KlausK Offline
                      Klaus
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #14

                      Effect of increasing the precision to 100 bits, and then 500 bits:

                      59125c6e-c1ca-4cd3-9f5c-a24fd9fddd88-image.png

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      • jon-nycJ Online
                        jon-nycJ Online
                        jon-nyc
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #15

                        Cool.

                        Only non-witches get due process.

                        • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                        1 Reply Last reply
                        • jon-nycJ Online
                          jon-nycJ Online
                          jon-nyc
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #16

                          The ‘official’ answer came out today.

                          SOLUTION: If you try entering "(sqrt(2) + sqrt(3))^1,000,000,000" into Google or your calculator, you're likely to find that you get only the dozen or so most significant figures; that is, you don't get a nearly accurate enough answer to see what happens after the decimal point.

                          But you can try smaller powers and see what happens. For example, the decimal expansion of the 10th power of the square root of 2 plus the square root of 3 begins 95049.9999895. A bit of experimentation shows that each even power of the square root of 2 plus the square root of 3 seems to be just a hair below some integer. So the solution to the puzzle seems to be 9. But why?

                          If we merely square the number "square root of 2 plus square root of 3," we get about 9.9. If we play with 10 minus this number, we discover that it's equal to the square of the square root of 2 minus the square root of 3. Aha!

                          Yes, (sqrt(3) + sqrt(2))^2n + (sqrt(3) - sqrt(2))^2n is always an integer, because when you expand it, the odd-power terms cancel and the even ones are integers. But (sqrt(3) - sqrt(2))^2n is very small, about 10^-n, so the first roughly n digits of (sqrt(3) + sqrt(2))^2n past the decimal point are all 9's.

                          [The idea for this puzzle comes from the 29th Annual Virginia Tech Mathematics Contest, 2007

                          Only non-witches get due process.

                          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                          1 Reply Last reply
                          Reply
                          • Reply as topic
                          Log in to reply
                          • Oldest to Newest
                          • Newest to Oldest
                          • Most Votes


                          • Login

                          • Don't have an account? Register

                          • Login or register to search.
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Categories
                          • Recent
                          • Tags
                          • Popular
                          • Users
                          • Groups