-1

I’m exploring a restricted arithmetic framework and have arrived at the following conjecture:

Tyler’s 2025 Conjecture:
There exists no infinite summation of the form $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} f(k)$$ that converges exactly to $\sqrt{2}$, where $f(k)$ is constructed only from:

•   Integer constants and the summation index k,
•   A finite number of additions, subtractions, multiplications, integer divisions, and integer exponentiations (including negative exponents),
•   Optionally, finite nested summations (also constrained to this grammar),

and excluding:

•   Non-integer exponents (e.g. fractional powers),
•   Factorials or binomial coefficients,
•   Transcendental functions (e.g. sin, exp, log),
•   Recursion, externally defined constants, or products over a range.

Extended Rule:

Constants like $\pi, e,$ or $\ln (2)$ may appear only if they are themselves expressed within the same framework, i.e., as legal summations using this grammar.

Why I believe it’s true:

•   Every $f(k)$ in this framework yields rational values, so each partial sum is rational.
•   The only known summations that converge to $\sqrt{2}$ involve forbidden constructs like radicals, fractional powers, binomial coefficients, or products.
•   Approximating $\sqrt{2}$ arbitrarily closely using only rational partial sums with “too-good” convergence runs afoul of Roth’s Theorem.
•   Even allowing legal definitions of $\pi$ or $e$ doesn’t help: no known rational transformation from them reaches $\sqrt{2}$ under these constraints.

This feels like a hard barrier: even though $\sqrt{2}$ is computable and algebraic, it may be inaccessible to this kind of purely integer-based summation logic.

My questions:

1.  Has anything like this conjecture been proven or refuted in number theory or computable analysis?
2.  Can we rigorously characterize the set of numbers representable by such constrained summations?
3.  Is there a known summation (using only this grammar) that converges to $\sqrt{2}$ or provably cannot?

I’m aware this touches on computability, irrational approximation, and perhaps symbolic logic. Any direction, refutation, or constructive idea would be appreciated.

Thomas Andrews
  • 186,215
Tyler
  • 87

3 Answers3

3

I think I can do this:

$eq(x,y)=\sum_0^{-(x-y)^2}(1)$

Note $eq(x,y)=1$ when $x=y$ and $eq(x,y)=0$ when $x\ne y$.

We have $\left\lfloor\frac xy\right\rfloor=\sum_{a=1}^x\sum_{b=1}^x eq(ay,b)$ whenever $x$ is a non-negative integer and $y$ is a positive integer.

Now we get $x\mod y=x-\left\lfloor\frac xy\right\rfloor\times y$ whenever $x$ is a non-negative integer and $y$ is a positive integer.

Then we can get $\binom xy=\left(\left\lfloor\frac{(1+2^x)^x}{2^{xy}}\right\rfloor\mod 2^x\right)+eq(x+y,0)$ for non-negative integers $x$ and $y$.

Finally, $\sqrt2=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\binom{2k}{k}\frac1{8^k}$.

  • That's the choose function, right? (the ${2k \choose k}$) Or am I misreading? – Debalanced May 06 '25 at 00:53
  • Hold it, I see you've derived an expression for the choose function that follows his rules. Sorry! – Debalanced May 06 '25 at 00:54
  • @lucenaposition Wow, this is amazing! You’ve gotten super close! However, I would need proof that your given expression: \left( \left\lfloor \frac{(1 + 2^x)^x}{2xy} \right\rfloor \mod 2^x \right) actually equals the true binomial coefficient for all x and y. Without a proof that uses the permitted operations, it unfortunately doesn’t satisfy the rules. – Tyler May 06 '25 at 01:05
  • It's pretty easy: expand $(1+2^x)^x$ via the binomial theorem in base $2^x$, noting that the coefficients are less than $2^x$ whenever $x>0$, and sort out the special case where $x=0$. – Lucenaposition May 06 '25 at 01:10
  • @Lucenaposition, I ran a quick simulation in JS, and it seems like you’re definitely right! If we can find some way to emulate mod() and floor(), we’d be close to disproving the conjecture. – Tyler May 06 '25 at 01:19
  • @Tyler all the floor() series I've heard of use either trigonometric functions or factorials and Bernoulli numbers. You'll need another innovation for that. – Debalanced May 06 '25 at 01:31
2

We have $$ \sqrt{2} = \frac{\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty \frac{ 4(-\frac12)^n + (-\frac18)^n}{2n+1}}{\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty 4 \frac{(-1)^n}{2n+1}} $$

I'm drawing on formulas from this paper by Bailey, Borwein, and Plouffe. Their paper claims it's an open problem whether there is an integer number $b$ and integer-coefficient polynomials $p$ and $q$ such that: $$ \sqrt{2} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty b^{-n} \frac{p(n)}{q(n)} $$

--

Proof of formula: It follows immediately from these identities: \begin{eqnarray} \pi &=& \sum_{n=0}^\infty 4 \frac{(-1)^n}{2n+1}\\ \pi \sqrt{2} &=& \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{ 4(-\frac12)^n + (-\frac18)^n}{2n+1} \end{eqnarray}

The first of these is an evaluation of $4\arctan(1)$ by Taylor series. The second is equation 2.13 in Bailey, Borwein, and Plouffe. It is proven as follows:

By the angle addition formula for arctangents, \begin{eqnarray} 2\arctan \frac 1{\sqrt 2} &=& \arctan\left(\frac{\frac{1}{\sqrt2}+\frac1{\sqrt2}}{1-\frac1{\sqrt{2}\cdot\sqrt 2}}\right)\\ &=& \arctan\left(2\sqrt2\right) = \arctan \sqrt 8 \end{eqnarray} Then, using the fact that $\arctan(x) + \arctan(1/x) = \frac\pi2$ for all $x$, we have: $$ 2\arctan \frac1{\sqrt 2} + \arctan\frac1{\sqrt 8} = \frac\pi 2 $$ Using the Taylor series of arctan:\begin{eqnarray} 2\arctan \frac1{\sqrt 2} + \arctan\frac1{\sqrt 8} &=& 2\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n \frac{(\frac1{\sqrt 2})^{2n+1}}{2n+1}+\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n \frac{(\frac1{\sqrt 8})^{2n+1}}{2n+1}\\ &=& 2\frac1{\sqrt2}\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n \frac{(\frac1{\sqrt 2})^{2n}}{2n+1}+\frac1{\sqrt8}\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n \frac{(\frac1{\sqrt 8})^{2n}}{2n+1}\\ &=& \frac1{2\sqrt2}\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n \frac{4(\frac12)^{n}}{2n+1}+\frac1{2\sqrt2}\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n \frac{(\frac1{ 8})^{n}}{2n+1} \\ &=& \frac1{2\sqrt 2}\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n\frac{4(\frac12)^{n}+(\frac1{ 8})^{n}}{2n+1}\right) \end{eqnarray}

Then multiply both sides by $2\sqrt2$ to obtain the series for $\sqrt 2 \pi$.

  • this is really in-depth. Allow me to run it through Js, and I’ll tell you if your solution qualifies. – Tyler May 06 '25 at 01:24
  • I used the following JS to compute your algorithm:
    let num = 0, den = 0;
    
    for (let n = 1; n <= N; n++) {
      num += (4 * ((-0.5) ** n) + ((-0.125) ** n)) / (2 * n + 1);
      den += 4 * ((-1) ** n) / (2 * n + 1);
    }
    
    let approx = num / den;
    console.log("Approx:", approx);
    console.log("Actual:", Math.SQRT2);
    console.log("Error:", Math.abs(approx - Math.SQRT2));```
    
    And it seems to converge to:
    0.6490
    
    – Tyler May 06 '25 at 01:29
  • Oh, yes I made a mistake. The sums should start at 0 not 1. – Dark Malthorp May 06 '25 at 02:16
1

Using the Taylor series for $f(t)=(1-t)^{1/2}$ you can see that $$ \sqrt2=1-\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^n2(2n-2)!}{4^nn!(n-1)!}. $$

Martin Argerami
  • 217,281
  • Thanks, but I’m not looking for a Taylor expansion of a constant like f(x) = √2. I’m asking if √2 can be the limit of a convergent infinite summation where each term is built from integer arithmetic only—no radicals, factorials, or non-integer powers allowed. – Tyler May 05 '25 at 21:45
  • 1
    @Tyler Factorials are just repetitive multiplications. – Debalanced May 05 '25 at 21:45
  • 2
    @Debalanced My understanding of the problem is that the formula has to be written so that the number of multiplication operations is independent of the summation index. – Ted May 05 '25 at 21:47
  • @Ted Then, I don't exactly see how this is possible, considering every known infinite series representation of $\sqrt{2}$ relies on the choose function. – Debalanced May 05 '25 at 21:50
  • Wait, have we considered just taking $f_k=d_k10^{-k}$, where $d_k$ is just the $k$th digit of the expansion? Cheaty, but wouldn't it work? – Debalanced May 05 '25 at 21:56
  • 1
    You can't just write $d_k$. You have to write it in terms of the primitive operations stated in the problem. – Ted May 05 '25 at 22:01
  • @Ted darn. well, most taylor series aren't going to work, because most of them don't cancel out the $n!$ term in their denominator. The only taylor series that could've worked would be $\cos^{-1}(x)$, $\sin^{-1}(x)$, and well the taylor series for $\sqrt{x}$ and its offsets, and all of those contain the factorial in some way, shape or form. – Debalanced May 05 '25 at 22:03
  • How about the convergents to the continued fraction of $\sqrt{2}$? Could you find a working representation for those without factorials? – Debalanced May 05 '25 at 22:07
  • 1
    @Debalanced, unfortunately, there is no known way to express recursion in that manner as a summation. Here’s why: .1 it would require backwards recursion, .2 it can’t be unfolded into a finite closed form, .3 it can’t be encoded in a summation unless you know the limit, .4 it relies on nested function calls, which aren’t allowed in summations. – Tyler May 05 '25 at 22:13
  • @Tyler Darn! I'd put my money on this conjecture being true, then, even though things like these are very hard to prove. – Debalanced May 05 '25 at 22:13
  • Also, I wouldn't say this is just a rational approximation problem, because you're restricting yourself to a very specific kind of rational number. I'm not sure we have a great way to approach this with our current tools in number theory. – Debalanced May 05 '25 at 22:15
  • @Debalanced, totally agree. I just thought that I should share it with MSE, just in case i was missing something. – Tyler May 05 '25 at 22:17
  • @Debalanced I think the continued fraction is more or less just obscuring the series via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_continued_fraction_formula . You can make an infinite matrix product which in some sense represents the square root of two but alas not a sum. –  May 05 '25 at 23:10
  • @law-of-fives, yes. I have tried emulating möbius transformations before. However, they all seem to require restricted operators. – Tyler May 05 '25 at 23:21