Is there an easy way to see that binary expansion is unique? [duplicate]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1













This question already has an answer here:



  • Binary expansion Unique

    4 answers



Let $n in mathbbN$. Using the Euclidean algorithm, it is straightforward to see that every natural number can be written as



$$n = sum_j=0^m epsilon_j(n) 2^j $$



where $epsilon_j(n) in 0,1$.



Is there an easy way to show that this way of writing the number is unique?










share|cite|improve this question















marked as duplicate by Asaf Karagila Nov 29 at 8:44


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.










  • 8




    Have you tried induction?
    – saulspatz
    Nov 28 at 16:12






  • 8




    @stanleydodds Why are you answering in a comment?
    – Arthur
    Nov 28 at 16:17






  • 4




    @stanleydodds Outlines of answers are still answers. Even one-line hints belong in answer posts in my opinion
    – Arthur
    Nov 28 at 16:19











  • Index $j$ should start at $0$. If it starts at $1$ then RHS is even.
    – drhab
    Nov 28 at 16:30






  • 3




    As presented, such expansions are not unique. For uniqueness, you need to add the constraint that $$epsilon_m(n) = 1$$. Otherwise, an arbitrary number of additional leading 0 terms can be included to produce distinct expansions of the same n.
    – John Bollinger
    Nov 28 at 17:54















up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1













This question already has an answer here:



  • Binary expansion Unique

    4 answers



Let $n in mathbbN$. Using the Euclidean algorithm, it is straightforward to see that every natural number can be written as



$$n = sum_j=0^m epsilon_j(n) 2^j $$



where $epsilon_j(n) in 0,1$.



Is there an easy way to show that this way of writing the number is unique?










share|cite|improve this question















marked as duplicate by Asaf Karagila Nov 29 at 8:44


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.










  • 8




    Have you tried induction?
    – saulspatz
    Nov 28 at 16:12






  • 8




    @stanleydodds Why are you answering in a comment?
    – Arthur
    Nov 28 at 16:17






  • 4




    @stanleydodds Outlines of answers are still answers. Even one-line hints belong in answer posts in my opinion
    – Arthur
    Nov 28 at 16:19











  • Index $j$ should start at $0$. If it starts at $1$ then RHS is even.
    – drhab
    Nov 28 at 16:30






  • 3




    As presented, such expansions are not unique. For uniqueness, you need to add the constraint that $$epsilon_m(n) = 1$$. Otherwise, an arbitrary number of additional leading 0 terms can be included to produce distinct expansions of the same n.
    – John Bollinger
    Nov 28 at 17:54













up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1






1






This question already has an answer here:



  • Binary expansion Unique

    4 answers



Let $n in mathbbN$. Using the Euclidean algorithm, it is straightforward to see that every natural number can be written as



$$n = sum_j=0^m epsilon_j(n) 2^j $$



where $epsilon_j(n) in 0,1$.



Is there an easy way to show that this way of writing the number is unique?










share|cite|improve this question
















This question already has an answer here:



  • Binary expansion Unique

    4 answers



Let $n in mathbbN$. Using the Euclidean algorithm, it is straightforward to see that every natural number can be written as



$$n = sum_j=0^m epsilon_j(n) 2^j $$



where $epsilon_j(n) in 0,1$.



Is there an easy way to show that this way of writing the number is unique?





This question already has an answer here:



  • Binary expansion Unique

    4 answers







elementary-number-theory binary






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 28 at 16:30

























asked Nov 28 at 16:06









Math_QED

6,86431449




6,86431449




marked as duplicate by Asaf Karagila Nov 29 at 8:44


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by Asaf Karagila Nov 29 at 8:44


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









  • 8




    Have you tried induction?
    – saulspatz
    Nov 28 at 16:12






  • 8




    @stanleydodds Why are you answering in a comment?
    – Arthur
    Nov 28 at 16:17






  • 4




    @stanleydodds Outlines of answers are still answers. Even one-line hints belong in answer posts in my opinion
    – Arthur
    Nov 28 at 16:19











  • Index $j$ should start at $0$. If it starts at $1$ then RHS is even.
    – drhab
    Nov 28 at 16:30






  • 3




    As presented, such expansions are not unique. For uniqueness, you need to add the constraint that $$epsilon_m(n) = 1$$. Otherwise, an arbitrary number of additional leading 0 terms can be included to produce distinct expansions of the same n.
    – John Bollinger
    Nov 28 at 17:54













