Today, as usual, we were doing all those boring numerical computations in our calculators. It all started when my professor replaced $0.2$ with $\frac{1}{5}$. I got into calculating the unit fractions one by one. But soon, I got indulged in unit fractions made from primes, as other numbers can be decomposed into prime factors (and partially because I've always thought that primes are special). Then, I observed a few things.
- All unit prime fractions (except $\frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{1}{5}$) have recurring digits.
- But, there were a few special fractions. For instance, $\frac{1}{7}$ had a digit frequency of $6$ (i.e) $0.\overline{142857}$ - $6$ recurring digits. $\frac{1}{17}$ had a frequency of $16$, $\frac{1}{19}$ had a frequency of $18$, etc.
Only after an hour or so, I was shocked to notice something. "Most" of these primes had a similar property. If $\mathcal{R}(n)$ is the number of recurring digits, then $\mathcal{R}(n)=(n-1)$ for those special primes (Well, it doesn't work for $13$, but the latter result is still true).
Then, came the pattern. First of all, $\mathcal{R}(n)$ is even for these primes, since all primes are odd. While calculating $\frac{1}{13}$, I saw that when we split the recurring digits $0.0\overline{769230}$ in half and add them ($769+230$), we get $999=10^3-1$.
Then, I did the same for $\frac{1}{17}$ and $\frac{1}{19}$, for which I got $(10^8-1)$ and $(10^9-1)$. For every fraction of this kind, the sum is of the form $10^k-1$ where $k\ \in \mathbb N$.
Soon, I found that there was a condition for this form to appear (after writing it out for a few of these primes $7, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29$, etc.). It happens only when
$$\mathcal{R}(n_i)\geq\mathcal{R}(n_{i-1})\ \forall\ \ n \in \mathbb P$$
For instance, this doesn't happen for $1/11$, but it occurred for $1/7$ and $1/13$, since $$\mathcal{R}(11)=2\ <\ \mathcal{R}(7)=8=\mathcal{R}(13)$$
I'm curious about this result. We're slicing those recurring digits in half, right? I can't quite visualize how the summing up those sliced digits converge to the same form.
Why's this so? Is this true for all these special primes? Or, does this have a limit beyond which this condition breaks down?