2

I'm trying to prove that any real number has at most two decimal expansions. I have an idea of how to prove it, but I'm not fully sure if every step of my proof works. Here is my attempt.

Let $x \in \mathbb{R}$. If $x$ has only one decimal expansion, there is nothing to prove, so it suffices to show that given any two distinct decimal expansions of $x$, one is terminating in a string of $9$'s, the other in a string of $0$'s. So let $$ \sum\limits_{i=0}^\infty a_i 10^{-i}, \; \sum\limits_{i=0}^\infty b_i 10^{-i}, $$ where $a_0$ and $b_0$ are allowed to be any integer, but $a_i, b_i$ are digits in $\{0, 1, \ldots, 9\}$ for every $i \geq 1$. Let $N$ be the least nonnegative integer for which $a_i \neq b_i$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $a_N < b_N$. We then have $$ x = \sum\limits_{i=0}^{\infty} a_i 10^{-i} = \sum\limits_{i=0}^{N-1} a_i 10^{-i} + a_N 10^{-N} + \sum\limits_{i=N+1}^{\infty} a_i 10^{-i}, $$ where we interpret $\sum\limits_{i=0}^{N-1} a_i 10^{-i}$ as $0$, summing zero numbers, if $N = 0$ (e.g., if the first decimal expansion is $0.999999 \ldots$ and the second is $1.000 \ldots$). As $a_i = b_i$ for $i < N$, we have $$ x = \sum\limits_{i=0}^{N-1} b_i 10^{-i} + a_N 10^{-N} + \sum\limits_{i=N+1}^{\infty} a_i 10^{-i}. $$ Now, as $a_i \leq 9$ for $i \geq N + 1$, we have $$ \sum\limits_{i=N+1}^{\infty} a_i 10^{-i} \leq \sum\limits_{i=N+1}^{\infty} 9 \cdot 10^{-i} = \frac{9 \cdot 10^{-N-1}}{1 - 10^{-1}} = \frac{9 \cdot 10^{-N-1}}{\frac{9}{10}} = 10^{-N}. $$ Therefore, we have: \begin{align*} x & \leq \sum\limits_{i=0}^{N-1} b_i 10^{-i} + a_N 10^{-N} + 10^{-N} \\ & = \sum\limits_{i=0}^{N-1} b_i 10^{-i} + (a_N + 1) 10^{-N} \\ & \leq \sum\limits_{i=0}^{N-1} b_i 10^{-i} + b_N 10^{-N} \\ & \leq \sum\limits_{i=0}^{N-1} b_i 10^{-i} + b_N 10^{-N} + \sum\limits_{i=N+1}^{\infty} b_i 10^{-i} \\ & = \sum\limits_{i=0}^{\infty} b_i 10^{-i} \\ & = x. \end{align*} The result is to conclude that $x \leq x$, which we know to be an equality. Therefore, every time we've written down "$\leq$," this is in fact an equality. The first line is an equality if for all $i \geq N + 1$, $a_i = 9$. The third line is an equality if and only if $a_N + 1 = b_N$. The fourth line is an equality if and only if $b_i = 0$ for every $i \geq N + 1$, in which case we're adding an infinite right tail of zeros. That is, we get $x = x$ if the following three conditions hold: $$ a_N + 1 = b_N, \; a_i = 9 \forall i \geq N + 1, \; b_i = 0 \forall i \geq N + 1, $$ which is precisely equivalent to stating that the first decimal expansions terminates in an infinite string of $9$'s, the second in an infinite string of zeros. As these are the only possible, distinct decimal expansions for $x$, we conclude that $x$ has at most two decimal expansions.

How does this proof look? Are there any leaps of logic?

Cardinality
  • 1,097
  • 3
  • 7
  • Check this: https://math.stackexchange.com/q/271118/42969 – Martin R Jun 20 '22 at 19:43
  • @MartinR I think the answer looks very similar to my proof, though I was hoping to get feedback on this proof above, which was my attempt to rigorously understand every step. – Cardinality Jun 20 '22 at 20:06
  • @Cardinality "Let $N$ be the largest nonnegative integer for which $a_i \neq b_i$" $,$ You probably meant smallest there, not largest. – dxiv Jun 20 '22 at 22:16
  • @dxiv Yes, absolutely I meant the smallest, thank you. Does the rest of the proof look ok? – Cardinality Jun 20 '22 at 22:46
  • 5
    Can you narrow the focus of your question to a specific part of the argument on which you would like feedback? Can you specify what, specifically, you don't like about the linked question. In general, Math SE is not a good place for getting general feedback or peer review---questions really need to be more focused. – Xander Henderson Jun 20 '22 at 22:52
  • 2
    @Cardinality The proof looks good now (+1). – dxiv Jun 21 '22 at 00:29
  • This is probably a duplicate. The only non-uniqueness appears for a terminating decimal expansion versus an expansion ending with the artifical period $\bar 9$. Hence, irrational numbers and rational numbers with a denominator with a prime factor different from $2$ and $5$ , if written in lowest terms , have a unique decimal expansion. – Peter Jun 21 '22 at 09:24
  • @PaulSinclair Here is what I was thinking for that. I assumed $a_N < b_N$ without loss of generality. If $N \neq 0$, these are both digits from $0$ to $9$, so they differ by at least one integer, so $a_N + 1 \leq b_N$. If $N = 0$, since I allowed $a_0$ and $b_0$ to be any integer, I run into an issue I don't know how to resolve. – Cardinality Jun 21 '22 at 17:24
  • Actually, I withdraw my comment. For some reason I had the idea you were equating the two expressions with $a_N+1$ and $b_N$ instead of having $\le$ as you do. That much is indeed obvious from what you'd already said. My apologies for the mistake. – Paul Sinclair Jun 22 '22 at 11:34

0 Answers0