  • 8




    Have you tried induction?
    – saulspatz
    Nov 28 at 16:12






  • 8




    @stanleydodds Why are you answering in a comment?
    – Arthur
    Nov 28 at 16:17






  • 4




    @stanleydodds Outlines of answers are still answers. Even one-line hints belong in answer posts in my opinion
    – Arthur
    Nov 28 at 16:19











  • Index $j$ should start at $0$. If it starts at $1$ then RHS is even.
    – drhab
    Nov 28 at 16:30






  • 3




    As presented, such expansions are not unique. For uniqueness, you need to add the constraint that $$epsilon_m(n) = 1$$. Otherwise, an arbitrary number of additional leading 0 terms can be included to produce distinct expansions of the same n.
    – John Bollinger
    Nov 28 at 17:54








8




8




Have you tried induction?
– saulspatz
Nov 28 at 16:12




Have you tried induction?
– saulspatz
Nov 28 at 16:12




8




8




@stanleydodds Why are you answering in a comment?
– Arthur
Nov 28 at 16:17




@stanleydodds Why are you answering in a comment?
– Arthur
Nov 28 at 16:17




4




4




@stanleydodds Outlines of answers are still answers. Even one-line hints belong in answer posts in my opinion
– Arthur
Nov 28 at 16:19





@stanleydodds Outlines of answers are still answers. Even one-line hints belong in answer posts in my opinion
– Arthur
Nov 28 at 16:19













Index $j$ should start at $0$. If it starts at $1$ then RHS is even.
– drhab
Nov 28 at 16:30




Index $j$ should start at $0$. If it starts at $1$ then RHS is even.
– drhab
Nov 28 at 16:30




3




3




As presented, such expansions are not unique. For uniqueness, you need to add the constraint that $$epsilon_m(n) = 1$$. Otherwise, an arbitrary number of additional leading 0 terms can be included to produce distinct expansions of the same n.
– John Bollinger
Nov 28 at 17:54





As presented, such expansions are not unique. For uniqueness, you need to add the constraint that $$epsilon_m(n) = 1$$. Otherwise, an arbitrary number of additional leading 0 terms can be included to produce distinct expansions of the same n.
– John Bollinger
Nov 28 at 17:54











6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
10
down vote













How do you know the ordinary base $10$ expansion is unique?



Suppose digit strings $s$ and $t$ both represent the positive integer $n$. Then the units digit of each must be $d = n pmod 10$. So you can lop off both units digits. The lopped strings then both represent $(n-d)/10$.



Continue with the other digits (from the right) until you're done. Or, for a formal induction proof, apply that argument to the least $n$ with two representations to deduce a contradiction.



This argument works for any base. It's the standard algorithm for base conversion, finding the digits from right to left. It depends on knowing that you can do division with remainder, but not on the full strength of the Euclidean algorithm.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    up vote
    8
    down vote













    Suppose $exists ninBbb N$ such that $n=sum_iin A2^i=sum_iin B2^i$ with $A,BsubsetBbb N_0$. Then $sum_iin A2^i-sum_iin B2^i=0$ and so for set $C=ADelta B$ (symmetric difference) and some function $s:Crightarrow-1,1$ we have $sum_iin Cs(i)2^i=0$. Now if $Cneemptyset$ then $C$ has a largest element (say $x$) and we have $sum_iin Cbackslashxs(i)2^i=-s(x)2^x$ so $sum_iin Cbackslashx-s(i)over s(x)2^i=2^x$ but we now know $Cbackslashxsubset0,1,2,...,x-1$ and also $-s(i)over s(x)le1$ so we have $sum_iin Cbackslashx-s(i)over s(x)2^ilesum_i=0^x-12^i=2^x-1$ which is a contradiction. Hence $C=emptyset$, so $A=B$, so the representations are in fact the same, hence the representation of n is unique (assuming it exists, which I gather has been shown already).






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      3
      down vote













      Not really an answer. But here's just a different way of framing your question which I think is neat.



      Let $f: P_fin(mathbbN) to mathbbN$ by $f(S) =sum_sin S 2^s$.



      $f$ is onto. You have claimed this can be handled Euclidean algorithm.



      What about $1-1$? We use the argument Stanley Dodds presented.




