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.