The last digit of pi (in terms of Banach limits)












3














Let $phi : l^infty to mathbb C$ be a Banach limit, and define the sequence ${x_k}_{kgeq 0}$ to be the digits in the 10-base decimal expansion of $pi$. Note that
$${x_k}_{kgeq 0} in l^infty$$
and so we can talk about $phi({x_k}_{kgeq 0})$.



What it is? Note that Banach limits don't have to be unique.



Now consider the real number $sqrt 2$. What is its last number? Finally, consider any element $xin mathbb R$. Can we say about the last digit of $x$, in the sense of Banach limits as considered above?






sequences-and-series functional-analysis limits banach-spaces







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    Perhaps this is naïve, but the shift invariance property might tell you that $phi$ is just a long-term average of the digits (and so it's $4.5$ for almost any real number).
    – T. Bongers
    Nov 27 '18 at 18:18






  • 1




    @T.Bongers looking at en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_convergent_sequence I'd say the opposite is true: for almost all real nmbers there is no unique Banach limit
    – Bananach
    Nov 27 '18 at 19:20






  • 1




    Chuck Norris knows the last digit of pi.
    – gerw
    Nov 28 '18 at 7:58






  • 1




    @gerw Well, Gauß knew it before him!
    – Dirk
    Nov 29 '18 at 8:33
















3














Let $phi : l^infty to mathbb C$ be a Banach limit, and define the sequence ${x_k}_{kgeq 0}$ to be the digits in the 10-base decimal expansion of $pi$. Note that
$${x_k}_{kgeq 0} in l^infty$$
and so we can talk about $phi({x_k}_{kgeq 0})$.



What it is? Note that Banach limits don't have to be unique.



Now consider the real number $sqrt 2$. What is its last number? Finally, consider any element $xin mathbb R$. Can we say about the last digit of $x$, in the sense of Banach limits as considered above?






sequences-and-series functional-analysis limits banach-spaces







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    Perhaps this is naïve, but the shift invariance property might tell you that $phi$ is just a long-term average of the digits (and so it's $4.5$ for almost any real number).
    – T. Bongers
    Nov 27 '18 at 18:18






  • 1




    @T.Bongers looking at en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_convergent_sequence I'd say the opposite is true: for almost all real nmbers there is no unique Banach limit
    – Bananach
    Nov 27 '18 at 19:20






  • 1




    Chuck Norris knows the last digit of pi.
    – gerw
    Nov 28 '18 at 7:58






  • 1




    @gerw Well, Gauß knew it before him!
    – Dirk
    Nov 29 '18 at 8:33














3












3








3







Let $phi : l^infty to mathbb C$ be a Banach limit, and define the sequence ${x_k}_{kgeq 0}$ to be the digits in the 10-base decimal expansion of $pi$. Note that
$${x_k}_{kgeq 0} in l^infty$$
and so we can talk about $phi({x_k}_{kgeq 0})$.



What it is? Note that Banach limits don't have to be unique.



Now consider the real number $sqrt 2$. What is its last number? Finally, consider any element $xin mathbb R$. Can we say about the last digit of $x$, in the sense of Banach limits as considered above?






sequences-and-series functional-analysis limits banach-spaces







share|cite|improve this question















Let $phi : l^infty to mathbb C$ be a Banach limit, and define the sequence ${x_k}_{kgeq 0}$ to be the digits in the 10-base decimal expansion of $pi$. Note that
$${x_k}_{kgeq 0} in l^infty$$
and so we can talk about $phi({x_k}_{kgeq 0})$.



What it is? Note that Banach limits don't have to be unique.



Now consider the real number $sqrt 2$. What is its last number? Finally, consider any element $xin mathbb R$. Can we say about the last digit of $x$, in the sense of Banach limits as considered above?






sequences-and-series functional-analysis limits banach-spaces




sequences-and-series functional-analysis limits banach-spaces






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 29 '18 at 9:12

























asked Nov 27 '18 at 18:15









Markus Klyver

390314




390314








  • 2




    Perhaps this is naïve, but the shift invariance property might tell you that $phi$ is just a long-term average of the digits (and so it's $4.5$ for almost any real number).
    – T. Bongers
    Nov 27 '18 at 18:18






  • 1




    @T.Bongers looking at en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_convergent_sequence I'd say the opposite is true: for almost all real nmbers there is no unique Banach limit
    – Bananach
    Nov 27 '18 at 19:20






  • 1




    Chuck Norris knows the last digit of pi.
    – gerw
    Nov 28 '18 at 7:58






  • 1




    @gerw Well, Gauß knew it before him!
    – Dirk
    Nov 29 '18 at 8:33














  • 2




    Perhaps this is naïve, but the shift invariance property might tell you that $phi$ is just a long-term average of the digits (and so it's $4.5$ for almost any real number).
    – T. Bongers
    Nov 27 '18 at 18:18






