5
$\begingroup$

Let $\mu (r)>2$ be the irrationality measure of a transcendental number $r$, and consider the following set of points $P \in\mathbb{R}$:

$P=\{r\in \mathbb{R}: \mu(r)=Constant\}$

Is this set a fractal, and If so, then what is it's dimension?

  • 0
    The known upper bound of e.g. $\mu (\zeta (3))$ is $5.513891$, but it might be improved. So what does it means $\mu (r)=$ Constant $=5.513891$ in $P$?2010-11-17
  • 0
    I would say that we should distinguish between two cases: $\mu(r)=\mu (\zeta (3))$ and $\mu(r)=5.513891$. I'm slightly confused by this comment, because if $\mu (\zeta (3))$ is an irrational number, then it's impossible to write it in decimal notation in any case.2010-11-18
  • 0
    Correction: ... what does it mean ... . $\zeta(3)$ is indeed an irrational number with an irrational measure less or equal to $5.513891...$. And if $\zeta(3)$ is not a transcendental number? (Though I believe one day someone will prove it is).2010-11-18
  • 0
    If $\zeta (3)$ is algebraic, then $\mu(\zeta(3))=2$.2010-11-18
  • 0
    Yes, I know. But what does the condition $\mu(r)=$ Constant mean, when applied to $r=\zeta(3)$? What is the value of the Constant that would make $r=\zeta(3)$ be in $P$?2010-11-18
  • 0
    Measure of irrationality from The Springer Online Encyclopaedia of Mathematics http://eom.springer.de/M/m063260.htm2010-11-18
  • 0
    thanks for the link. I am still trying to understand precisely what issue/problem you are identifying, would you mind explaining this in more detail please. Am I correct that you are uncertain that there are any real numbers for which $\mu{r}$ is strictly greater than 2, but less than infinity, otherwise I dont see the significance of $\zeta(3)$?2010-11-19
  • 0
    1) Is your question a theoretical one? 2) It is difficult for me to understand the property $\mu(r)=$ Constant, except that the finite Constant is greater than or equal to 2. 3) The example I gave has no particular significance. 4) When only an upper bound greater than $5.513891$ was known (it was $12.417820\dots$, according to Apéry's proof), would you say that $\mu(\zeta(3))=5.513891\dots$? Of course, not, although now you can say it is.2010-11-19
  • 0
    I think I finally understand your point, which is that $\mu(\zeta(3))$ is not known, and therefore should not be used as the constant $C$ in $\mu(r)=C$ because that is ambiguous. I agree of course, and I didn't see this as an issue because I was just working with arbitrary constant real numbers, which $\mu(\zeta(3))$ certainly is, even if it's unknown.2010-11-19
  • 0
    Perhaps to answer (1) I should try and motivate my question a bit more: i just learned about irrationality measure last week, and I think it's really cool. It's called a "measure", and the most basic geometrical shape is the circle, so after thinking about these $P$ sets, and not finding any references online, it seemed like $P$ must have a fractal structure. Also, as soon as I see power law equations with non-integer exponents, the first thing I think of is fractals. It seemed like there might be a nice proof that this set is fractal and maybe even a nice way to compute its dimension.2010-11-19

1 Answers 1

3

It is a fractal much like the cantor set with dimension 2/r. That is Jarniks theorem. You can find a proof in the Falconer book Fractal Geometry: Mathematical Foundations and Applications.

  • 0
    Thanks! I own this book, I should have checked it more thoroughly.2011-02-19