There are 719 errors in this sentence

Here’s a famous paradox (or a variant of it at least):

• There are two errers in this sentence.

The only visible error is the misspelt “errers”. But if the sentence claims to have two errors while having only one, that is another error and there are two errors after all.

Now for another variant. I’m not sure if I’ve thought this up for myself, but try this sentence:

• There are three errors in this sentence.

There are no visible errors in the sentence. Therefore it has one error: the claim that it has three errors when there is in fact no error. But if it has one error, it’s in error to claim that it has three errors. Therefore the sentence has two errors. And if it has two errors, again it’s in error, because it claims to have three errors while having only two. Therefore it has three errors after all.

The same reasoning can be applied to any integral number of errors:

• There are five errors in this sentence.
• There are 719 errors in this sentence.
• There are 1,000,000 errors in this sentence.
• There are 1,000,000,000 errors in this sentence.

No matter how large the number of errors, the sentence becomes true instantly, because each time the sentence makes a false claim, it makes another error. But those “times of error” don’t take place in time, any more than this equation does:

• 2 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16…

So I think these sentences are instantly true:

• There are infinitely many errors in this sentence.
• There are ∞ errors in this sentence.

But there are infinitely many infinities. Ordinary infinity, the infinity of 1,2,3…, is called ℵ0 or aleph-zero. It’s a countable infinity. Above that comes ℵ1, an uncountable infinity. So does this sentence instantly become true?

• There are ℵ1 errors in this sentence.

I’m not sure. But I think I can argue for the validity of sentences claiming fractional or irrational number of errors:

• There is 1.5 errors in this sentence.
• There are π errors in this sentence.

Let’s have a look at “There is 1.5 errors in this sentence”. There are no visible errors, so there’s one error: the claim that sentence contains 1.5 errors. So now there seems to be another error: the sentence has one error but claims to have 1.5 errors. But does it therefore have two errors? No, because if it has two errors, it’s still in error and has three errors. And that generates another error and another and another, and so on for ever. The sentence becomes unstoppably and infinitely false.

So let’s go back to the point at which the sentence contains one error. Now, the difference between 1 error and 1.5 errors is small — less than a full error. So how big is the error of claiming to have 1.5 errors when having 1 error? Well, it’s obviously 0.5 of an error. So the sentence contains 1.5 errors after all.

Now for “There are π errors in this sentence”. There are no visible errors, so there’s one error: the claim that the sentence contains π errors. Therefore it contains one error. But it claims to have π errors, so it has another error. And if it has 2 errors and claims to have π errors, it has another and third error. But if it has three errors and claims to have π error, it’s still in error. But only slightly — it’s now committing a small amount of an error. How much? It can only be 0.14159265… of an error. Therefore it’s committing 3.14159265… = π errors and is a true sentence.

Now try:

• There is -1 error in this sentence.

What is a negative error? A truth. So I think that sentence is valid too. But I can’t think of how to use i, or the square root of -1, in a sentence like that.

The Power of Powder

• Racine carrée de 2, c’est 1,414 et des poussières… Et quelles poussières ! Des grains de sable qui empêchent d’écrire racine de 2 comme une fraction. Autrement dit, cette racine n’est pas dans Q. — Rationnel mon Q: 65 exercices de styles, Ludmilla Duchêne et Agnès Leblanc (2010)

• The square root of 2 is 1·414 and dust… And what dust! Grains of sand that stop you writing the root of 2 as a fraction. Put another way, this root isn’t in Q [the set of rational numbers].

Root Rite

A square contains one of the great — perhaps the greatest — intellectual rites of passage. If each side of the square is 1 unit in length, how long are its diagonals? By Pythagoras’ theorem:

a^2 + b^2 = c^2
1^2 + 1^2 = 2, so c = √2

So each diagonal is √2 units long. But what is √2? It’s a new kind of number: an irrational number. That doesn’t mean that it’s illogical or against reason, but that it isn’t exactly equal to any ratio of integers like 3/2 or 17/12. When represented as decimals, the digits of all integer ratios either end or fall, sooner or later, into an endlessly repeating pattern:

3/2 = 1.5

17/12 = 1.416,666,666,666,666…

577/408 = 1.414,2156 8627 4509 8039,2156 8627 4509 8039,2156 8627 4509 8039,2156 8627 4509 8039,2156 8627 4509 8039,…

But when √2 is represented as a decimal, its digits go on for ever without any such pattern:

√2 = 1.414,213,562,373,095,048,801,688,724,209,698,078,569,671,875,376,948,073,176,679,737,990,732,478,462,107…

The intellectual rite of passage comes when you understand why √2 is irrational and behaves like that:

Proof of the irrationality of √2

1. Suppose that there is some ratio, a/b, such that

2. a and b have no factors in common and

3. a^2/b^2 = 2.