  • 1




    @T.Bongers looking at en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_convergent_sequence I'd say the opposite is true: for almost all real nmbers there is no unique Banach limit
    – Bananach
    Nov 27 '18 at 19:20






  • 1




    Chuck Norris knows the last digit of pi.
    – gerw
    Nov 28 '18 at 7:58






  • 1




    @gerw Well, Gauß knew it before him!
    – Dirk
    Nov 29 '18 at 8:33








2




2




Perhaps this is naïve, but the shift invariance property might tell you that $phi$ is just a long-term average of the digits (and so it's $4.5$ for almost any real number).
– T. Bongers
Nov 27 '18 at 18:18




Perhaps this is naïve, but the shift invariance property might tell you that $phi$ is just a long-term average of the digits (and so it's $4.5$ for almost any real number).
– T. Bongers
Nov 27 '18 at 18:18




1




1




@T.Bongers looking at en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_convergent_sequence I'd say the opposite is true: for almost all real nmbers there is no unique Banach limit
– Bananach
Nov 27 '18 at 19:20




@T.Bongers looking at en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_convergent_sequence I'd say the opposite is true: for almost all real nmbers there is no unique Banach limit
– Bananach
Nov 27 '18 at 19:20




1




1




Chuck Norris knows the last digit of pi.
– gerw
Nov 28 '18 at 7:58




Chuck Norris knows the last digit of pi.
– gerw
Nov 28 '18 at 7:58




1




1




@gerw Well, Gauß knew it before him!
– Dirk
Nov 29 '18 at 8:33




@gerw Well, Gauß knew it before him!
– Dirk
Nov 29 '18 at 8:33










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














Concerning last question about general $xinmathbb{R}$ and concerning the twice upvoted comment (under the original question) that claims the limit is 4.5 for almost all $x$:



I think the opposite is true (see proof below): almost all (in the sense of the Lebesgue measure) real numbers do not have a unique Banach limit. Unless $pi$ is an exception to this (and I don't know whether it is), your first question does not have a well-defined answer: The 'last digit' of $pi$ is different for different choices of the Banach limit $phi$.



Proof of claim: According to a theorem of Lorentz, a sequence $(x_k)_{k=0}^{infty}$ has a unique Banach limit $Linmathbb{R}$ if and only if its averages $overline{x}_{n,p}:=frac{x_n+dots+x_{n+p-1}}{p}$ converge to $L$ as $ptoinfty$, uniformly in $n$. In formulas $forall epsilon>0: exists p_0inmathbb{N}: forall pgeq p_0: forall ninmathbb{N}:|overline{x}_{n,p}-L|<epsilon$. In particular, just by rewriting this definition in set form and choosing $epsilon:=1$, this implies that $xin bigcap_{minmathbb{N}}A_{p_0,m}$ for some $p_0inmathbb{N}$, where $A_{p_0,m}:={x:|overline{x}_{mp_0,p_0}-L|<1}$.
If we assume for simplicity that $(x_k)_{k=0}^{infty}$ are the digits of $xin[0,1]$, the events $(A_{p_0,m})_{minmathbb{N}}$ are independent under the Lebesgue probability measure on $[0,1]$ (since the digits themselves are independent random variables) and have probability less than $1$. This shows $P(bigcap_{minmathbb{N}}A_{p_0,m})=0$ for all $p_0inmathbb{N}$, or, if we denote by $B_L$ the reals with unique Banach limit $L$, that $P(B_L)=0$ for all $Linmathbb{R}$. Since $mathbb{R}$ is uncountable, it could happen that $P(bigcup_{L} B_L)>0$. However, this is not the case since $P(bigcup_{Lnot= 4.5}B_L)=0$ by the law of large numbers.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3016123%2fthe-last-digit-of-pi-in-terms-of-banach-limits%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3














    Concerning last question about general $xinmathbb{R}$ and concerning the twice upvoted comment (under the original question) that claims the limit is 4.5 for almost all $x$:



    I think the opposite is true (see proof below): almost all (in the sense of the Lebesgue measure) real numbers do not have a unique Banach limit. Unless $pi$ is an exception to this (and I don't know whether it is), your first question does not have a well-defined answer: The 'last digit' of $pi$ is different for different choices of the Banach limit $phi$.



