Skip to main content

A Rational Number With a Finite Number of Digits

A rational number, by its definition, is a ratio of two integers. Yet, some of them are not expressible using a finite number of digits in decimals, or more formally known as base-ten positional notation. For example, the number one third can be written exactly as 13 as a fraction, yet we cannot express the same number using a finite number of digits in base 10. The best we can do is to imply the indefinite repeating of the digit 3 using elipsis as in: 0.33... or more formally with a vinculum such as an overline to indicate the sequence of digits to repeat as in: 0.3. In the case of one seventh, a sequence of digits 142857 gets repeated as in 0.142857142857... or 0.142857. When I was a kid and first learned of division, I was very fascinated by this phenomnea. Today, I present an answer to one of the questions I once had as a kid: when can a rational number be expressed using a finite number of digits?

Theorem #

A rational number r can be represented in the positional notation of an integral base b2 using a finite number of digits if and only if every factor of the denominator of r in its irreducible fraction is also a factor of b.

Understanding the theorem #

Let's break down this statement. If r is a rational number, it is a ratio of two integers by the definition. Thus, there exist two integers nZ and dZ such that r=nd. Furthermore, without loss of generality, we can assume nd to be the irreducible fraction (also known as the lowest form) of r meaning that n and d do not share a common factor. (If r and d did share common factors, we can keep dividing them by the common factors to arrive at the irreducible fraction.)

Now let b=i=1kpbiqbi=pb1qb1pb2qb2...pbkqbk where pbiZ is a prime number and qbiZ for every i be the prime factorization of b, and d=j=1lpdjqdj=pd1qd1pd2qd2...pdlqdl where pdjZ is a prime number and qdjZ for every j be the prime factorization of d. Then the theorem says that r is expressible using a finite number of digits in the positional notation of base b if and only if every prime number pd1,pd2,...,pdl in the prime factorization of d also appears in the prime factorization of b (i.e. if t=pdi for some i, then t=pbj for some j).

For example, one nineth is not expressible using a finite number of digits in base 10 because its irreducible fraction 19 contains 3 (since 9=32) as a prime factor in its denominator, which is not a factor of 10=25. However, 19 is expressible using a finite number of digits in base 3 notation since the denominator only contains the prime factor of 3, which is also a factor of the base. Namely, 19 is 0.01 in base 3. Similarly, 120 is expressible using a finite number of digits in base 10 because its irreducible fraction 120 only contains prime numbers which are also factors of 10 in its denominator: 20=225 Note that reducing the fraction to its irreducible form is important. As an example, 315 is expressible using a finite number of digits in base 10 even though its denominator contains a prime factor of 3, which is not a factor of 10 since its irreducible form 15 only contains the prime factor of 5, which is a factor of 10.

Proof #

If a rational number can be represented using a finite number of digits in a base, then a prime factor of the denominator of its irreducible fraction is a factor of the base #

Let r be a rational number which can be expressed using a finite number of digits in the positional notation of an integral base b2. Then let dk...d2d1d0.d1d2...dl be such a sequence of digits presenting r in base b where kN is the place of the highest digit and lN is the place of the lowest digit after the radix point, and didiZ|0di<b for all i between l and k. Namely, r=i=lkdibi=dkbk+...+d1b1+d0b0+d1b1+...+dlbl Let n=rbl. Using the definition of r, n=rbl=(i=lkdibi)bl=i=lkdibi+l Substituting i with j=i+l yields: n=j=0k+ldjlbj Because djl and bj are both integers, n is also an integer since the sum of products of integers is also an integer. Now consider the fraction nbl=rblbl=r. The denominator only contains the prime factors of b since it's a power of b. Because reducing this fraction by canceling common factors in the numerator and the denominator does not introduce a new prime factor in the denominator, the irreducible fraction of r must also not have a prime factor which is not a factor of b in its denominator. That is, every prime factor of the denominator of the irreducible fraction of r is also a factor of b as desired.