      So we've seen that the set of all finite subsets of the natural numbers is in 1-1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers.







      share|cite|improve this answer





























        up vote
        3
        down vote













        Hint $ $ Uniqueness of radix rep can be deduced intuitively from the simple fact that an integer root of an integer coef polynomial divides the least degree coef (i.e. Rational Root Test). For example



        $qquad11001_2 = g(2),, g(x) = x^4+x^3+1$



        $qquad 10011_2 = h(2), h(x) = x^4+x+1$



        If they're equal $, 0 = g(2)-h(2) =: f(2),$ for $,f = g-h = x(x^2-1),$ so $,2,$ is a root of $,x^2-1,$ so $, 2^2 = 1,Rightarrow, 2mid 1,,$ contradiction. This idea works generally - the nonzero coef's of $g-h$ are $pm1$ contra the root $2$ must divide the least degree such coef. Below is the proof for general radix.




        If $,g(x) = sum g_i x^i$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients $,g_i,$ such that $,0le g_i < b,$ and $,g(b) = n,$ then we call $,(g,b),$ a radix $,b,$ representation of $,n.,$ It is unique: $ $ if $,n,$ has another rep $,(h,b),,$ with $,g(x) ne h(x),,$ then $,f(x)= g(x)-h(x)ne 0,$ has root $,b,$ but all coefficients $,color#c00,,$ contra the below slight generalization of: $ $ integer roots of integer polynomials divide their constant term.



        Theorem $ $ If $,f(x) = x^k(color#0a0f_0!+f_1 x +cdots + f_n x^n)=x^kbar f(x),$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients $,f_i,$ and with $,color#0a0f_0ne 0,$ then an integer root $,bne 0,$ satisfies $,bmid f_0,,$ so $,color#c00f_0$



        Proof $ 0 = f(b) = b^k bar f(b),oversetlarge b,ne, 0Rightarrow, 0 = bar f(b),,$ so, subtracting $,f_0$ from both sides yields $$-f_0 =, b,(f_1!+f_2 b+,cdots+f_n b^n-1), Rightarrow,bmid f_0, oversetlarge color#0a0f_0,ne, 0Rightarrow, |b| le |f_0|qquad bf QEDqquadquad$$



        Remark $ $ Thus uniqueness of radix rep is essentially a special case of the Rational Root Test,






        share|cite|improve this answer





























          up vote
          3
          down vote













          A very simple proof is by the pigeonhole principle. The key observation is that not only does any natural number $n$ have a binary expansion $$n = sum_j=0^m epsilon_j(n) 2^j,$$ but if $0leq n<2^N$ then we need no powers of $2$ above $2^N-1$ so we can take $m=N-1$. Now, for any fixed $N$, there are $2^N$ natural numbers $n$ such that $0leq n<2^N$ and $2^N$ different ways of choosing $epsilon_j(n)in0,1$ for each $j$ from $0$ to $N-1$. So, all $2^N$ of these binary expansions must have distinct sums, or else they would not be able to represent all $2^N$ of the different values of $n$.



          This proves that for any $N$, a natural number $n$ has at most one binary expansion using powers of $2$ up to $2^N-1$. It follows that $n$ has only one binary expansion, up to adding $0$s at the start (since given two expansions of different lengths, you can always extend one by $0$s to make them the same length, and then they must become the same).






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            0
            down vote













            This argument is very basic but I think the notation is easy to follow:
            Suppose a number has two different expansions $a_i$ and $b_i$. Then
            $$ sum_i=0^m a_i(n) 2^i = sum_i=0^m b_i(n) 2^i $$ Break off the first term in both sums and you can get $$ a_o(n) - b_0(n) = 2sum_i=1^m (b_i(n)-a_i(n)) 2^i-1$$
            The l.h.s can only be ($0-0$), ($0-1$), ($1-0$), or ($1-1$), and it must be divisible by $2$, so it must equal $0$, i.e. $a_0(n) = b_0(n)$. Then you can divide by the $2$ in front of the sum, and repeat the argument (or use induction) to get $a_i(n) = b_i(n)$ for all $i$.






            share|cite|improve this answer



























              6 Answers
              6






              active

              oldest

              votes








              6 Answers
              6






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              10
              down vote













              How do you know the ordinary base $10$ expansion is unique?



              Suppose digit strings $s$ and $t$ both represent the positive integer $n$. Then the units digit of each must be $d = n pmod 10$. So you can lop off both units digits. The lopped strings then both represent $(n-d)/10$.



              Continue with the other digits (from the right) until you're done. Or, for a formal induction proof, apply that argument to the least $n$ with two representations to deduce a contradiction.



              This argument works for any base. It's the standard algorithm for base conversion, finding the digits from right to left. It depends on knowing that you can do division with remainder, but not on the full strength of the Euclidean algorithm.