    Proof of claim: According to a theorem of Lorentz, a sequence $(x_k)_{k=0}^{infty}$ has a unique Banach limit $Linmathbb{R}$ if and only if its averages $overline{x}_{n,p}:=frac{x_n+dots+x_{n+p-1}}{p}$ converge to $L$ as $ptoinfty$, uniformly in $n$. In formulas $forall epsilon>0: exists p_0inmathbb{N}: forall pgeq p_0: forall ninmathbb{N}:|overline{x}_{n,p}-L|<epsilon$. In particular, just by rewriting this definition in set form and choosing $epsilon:=1$, this implies that $xin bigcap_{minmathbb{N}}A_{p_0,m}$ for some $p_0inmathbb{N}$, where $A_{p_0,m}:={x:|overline{x}_{mp_0,p_0}-L|<1}$.
    If we assume for simplicity that $(x_k)_{k=0}^{infty}$ are the digits of $xin[0,1]$, the events $(A_{p_0,m})_{minmathbb{N}}$ are independent under the Lebesgue probability measure on $[0,1]$ (since the digits themselves are independent random variables) and have probability less than $1$. This shows $P(bigcap_{minmathbb{N}}A_{p_0,m})=0$ for all $p_0inmathbb{N}$, or, if we denote by $B_L$ the reals with unique Banach limit $L$, that $P(B_L)=0$ for all $Linmathbb{R}$. Since $mathbb{R}$ is uncountable, it could happen that $P(bigcup_{L} B_L)>0$. However, this is not the case since $P(bigcup_{Lnot= 4.5}B_L)=0$ by the law of large numbers.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      3














      Concerning last question about general $xinmathbb{R}$ and concerning the twice upvoted comment (under the original question) that claims the limit is 4.5 for almost all $x$:



      I think the opposite is true (see proof below): almost all (in the sense of the Lebesgue measure) real numbers do not have a unique Banach limit. Unless $pi$ is an exception to this (and I don't know whether it is), your first question does not have a well-defined answer: The 'last digit' of $pi$ is different for different choices of the Banach limit $phi$.



      Proof of claim: According to a theorem of Lorentz, a sequence $(x_k)_{k=0}^{infty}$ has a unique Banach limit $Linmathbb{R}$ if and only if its averages $overline{x}_{n,p}:=frac{x_n+dots+x_{n+p-1}}{p}$ converge to $L$ as $ptoinfty$, uniformly in $n$. In formulas $forall epsilon>0: exists p_0inmathbb{N}: forall pgeq p_0: forall ninmathbb{N}:|overline{x}_{n,p}-L|<epsilon$. In particular, just by rewriting this definition in set form and choosing $epsilon:=1$, this implies that $xin bigcap_{minmathbb{N}}A_{p_0,m}$ for some $p_0inmathbb{N}$, where $A_{p_0,m}:={x:|overline{x}_{mp_0,p_0}-L|<1}$.
      If we assume for simplicity that $(x_k)_{k=0}^{infty}$ are the digits of $xin[0,1]$, the events $(A_{p_0,m})_{minmathbb{N}}$ are independent under the Lebesgue probability measure on $[0,1]$ (since the digits themselves are independent random variables) and have probability less than $1$. This shows $P(bigcap_{minmathbb{N}}A_{p_0,m})=0$ for all $p_0inmathbb{N}$, or, if we denote by $B_L$ the reals with unique Banach limit $L$, that $P(B_L)=0$ for all $Linmathbb{R}$. Since $mathbb{R}$ is uncountable, it could happen that $P(bigcup_{L} B_L)>0$. However, this is not the case since $P(bigcup_{Lnot= 4.5}B_L)=0$ by the law of large numbers.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        3












        3








        3






        Concerning last question about general $xinmathbb{R}$ and concerning the twice upvoted comment (under the original question) that claims the limit is 4.5 for almost all $x$:



        I think the opposite is true (see proof below): almost all (in the sense of the Lebesgue measure) real numbers do not have a unique Banach limit. Unless $pi$ is an exception to this (and I don't know whether it is), your first question does not have a well-defined answer: The 'last digit' of $pi$ is different for different choices of the Banach limit $phi$.



        Proof of claim: According to a theorem of Lorentz, a sequence $(x_k)_{k=0}^{infty}$ has a unique Banach limit $Linmathbb{R}$ if and only if its averages $overline{x}_{n,p}:=frac{x_n+dots+x_{n+p-1}}{p}$ converge to $L$ as $ptoinfty$, uniformly in $n$. In formulas $forall epsilon>0: exists p_0inmathbb{N}: forall pgeq p_0: forall ninmathbb{N}:|overline{x}_{n,p}-L|<epsilon$. In particular, just by rewriting this definition in set form and choosing $epsilon:=1$, this implies that $xin bigcap_{minmathbb{N}}A_{p_0,m}$ for some $p_0inmathbb{N}$, where $A_{p_0,m}:={x:|overline{x}_{mp_0,p_0}-L|<1}$.
        If we assume for simplicity that $(x_k)_{k=0}^{infty}$ are the digits of $xin[0,1]$, the events $(A_{p_0,m})_{minmathbb{N}}$ are independent under the Lebesgue probability measure on $[0,1]$ (since the digits themselves are independent random variables) and have probability less than $1$. This shows $P(bigcap_{minmathbb{N}}A_{p_0,m})=0$ for all $p_0inmathbb{N}$, or, if we denote by $B_L$ the reals with unique Banach limit $L$, that $P(B_L)=0$ for all $Linmathbb{R}$. Since $mathbb{R}$ is uncountable, it could happen that $P(bigcup_{L} B_L)>0$. However, this is not the case since $P(bigcup_{Lnot= 4.5}B_L)=0$ by the law of large numbers.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        Concerning last question about general $xinmathbb{R}$ and concerning the twice upvoted comment (under the original question) that claims the limit is 4.5 for almost all $x$:



        I think the opposite is true (see proof below): almost all (in the sense of the Lebesgue measure) real numbers do not have a unique Banach limit. Unless $pi$ is an exception to this (and I don't know whether it is), your first question does not have a well-defined answer: The 'last digit' of $pi$ is different for different choices of the Banach limit $phi$.



        Proof of claim: According to a theorem of Lorentz, a sequence $(x_k)_{k=0}^{infty}$ has a unique Banach limit $Linmathbb{R}$ if and only if its averages $overline{x}_{n,p}:=frac{x_n+dots+x_{n+p-1}}{p}$ converge to $L$ as $ptoinfty$, uniformly in $n$. In formulas $forall epsilon>0: exists p_0inmathbb{N}: forall pgeq p_0: forall ninmathbb{N}:|overline{x}_{n,p}-L|<epsilon$. In particular, just by rewriting this definition in set form and choosing $epsilon:=1$, this implies that $xin bigcap_{minmathbb{N}}A_{p_0,m}$ for some $p_0inmathbb{N}$, where $A_{p_0,m}:={x:|overline{x}_{mp_0,p_0}-L|<1}$.
        If we assume for simplicity that $(x_k)_{k=0}^{infty}$ are the digits of $xin[0,1]$, the events $(A_{p_0,m})_{minmathbb{N}}$ are independent under the Lebesgue probability measure on $[0,1]$ (since the digits themselves are independent random variables) and have probability less than $1$. This shows $P(bigcap_{minmathbb{N}}A_{p_0,m})=0$ for all $p_0inmathbb{N}$, or, if we denote by $B_L$ the reals with unique Banach limit $L$, that $P(B_L)=0$ for all $Linmathbb{R}$. Since $mathbb{R}$ is uncountable, it could happen that $P(bigcup_{L} B_L)>0$. However, this is not the case since $P(bigcup_{Lnot= 4.5}B_L)=0$ by the law of large numbers.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 29 '18 at 8:02









        Bananach

        3,74111229




        3,74111229






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3016123%2fthe-last-digit-of-pi-in-terms-of-banach-limits%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

            Image
            0 0 $begingroup$ Need help with this problem. Suppose our lazy professor collects a quiz and a homework assignment from a class of n students one day, then distributes both the quizzes and the homework assignments back to the class in a random fashion for grading. Each student receives one quiz and one homework assignment to grade. (a) What is the probability that every student receives someone else's quiz to grade, and someone else's homework to grade? (b) What is the probability that no student receives both their own quiz and their own homework assignment to grade? In this case, some students may receive their own quiz, and others may receive their own homework assignment. (c) Compute the limiting probability as n approaches infinity in each case. ...
            Read more

            Aardman Animations

            Image
            Aardman Animations, Ltd. Aardman Animations Tipo privada Atividade Animação em stop-motion , Animação em CGI Fundação 1972 Fundador(es) Peter Lord David Sproxton Sede Bristol, Inglaterra  Reino Unido Proprietário(s) Dreamworks Pessoas-chave Peter Lord David Sproxton Nick Park Divisões Aardman Features Aardman Digital Aardman Commercials Aardman Broadcast Aardman International Aardman Rights Aardman Effects Aardman 3-D Systems Aardman Nathan Love AardBoiled Website oficial aardman.com ...
            Read more

            Are they similar matrix

            Image
            0 $begingroup$ Do $begin{bmatrix} 0&i&0\0&0&1\0&0&0 end{bmatrix} $ and $begin{bmatrix} 0&0&0\-i&0&0\0&1&0 end{bmatrix} $ are similar.Is this True/false Clearly both are nilpotent and one is conjucate transpose of other but how to know if they are similar.i'm stuck. Please help me linear-algebra vector-spaces eigenvalues-eigenvectors generalizedeigenvector share | cite | improve this question edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:38 Vasanth Kris asked Dec 10 '18 at 6:19 ...
            Read more