Saturday, September 26, 2015

Not Sequence Numbers – But Kind of Like Sequence Numbers



9/26/2015

Not Sequence Numbers – But Kind of Like Sequence Numbers

This does not fit the definition of a sequence number.  However, it does have an interesting “sequence number-ish” result, and may help someone else find a sequence number for the Lucas Sequence.
The Lucas Sequence
The Lucas Sequence
1999999/999998999999 =
(Note: This fraction has been adapted from mathematical work I found on the website: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~kc2h-msm/mathland/math05/repeat05.htm  I believe the name of the mathematician who produced this website is Hisanori Mishima.
0.
000002  000001  000003  000004  000007  000011  000018  000029  000047  000076  000123  000199  000322  000521  000843  001364  002207  003571  005778  009349  015127  024476  039603  064079  103682  167761  271443  439204 
Terms are written in six digit strings.
Terms are accurate up to 439204, which is the 27th non-zero term.
Compare with OEIS sequence A000032.
The fraction we started with above can be rewritten as the sum of three unit fractions:
1999999/999998999999 =
1/500000 + 1/999997000005 + 1/99999600000699999799999500000
If you take each one of these unit fractions and convert them into decimals there sum shows the Lucas Sequence.  (In the final sum, the last digit is rounded up.
0.000002
0.000000000001000003000003999996999970999927999929…
0.000000000000000000000000000010000040000090000099…
0.000002000001000003000004000007000011000018000029…
You might also have noticed that the denominators of the second and third fractions look like the sequence numbers for two different Fibonacci like sequences.
999,997,000,005 is the sequence number for a Fibonacci like sequence that is defined as: a(0) = 0, a(1) = 1, and when n>1 then a(n) = a(n-1) – 5*a(n-2).  I would call this the 1, -5 Fibonacci sequence.
99,999,600,000,699,999,799,999,500,000 looks like a sequence number for a Fibonacci like sequence, which was then multiplied by 100,000.  The Fibonacci like sequence is defined as: a(0) = a(1) = a(2) = 0, a(3) = 1, and when n>3 then a(n) = 4*a(n-1) – 7*a(n-2) + 2*a(n-3) + 4*a(n-4).  I would call this the 4, -7, 2, 4 Tetranacci Sequence.
Both of these sequences produce terms that are negative.  Negative terms manifest themselves in the decimal expansion in a strange way.  That is why the decimal expansions shown above have the multiple occurrences of strings of nines where you would expect to see strings of zeros.

1/500000
The
1, -5
Fibonacci
Sequence
The
4, -7, 2, 4
Tetranacci
Sequence
The Lucas
Sequence
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
3
0
-4
1
4
0
-9
4
7
0
11
9
11
0
56
10
18
0
1
-11
29
0
-279
-80
47
0
-284
-187
76
0
1,111
-170
123
0
2,531
425
199
0
-3,024
2,196
322
0
-15,679
4,721
521
0
-559
3,682
843
0
77,836
-12,227
1,364
0
80,631
-56,456
2,207
0
-308,549
-113,987
3,571
0
-711,704
-70,482
5,778
0
831,041
354,161
9,349
0
4,389,561
1,456,220
15,127
0
234,356
2,748,841
24,476
0
-21,713,449
1,228,218
39,603
0
-22,885,229
-9,999,931
64,079
0
85,682,016
-37,274,688
103,682
0
200,108,161
-65,647,435
167,761
0
-228,301,919
-16,753,914
271,443
0
-1,228,842,724
277,967,289
439,204
This table show the results of each of the three unit fractions used to represent the Lucas Sequence.  And the fourth column shows the terms of the Lucas Sequence.
The mathematics used to combine these into a decimal expansion that shows the terms of the Lucas Sequence (written in six digit strings) can be a bit confusing when you consider that some of the terms in the table above contain more than six digits and some of the terms are negative.  It's a good thing that the math knows what it is doing!
Still, it is amazing that the Lucas Sequence, which apparently cannot be expressed as one unit fraction, can be expressed as the sum of three unit fractions.
(Note: 1999999/999998999999  This fraction has been adapted from mathematical work I found on the website: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~kc2h-msm/mathland/math05/repeat05.htm  I believe the name of the mathematician who produced this website is Hisanori Mishima.  In mathematics we cannot credit all of the mathematicians who developed the mathematics that we use to produce new findings.  After all, who would I credit for first finding out that one plus three equals four.  But when I started this work, and needed some guidance and a hint as to which direction to proceed, I found Hisanori Mishima’s work very helpful.)

David

No comments:

Post a Comment