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                up vote
                10
                down vote













                How do you know the ordinary base $10$ expansion is unique?



                Suppose digit strings $s$ and $t$ both represent the positive integer $n$. Then the units digit of each must be $d = n pmod 10$. So you can lop off both units digits. The lopped strings then both represent $(n-d)/10$.



                Continue with the other digits (from the right) until you're done. Or, for a formal induction proof, apply that argument to the least $n$ with two representations to deduce a contradiction.



                This argument works for any base. It's the standard algorithm for base conversion, finding the digits from right to left. It depends on knowing that you can do division with remainder, but not on the full strength of the Euclidean algorithm.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  10
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  10
                  down vote









                  How do you know the ordinary base $10$ expansion is unique?



                  Suppose digit strings $s$ and $t$ both represent the positive integer $n$. Then the units digit of each must be $d = n pmod 10$. So you can lop off both units digits. The lopped strings then both represent $(n-d)/10$.



                  Continue with the other digits (from the right) until you're done. Or, for a formal induction proof, apply that argument to the least $n$ with two representations to deduce a contradiction.



                  This argument works for any base. It's the standard algorithm for base conversion, finding the digits from right to left. It depends on knowing that you can do division with remainder, but not on the full strength of the Euclidean algorithm.






                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  How do you know the ordinary base $10$ expansion is unique?



                  Suppose digit strings $s$ and $t$ both represent the positive integer $n$. Then the units digit of each must be $d = n pmod 10$. So you can lop off both units digits. The lopped strings then both represent $(n-d)/10$.



                  Continue with the other digits (from the right) until you're done. Or, for a formal induction proof, apply that argument to the least $n$ with two representations to deduce a contradiction.



                  This argument works for any base. It's the standard algorithm for base conversion, finding the digits from right to left. It depends on knowing that you can do division with remainder, but not on the full strength of the Euclidean algorithm.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Nov 28 at 21:47

























                  answered Nov 28 at 16:49









                  Ethan Bolker

                  40.2k545106




                  40.2k545106




















                      up vote
                      8
                      down vote













                      Suppose $exists ninBbb N$ such that $n=sum_iin A2^i=sum_iin B2^i$ with $A,BsubsetBbb N_0$. Then $sum_iin A2^i-sum_iin B2^i=0$ and so for set $C=ADelta B$ (symmetric difference) and some function $s:Crightarrow-1,1$ we have $sum_iin Cs(i)2^i=0$. Now if $Cneemptyset$ then $C$ has a largest element (say $x$) and we have $sum_iin Cbackslashxs(i)2^i=-s(x)2^x$ so $sum_iin Cbackslashx-s(i)over s(x)2^i=2^x$ but we now know $Cbackslashxsubset0,1,2,...,x-1$ and also $-s(i)over s(x)le1$ so we have $sum_iin Cbackslashx-s(i)over s(x)2^ilesum_i=0^x-12^i=2^x-1$ which is a contradiction. Hence $C=emptyset$, so $A=B$, so the representations are in fact the same, hence the representation of n is unique (assuming it exists, which I gather has been shown already).






                      share|cite|improve this answer
























                        up vote
                        8
                        down vote













                        Suppose $exists ninBbb N$ such that $n=sum_iin A2^i=sum_iin B2^i$ with $A,BsubsetBbb N_0$. Then $sum_iin A2^i-sum_iin B2^i=0$ and so for set $C=ADelta B$ (symmetric difference) and some function $s:Crightarrow-1,1$ we have $sum_iin Cs(i)2^i=0$. Now if $Cneemptyset$ then $C$ has a largest element (say $x$) and we have $sum_iin Cbackslashxs(i)2^i=-s(x)2^x$ so $sum_iin Cbackslashx-s(i)over s(x)2^i=2^x$ but we now know $Cbackslashxsubset0,1,2,...,x-1$ and also $-s(i)over s(x)le1$ so we have $sum_iin Cbackslashx-s(i)over s(x)2^ilesum_i=0^x-12^i=2^x-1$ which is a contradiction. Hence $C=emptyset$, so $A=B$, so the representations are in fact the same, hence the representation of n is unique (assuming it exists, which I gather has been shown already).