If every prime factor of the denominator of a rational number in its irreducible fraction is also a factor of a base, then the number can be represented using a finite number of digits in the base. #

Let r be a rational number and r=nd with n,dZ be its irreducible fraction such that every factor of d is a factor of a base b2. Without loss of generality, assume d is non-negative (since the negative sign can always be moved from the denominator of a fraction to its numerator).

Case 1: If n is 0 or d is 1, r is an integer, and there is a representation of r using a finite number of digit in base b.

Case 2: If n is not 0 and d>1, let d=i=1kpiqi where kN, piN is a prime number and qiN for every i be the prime factorization of d using the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. From the supposition, every prime factor (pi for every i=1...k) of d is also a factor of the base b. Let pk+1,...pl be prime factors of b which is not a factor of d if there are any, and b=j=1lpjrj where lN such that kl and riN be the prime factorization of b.

Now let m be the maximum number amongst qi, and consider the quantity w=bmd. w=bmd=(j=1lpjrj)mi=1kpiqi=j=1lpjrjmi=1kpiqi=j=1lpjrjmi=1kpiqi

=(i=1kpirimj=k+1lpjrjm)i=1kpiqi=i=1kpirimqij=k+1lpjrjm

Because mqi and ri1 by the definitions of m and ri, rimqi and rimqi0. Thus, pirimqi is a non-negative integer for every i=1,...,k since it's a power of a prime number to a non-negative integer. Since pjrj is also a non-negative integer for all j=k+1,...,l and m is a positive integer by their definitions, the whole product w is also a non-negative integer. Then the quantity nw is also an integer since the product of two integers is also an integer.

Let nsns1...n0 be the representation of nw in the base b. Then consider the representation of nwbm=nbmdbm=nd in base b: nsns1...nm+1.nm...n0 with the radix point between nm and nm+1. This is the representation of nd in base b using a finite number of digits as desired.

Q.E.D.

Intuitive Reasoning #

The second half of the proof gives us an intuition as to why this theorem holds. The question of whether we can write down nd using a finite number of digits in base b really comes down to whether we can write down 1d using a finite number of digits in base b because nd is just 1d repeated n times. If 1d is expressible using a finite number of digits in base b, there ought to be some natural (positive) number c such that c-th digit after the radix point is the last digit. That is, since it's finite, there must be the last digit. The quantity 1bc represents 0 followed by c 0s and then 1. (e.g. if c=3 then 0.001.) The question boils down to whether there is such a c.

Suppose there was such a cN. Then 1d ought to be some multiple of 1bc. To give an example, consider a number 0.345 with c=3 in base 10. We can think of this number as 0.001 added 345 times or simply 0.001345. Let tZ be such an integer multiple: 1d=t1bc. e.g. t=345 with 1bc=1103=11000 for expressing 0.345 in base 10. Multiplying both sides of this equation by dbc yields: bc=dt.

This is a crucial equation. Intuitively, this equation says that bc must be some integral multiple of the denominator d. e.g. in the case of 0.345 in base 10, bc=103=1000 must be some integral multiple of the denominator of its irreducible fraction. To see why, let's turn 0.345 into a proper fraction with integral numerators and denominators by multiplying the base number 10: 0.345=3.4510=34.5100=3451000 Now apply the prime factorization and cancel common factors to get the irreducible fraction: 0.345=3451000=35232353=3232352=69200 Sure enough, 1000=5200. Notice that t=5 in this case is simply a common factor we originally had. In fact, t can be thought of as common factors needed in numerators and denominators to make the denominator become a power of 10.

Now, going back to bc=dt, we see that bc must have all prime factors of d and t because bc and dt are identical. But this would implies that every prime factor of d must be a prime factor of b since raising b to the power of c does not introduce a new prime factor, and multiplying d with any integer, in particular by t, does not eliminate a prime factor in d.