4. It follows that a^2 = 2b^2.

5. Therefore a is even and there is some number, c, such that 2c = a.

6. Substituting c in #4, we derive (2c)^2 = 4c^2 = 2b^2.

7. Therefore 2c^2 = b^2 and b is also even.

8. But #7 contradicts #2 and the supposition that a and b have no factors in common.

9. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, there is no ratio, a/b, such that a^2/b^2 = 2. Q.E.D.

Given that subtle proof, you might think the digits of an irrational number like √2 would be difficult to calculate. In fact, they’re easy. And one method is so easy that it’s often re-discovered by recreational mathematicians. Suppose that a is an estimate for √2 but it’s too high. Clearly, if 2/a = b, then b will be too low. To get a better estimate, you simply split the difference: a = (a + b) / 2. Then do it again and again:

a = (2/a + a) / 2

If you first set a = 1, the estimates improve like this:

(2/1 + 1) / 2 = 3/2
2 – (3/2)^2 = -0.25
(2/(3/2) + 3/2) / 2 = 17/12
2 – (17/12)^2 = -0.00694…
(2/(17/12) + 17/12) / 2 = 577/408
2 – (577/408)^2 = -0.000006007…
(2/(577/408) + 577/408) / 2 = 665857/470832
2 – (665857/470832)^2 = -0.00000000000451…

In fact, the estimate doubles in accuracy (or better) at each stage (the first digit to differ is underlined):

1.5… = 3/2 (matching digits = 1)
1.4… = √2

1.416… = 17/12 (m=3)
1.414… = √2

1.414,215… = 577/408 (m=6)
1.414,213… = √2

1.414,213,562,374… = 665857/470832 (m=12)
1.414,213,562,373… = √2

1.414,213,562,373,095,048,801,689… = 886731088897/627013566048 (m=24)
1.414,213,562,373,095,048,801,688… = √2

1.414,213,562,373,095,048,801,688,724,209,698,078,569,671,875,377… (m=48)
1.414,213,562,373,095,048,801,688,724,209,698,078,569,671,875,376… = √2

1.414,213,562,373,095,048,801,688,724,209,698,078,569,671,875,376,948,073,176,679,737,990,732,478,46
2,107,038,850,387,534,327,641,6… (m=97)
1.414,213,562,373,095,048,801,688,724,209,698,078,569,671,875,376,948,073,176,679,737,990,732,478,46
2,107,038,850,387,534,327,641,5… = √2

1.414,213,562,373,095,048,801,688,724,209,698,078,569,671,875,376,948,073,176,679,737,990,732,478,46
2,107,038,850,387,534,327,641,572,735,013,846,230,912,297,024,924,836,055,850,737,212,644,121,497,09
9,935,831,413,222,665,927,505,592,755,799,950,501,152,782,060,8… (m=196)
1.414,213,562,373,095,048,801,688,724,209,698,078,569,671,875,376,948,073,176,679,737,990,732,478,46
2,107,038,850,387,534,327,641,572,735,013,846,230,912,297,024,924,836,055,850,737,212,644,121,497,09
9,935,831,413,222,665,927,505,592,755,799,950,501,152,782,060,5… = √2

1.414,213,562,373,095,048,801,688,724,209,698,078,569,671,875,376,948,073,176,679,737,990,732,478,46
2,107,038,850,387,534,327,641,572,735,013,846,230,912,297,024,924,836,055,850,737,212,644,121,497,09
9,935,831,413,222,665,927,505,592,755,799,950,501,152,782,060,571,470,109,559,971,605,970,274,534,59
6,862,014,728,517,418,640,889,198,609,552,329,230,484,308,714,321,450,839,762,603,627,995,251,407,98
9,687,253,396,546,331,808,829,640,620,615,258,352,395,054,745,750,287,759,961,729,835,575,220,337,53
1,857,011,354,374,603,43… (m=392)
1.414,213,562,373,095,048,801,688,724,209,698,078,569,671,875,376,948,073,176,679,737,990,732,478,46
2,107,038,850,387,534,327,641,572,735,013,846,230,912,297,024,924,836,055,850,737,212,644,121,497,09
9,935,831,413,222,665,927,505,592,755,799,950,501,152,782,060,571,470,109,559,971,605,970,274,534,59
6,862,014,728,517,418,640,889,198,609,552,329,230,484,308,714,321,450,839,762,603,627,995,251,407,98
9,687,253,396,546,331,808,829,640,620,615,258,352,395,054,745,750,287,759,961,729,835,575,220,337,53
1,857,011,354,374,603,40… = √2