                        share|cite|improve this answer






















                          up vote
                          8
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          8
                          down vote









                          Suppose $exists ninBbb N$ such that $n=sum_iin A2^i=sum_iin B2^i$ with $A,BsubsetBbb N_0$. Then $sum_iin A2^i-sum_iin B2^i=0$ and so for set $C=ADelta B$ (symmetric difference) and some function $s:Crightarrow-1,1$ we have $sum_iin Cs(i)2^i=0$. Now if $Cneemptyset$ then $C$ has a largest element (say $x$) and we have $sum_iin Cbackslashxs(i)2^i=-s(x)2^x$ so $sum_iin Cbackslashx-s(i)over s(x)2^i=2^x$ but we now know $Cbackslashxsubset0,1,2,...,x-1$ and also $-s(i)over s(x)le1$ so we have $sum_iin Cbackslashx-s(i)over s(x)2^ilesum_i=0^x-12^i=2^x-1$ which is a contradiction. Hence $C=emptyset$, so $A=B$, so the representations are in fact the same, hence the representation of n is unique (assuming it exists, which I gather has been shown already).






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          Suppose $exists ninBbb N$ such that $n=sum_iin A2^i=sum_iin B2^i$ with $A,BsubsetBbb N_0$. Then $sum_iin A2^i-sum_iin B2^i=0$ and so for set $C=ADelta B$ (symmetric difference) and some function $s:Crightarrow-1,1$ we have $sum_iin Cs(i)2^i=0$. Now if $Cneemptyset$ then $C$ has a largest element (say $x$) and we have $sum_iin Cbackslashxs(i)2^i=-s(x)2^x$ so $sum_iin Cbackslashx-s(i)over s(x)2^i=2^x$ but we now know $Cbackslashxsubset0,1,2,...,x-1$ and also $-s(i)over s(x)le1$ so we have $sum_iin Cbackslashx-s(i)over s(x)2^ilesum_i=0^x-12^i=2^x-1$ which is a contradiction. Hence $C=emptyset$, so $A=B$, so the representations are in fact the same, hence the representation of n is unique (assuming it exists, which I gather has been shown already).







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Nov 28 at 16:40









                          stanley dodds

                          4201310




                          4201310




















                              up vote
                              3
                              down vote













                              Not really an answer. But here's just a different way of framing your question which I think is neat.



                              Let $f: P_fin(mathbbN) to mathbbN$ by $f(S) =sum_sin S 2^s$.



                              $f$ is onto. You have claimed this can be handled Euclidean algorithm.



                              What about $1-1$? We use the argument Stanley Dodds presented.




                              So we've seen that the set of all finite subsets of the natural numbers is in 1-1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers.







                              share|cite|improve this answer


























                                up vote
                                3
                                down vote













                                Not really an answer. But here's just a different way of framing your question which I think is neat.



                                Let $f: P_fin(mathbbN) to mathbbN$ by $f(S) =sum_sin S 2^s$.



                                $f$ is onto. You have claimed this can be handled Euclidean algorithm.



                                What about $1-1$? We use the argument Stanley Dodds presented.




                                So we've seen that the set of all finite subsets of the natural numbers is in 1-1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers.







                                share|cite|improve this answer
























                                  up vote
                                  3
                                  down vote










                                  up vote
                                  3
                                  down vote









                                  Not really an answer. But here's just a different way of framing your question which I think is neat.



                                  Let $f: P_fin(mathbbN) to mathbbN$ by $f(S) =sum_sin S 2^s$.



                                  $f$ is onto. You have claimed this can be handled Euclidean algorithm.



                                  What about $1-1$? We use the argument Stanley Dodds presented.




                                  So we've seen that the set of all finite subsets of the natural numbers is in 1-1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers.







                                  share|cite|improve this answer














                                  Not really an answer. But here's just a different way of framing your question which I think is neat.



                                  Let $f: P_fin(mathbbN) to mathbbN$ by $f(S) =sum_sin S 2^s$.



                                  $f$ is onto. You have claimed this can be handled Euclidean algorithm.



                                  What about $1-1$? We use the argument Stanley Dodds presented.




                                  So we've seen that the set of all finite subsets of the natural numbers is in 1-1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers.








                                  share|cite|improve this answer














                                  share|cite|improve this answer



                                  share|cite|improve this answer








                                  edited Nov 28 at 16:42

























                                  answered Nov 28 at 16:36









                                  Mason

                                  1,7941527




                                  1,7941527




















                                      up vote
                                      3
                                      down vote













                                      Hint $ $ Uniqueness of radix rep can be deduced intuitively from the simple fact that an integer root of an integer coef polynomial divides the least degree coef (i.e. Rational Root Test). For example



                                      $qquad11001_2 = g(2),, g(x) = x^4+x^3+1$



                                      $qquad 10011_2 = h(2), h(x) = x^4+x+1$



                                      If they're equal $, 0 = g(2)-h(2) =: f(2),$ for $,f = g-h = x(x^2-1),$ so $,2,$ is a root of $,x^2-1,$ so $, 2^2 = 1,Rightarrow, 2mid 1,,$ contradiction. This idea works generally - the nonzero coef's of $g-h$ are $pm1$ contra the root $2$ must divide the least degree such coef. Below is the proof for general radix.




