Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This is a follow-up to Question 146635, namely Expected symmetry in the diophantine approximations of an irrational number, which I will refer to for notation and terminology used here without explanation.

Let $x$ be an irrational number and $\mu$ its irrationality measure. For each $s \in \{2\} \cup [2,\mu[$ set

$$G_s := \{n \in \mathbb{N}^+: \|nx\| < n^{1-s}\},$$ and then define $G_s^- := \big\{n \in \mathbb{N}^+: \|nx\| = \{nx\}\big\}$ and $G_s^+ := G_s \setminus G_s^-$ (recall that $\mu \ge 2$). It was already remarked in the other thread that $G_s$ is infinite (by Dirichlet's approximation theorem and the definition itself of $\mu$), so at least one of $G_s^-$ or $G_s^+$ is infinite too.

However, while $G_2^-$ and $G_2^+$ are both infinite, Noam Elkies' example proves that it can well happen that one of $G_s^-$ or $G_s^+$ is finite for all $s \in \; ]2,\mu[$. Moreover, the same example can be generalized to produce a countably infinite family of such examples, by considering Mahler numbers of the form $\sum_{n=0}^\infty a^{-b^n}$, where $a$ and $b$ are integers with $a \ge 2$ and $b \ge 3$ (each of these numbers has irrationality measure equal to $b$; see here for a discussion on this point). As for the case $\mu = \infty$, we can consider Liouville numbers of the form $\sum_{n=0}^\infty 2^{-(n!)^k}$ for $k = 1, 2, \ldots$

Having the above in mind, let us say that $x$ is a balanced number if both $G_s^-$ and $G_s^+$ are infinite for all $s \in \;]2, \mu[$, and unbalanced otherwise. As mentioned in the other thread, almost all numbers are balanced (just because almost all numbers have an irrationality measure equal to $2$). It seems then natural to ask the following:

Q1. Are there uncountably many unbalanced numbers? Q2. More specifically, are there uncountably many [un]balanced numbers of any prescribed irrationality measure (either finite or not)?

I'm pretty sure that the question of deciding whether or not a number is balanced has been stated and studied before, possibly in a more general form. If this is actually the case, then:

Q3. Would you kindly provide me with a reference?

Some further remarks: When $2 \le \mu < \infty$, a rough idea could be to consider a number $x$ of the form $2 \cdot \sum_{n = v}^\infty 3^{-\lfloor \lambda \mu^n\rfloor}$, where $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}^+$ and $v$ is a sufficiently large integer (depending on $\lambda$ and $\mu$). It is known after Y. Bugeaud's Diophantine approximations and Cantor sets (Math. Ann. 341, No. 3 (2008), 677-684) that the irrationality measure of $x$ is $\mu$. However, it seems a little difficult to make Noam's reasoning work in this case too (but I would be rather happy to learn that I'm wrong). Furthermore, this would not cover the case when $\mu$ is infinite.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Yes, there are uncountably many examples (maybe I should have mentioned this variation with my previous answer). For example, $\sum_{k=0}^\infty b_k 10^{-3^k}$ with each $b_k=1$ or $2$. There are uncountably many choices (cardinality of the continuum, even), and for each there are infinitely many lower approximants with exponent approaching 3 (the partial sums, as before), and no comparably good upper approximants.

share|improve this answer
    
Cool! This answers Q2 (and hence Q1) in the unbalanced case ($\mu = \infty$ can now be treated in a similar way). But what about the balanced case? –  Salvo Tringali Nov 3 '13 at 0:39
1  
Sure: just let $b_k$ be $1$ or $-1$ instead. (If you want to make sure they're exactly balanced then require also that $b_{2k+2} = -b_{2k+1}$.) –  Noam D. Elkies Nov 3 '13 at 0:44
    
Oh yes, I see. Thank you much! –  Salvo Tringali Nov 3 '13 at 0:47

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.