1.414,213,562,373,095,048,801,688,724,209,698,078,569,671,875,376,948,073,176,679,737,990,732,478,46
2,107,038,850,387,534,327,641,572,735,013,846,230,912,297,024,924,836,055,850,737,212,644,121,497,09
9,935,831,413,222,665,927,505,592,755,799,950,501,152,782,060,571,470,109,559,971,605,970,274,534,59
6,862,014,728,517,418,640,889,198,609,552,329,230,484,308,714,321,450,839,762,603,627,995,251,407,98
9,687,253,396,546,331,808,829,640,620,615,258,352,395,054,745,750,287,759,961,729,835,575,220,337,53
1,857,011,354,374,603,408,498,847,160,386,899,970,699,004,815,030,544,027,790,316,454,247,823,068,49
2,936,918,621,580,578,463,111,596,668,713,013,015,618,568,987,237,235,288,509,264,861,249,497,715,42
1,833,420,428,568,606,014,682,472,077,143,585,487,415,565,706,967,765,372,022,648,544,701,585,880,16
2,075,847,492,265,722,600,208,558,446,652,145,839,889,394,437,092,659,180,031,138,824,646,815,708,26
3,010,059,485,870,400,318,648,034,219,489,727,829,064,104,507,263,688,131,373,985,525,611,732,204,02
4,509,122,770,022,694,112,757,362,728,049,574… (m=783)
1.414,213,562,373,095,048,801,688,724,209,698,078,569,671,875,376,948,073,176,679,737,990,732,478,46
2,107,038,850,387,534,327,641,572,735,013,846,230,912,297,024,924,836,055,850,737,212,644,121,497,09
9,935,831,413,222,665,927,505,592,755,799,950,501,152,782,060,571,470,109,559,971,605,970,274,534,59
6,862,014,728,517,418,640,889,198,609,552,329,230,484,308,714,321,450,839,762,603,627,995,251,407,98
9,687,253,396,546,331,808,829,640,620,615,258,352,395,054,745,750,287,759,961,729,835,575,220,337,53
1,857,011,354,374,603,408,498,847,160,386,899,970,699,004,815,030,544,027,790,316,454,247,823,068,49
2,936,918,621,580,578,463,111,596,668,713,013,015,618,568,987,237,235,288,509,264,861,249,497,715,42
1,833,420,428,568,606,014,682,472,077,143,585,487,415,565,706,967,765,372,022,648,544,701,585,880,16
2,075,847,492,265,722,600,208,558,446,652,145,839,889,394,437,092,659,180,031,138,824,646,815,708,26
3,010,059,485,870,400,318,648,034,219,489,727,829,064,104,507,263,688,131,373,985,525,611,732,204,02
4,509,122,770,022,694,112,757,362,728,049,573… = √2

Pi and By

Here’s √2 in base 2:

√2 = 1.01101010000010011110... (base=2)

And in base 3:

√2 = 1.10201122122200121221... (base=3)

And in bases 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10:

√2 = 1.12220021321212133303... (b=4)
√2 = 1.20134202041300003420... (b=5)
√2 = 1.22524531420552332143... (b=6)
√2 = 1.26203454521123261061... (b=7)
√2 = 1.32404746317716746220... (b=8)
√2 = 1.36485805578615303608... (b=9)
√2 = 1.41421356237309504880... (b=10)

And here’s π in the same bases:

π = 11.00100100001111110110... (b=2)
π = 10.01021101222201021100... (b=3)
π = 03.02100333122220202011... (b=4)
π = 03.03232214303343241124... (b=5)
π = 03.05033005141512410523... (b=6)
π = 03.06636514320361341102... (b=7)
π = 03.11037552421026430215... (b=8)
π = 03.12418812407442788645... (b=9)
π = 03.14159265358979323846... (b=10)

Mathematicians know that in all standard bases, the digits of √2 and π go on for ever, without falling into any regular pattern. These numbers aren’t merely irrational but transcedental. But are they also normal? That is, in each base b, do the digits 0 to [b-1] occur with the same frequency 1/b? (In general, a sequence of length l will occur in a normal number with frequency 1/(b^l).) In base 2, are there as many 1s as 0s in the digits of √2 and π? In base 3, are there as many 2s as 1s and 0s? And so on.

It’s a simple question, but so far it’s proved impossible to answer. Another question starts very simple but quickly gets very difficult. Here are the answers so far at the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS):

2, 572, 8410815, 59609420837337474 – A049364

The sequence is defined as the “Smallest number that is digitally balanced in all bases 2, 3, … n”. In base 2, the number 2 is 10, which has one 1 and one 0. In bases 2 and 3, 572 = 1000111100 and 210012, respectively. 1000111100 has five 1s and five 0s; 210012 has two 2s, two 1s and two 0s. Here are the numbers of A049364 in the necessary bases:

10 (n=2)
1000111100, 210012 (n=572)
100000000101011010111111, 120211022110200, 200011122333 (n=8410815)
11010011110001100111001111010010010001101011100110000010, 101201112000102222102011202221201100, 3103301213033102101223212002, 1000001111222333324244344 (n=59609420837337474)

But what number, a(6), satisfies the definition for bases 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6? According to the notes at the OEIS, a(6) > 5^434. That means finding a(6) is way beyond the power of present-day computers. But I assume a quantum computer could crack it. And maybe someone will come up with a short-cut or even an algorithm that supplies a(b) for any base b. Either way, I think we’ll get there, π and by.

Squaring and Paring

Squares are often thought to be the most boring of all shapes. Yet every square holds a stunning secret – something that in legend prompted a mathematical cult to murder a traitor. If each side of a square is one unit long, how long is the square’s diagonal, that is, the line from one corner to the opposite corner?

By Pythagoras’ theorem, the answer is this:

• x^2 = 1^2 + 1^2
• x^2 = 2
• x = √2

But what is √2? Pythagoras and his followers thought that all numbers could be represented as either whole numbers or ratios of whole numbers. To their dismay, so it’s said, they discovered that they were wrong. √2 is an irrational number – it can’t be represented as a ratio. In modern notation, it’s an infinitely decimal that never repeats:

• √2 = 1·414213562373095048801688724209698…

A modern story, unattested in ancient records, says that the irrationality of √2 was a closely guarded secret in the Pythagorean cult. When Hippasus of Metapontum betrayed the secret, he was drowned at sea by enraged fellow cultists. Apocryphal or not, the story shows that squares aren’t so boring after all.

Nor are they boring when they’re caught in the fract. Divide one square into nine smaller copies of itself:


Discard three of the copies like this:

Stage 1
Retain squares 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 (reading left-to-right, bottom-to-top)


Then do the same to each of the sub-squares:

Stage 1


And repeat:

Stage 3


Stage 4


Stage 5


Stage 6


The result is a fractal of endlessly subdividing contingent hexagons:

Animated vesion


Retain squares 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 (reading left-to-right, bottom-to-top)


Here are a few more of the fractals you can create by squaring and paring:

Retain squares 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 (reading left-to-right, bottom-to-top)


Retain squares 2, 4, 5, 6, 8


Retain squares 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9


Retain squares 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16


Retain squares 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16


Retain squares 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15


Retain squares 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25


Retain squares 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 25


Retain squares 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25


Retain squares 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24


Retain squares 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25


Previously pre-posted (please peruse):

M.i.P. Trip

Self-Raising Power

The square root of 2 is the number that, raised to the power of 2, equals 2. That is, if r^2 = r * r = 2, then r = √2. The cube root of 2 is the number that, raised to the power of 3, equals 2. That is, if r^3 = r * r * r = 2, then r = [3]√2.

But what do you call the number that, raised to the power of itself, equals 2? I suggest “the auto-root of 2”. Here, if r^r = 2, then r = [r]√2. I don’t know a quick way to calculate the auto-root, but you can adapt a well-known algorithm for approximating the square root of a number. The square-root algorithm looks like this:

n = 2
r = 1
for c = 1 to 20
    r = (r + n/r) / 2
next c
print r

r = 1.414213562…

Note the fourth line of the algorithm: r = (r + n/r) / 2. When r is an over-estimate of √2, then 2/r will be an under-estimate (and vice versa). (r + 2/r) / 2 splits the difference and refines the estimate. Using the lines above as the model, the auto-root algorithm looks like this:

n = 2
r = 1
for c = 1 to 20
    r = (r + [r]√n) / 2[*]
next c
print r

r = 1.559610469…


*This is equivalent to r = (r + n^(1/r)) / 2

Here are the first 100 digits of [r]√2 = r in base 10:

1, 5, 5, 9, 6, 1, 0, 4, 6, 9, 4, 6, 2, 3, 6, 9, 3, 4, 9, 9, 7, 0, 3, 8, 8, 7, 6, 8, 7, 6, 5, 0, 0, 2, 9, 9, 3, 2, 8, 4, 8, 8, 3, 5, 1, 1, 8, 4, 3, 0, 9, 1, 4, 2, 4, 7, 1, 9, 5, 9, 4, 5, 6, 9, 4, 1, 3, 9, 7, 3, 0, 3, 4, 5, 4, 9, 5, 9, 0, 5, 8, 7, 1, 0, 5, 4, 1, 3, 4, 4, 4, 6, 9, 1, 2, 8, 3, 9, 7, 3…

And here is [r]n = r for n = 2..20:

autopower(2) = 1.5596104694623693499703887…
autopower(3) = 1.8254550229248300400414692…
autopower(4) = 2
autopower(5) = 2.1293724827601566963803119…
autopower(6) = 2.2318286244090093673920215…
autopower(7) = 2.3164549587856123013255030…
autopower(8) = 2.3884234844993385564187215…
autopower(9) = 2.4509539280155796306228059…
autopower(10) = 2.5061841455887692562929409…
autopower(11) = 2.5556046121008206152514542…
autopower(12) = 2.6002950000539155877172082…
autopower(13) = 2.6410619164843958084118390…
autopower(14) = 2.6785234858912995813011990…
autopower(15) = 2.7131636040042392095764012…
autopower(16) = 2.7453680235674634847098492…
autopower(17) = 2.7754491049442334313328329…
autopower(18) = 2.8036632456580215496843618…
autopower(19) = 2.8302234384970308956026277…
autopower(20) = 2.8553085030012414128332189…

I assume that the auto-root is always an irrational number, except when n is a perfect power of suitable form, i.e. n = p^p for some integer p. For example, autoroot(4) = 2, because 2^2 = 4, autoroot(27) = 3, because 3^3 = 27, and so on.

And here is the graph of autoroot(n) for n = 2..10000:
autoroot

Performativizing Papyrocentricity #16

Papyrocentric Performativity Presents:

Brit GritGranite and Grit: A Walker’s Guide to the Geology of British Mountains, Ronald Turnbull (Francis Lincoln 2011)

Singh Summing SimpsonsThe Simpsons and Their Mathematical Secrets, Simon Singh (Bloomsbury 2013)

Go with the QuoStatus Quo: Still Doin’ It – The Official Updated Edition, compiled by Bob Young, edited by Francis Rossi and Rick Parfitt (Omnibus Press 2013)

Breeding BunniesThe Golden Ratio: The Story of Phi, the Extraordinary Number of Nature, Art and Beauty, Mario Livio (Headline Review 2003) (posted @ Overlord of the Über-Feral)

Brit Bot BookReader’s Digest Field Guide to the Wild Flowers of Britain, J.R. Press et al, illustrated Leonora Box et al (1981) (@ O.o.t.Ü.-F.)


Or Read a Review at Random: RaRaR

Breeding Bunnies

Front cover of The Golden Ratio by Mario Livio
The Golden Ratio: The Story of Phi, the Extraordinary Number of Nature, Art and Beauty, Mario Livio (Headline Review 2003)

A good short popular guide to perhaps the most interesting, and certainly the most irrational, of all numbers: the golden ratio or phi (φ), which is approximately equal to 1·6180339887498948482… Prominent in mathematics since at least the ancient Greeks and Euclid, phi is found in many places in nature too, from pineapples and sunflowers to the flight of hawks. Livio catalogues its appearances in both maths and nature, looking closely at the Fibonacci sequence and rabbit-breeding, before going on to debunk mistaken claims that phi also appears a lot in art, music and poetry. Dalí certainly used it, but da Vinci, Debussy and Virgil almost certainly didn’t. Nor, almost certainly, did the builders of the Parthenon and pyramids. Finally, he examines what has famously been called (by the physicist Eugene Wiegner) the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics: why is this human invention so good at describing the behaviour of the Universe? Livio quotes one of the best short answers I’ve seen:

Human logic was forced on us by the physical world and is therefore consistent with it. Mathematics derives from logic. That is why mathematics is consistent with the physical world. (ch. 9, “Is God a mathematician?”, pg. 252)

It’s not hard to recommend a book that quotes everyone from Johannes Kepler and William Blake to Lewis Carroll, Christopher Marlowe and Jef Raskin, “the creator of the Macintosh computer”, whose answer is given above. Recreational mathematicians should also find lots of ideas for further investigation, from fractal strings to the fascinating number patterns governed by Benford’s law. It isn’t just human beings who look after number one: as a leading figure, 1 turns up much more often in data from the real world, and in mathematical constructs like the Fibonacci sequence, than intuition would lead you to expect. If you’d like to learn more about that and about many other aspects of mathematics, hunt down a copy of this book.


Elsewhere other-posted:

Roses Are Golden – φ and floral homicide