                                      If $,g(x) = sum g_i x^i$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients $,g_i,$ such that $,0le g_i < b,$ and $,g(b) = n,$ then we call $,(g,b),$ a radix $,b,$ representation of $,n.,$ It is unique: $ $ if $,n,$ has another rep $,(h,b),,$ with $,g(x) ne h(x),,$ then $,f(x)= g(x)-h(x)ne 0,$ has root $,b,$ but all coefficients $,color#c00,,$ contra the below slight generalization of: $ $ integer roots of integer polynomials divide their constant term.



                                      Theorem $ $ If $,f(x) = x^k(color#0a0f_0!+f_1 x +cdots + f_n x^n)=x^kbar f(x),$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients $,f_i,$ and with $,color#0a0f_0ne 0,$ then an integer root $,bne 0,$ satisfies $,bmid f_0,,$ so $,color#c00f_0$



                                      Proof $ 0 = f(b) = b^k bar f(b),oversetlarge b,ne, 0Rightarrow, 0 = bar f(b),,$ so, subtracting $,f_0$ from both sides yields $$-f_0 =, b,(f_1!+f_2 b+,cdots+f_n b^n-1), Rightarrow,bmid f_0, oversetlarge color#0a0f_0,ne, 0Rightarrow, |b| le |f_0|qquad bf QEDqquadquad$$



                                      Remark $ $ Thus uniqueness of radix rep is essentially a special case of the Rational Root Test,






                                      share|cite|improve this answer


























                                        up vote
                                        3
                                        down vote













                                        Hint $ $ Uniqueness of radix rep can be deduced intuitively from the simple fact that an integer root of an integer coef polynomial divides the least degree coef (i.e. Rational Root Test). For example



                                        $qquad11001_2 = g(2),, g(x) = x^4+x^3+1$



                                        $qquad 10011_2 = h(2), h(x) = x^4+x+1$



                                        If they're equal $, 0 = g(2)-h(2) =: f(2),$ for $,f = g-h = x(x^2-1),$ so $,2,$ is a root of $,x^2-1,$ so $, 2^2 = 1,Rightarrow, 2mid 1,,$ contradiction. This idea works generally - the nonzero coef's of $g-h$ are $pm1$ contra the root $2$ must divide the least degree such coef. Below is the proof for general radix.




                                        If $,g(x) = sum g_i x^i$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients $,g_i,$ such that $,0le g_i < b,$ and $,g(b) = n,$ then we call $,(g,b),$ a radix $,b,$ representation of $,n.,$ It is unique: $ $ if $,n,$ has another rep $,(h,b),,$ with $,g(x) ne h(x),,$ then $,f(x)= g(x)-h(x)ne 0,$ has root $,b,$ but all coefficients $,color#c00,,$ contra the below slight generalization of: $ $ integer roots of integer polynomials divide their constant term.



                                        Theorem $ $ If $,f(x) = x^k(color#0a0f_0!+f_1 x +cdots + f_n x^n)=x^kbar f(x),$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients $,f_i,$ and with $,color#0a0f_0ne 0,$ then an integer root $,bne 0,$ satisfies $,bmid f_0,,$ so $,color#c00f_0$



                                        Proof $ 0 = f(b) = b^k bar f(b),oversetlarge b,ne, 0Rightarrow, 0 = bar f(b),,$ so, subtracting $,f_0$ from both sides yields $$-f_0 =, b,(f_1!+f_2 b+,cdots+f_n b^n-1), Rightarrow,bmid f_0, oversetlarge color#0a0f_0,ne, 0Rightarrow, |b| le |f_0|qquad bf QEDqquadquad$$



                                        Remark $ $ Thus uniqueness of radix rep is essentially a special case of the Rational Root Test,






                                        share|cite|improve this answer
























                                          up vote
                                          3
                                          down vote










                                          up vote
                                          3
                                          down vote









                                          Hint $ $ Uniqueness of radix rep can be deduced intuitively from the simple fact that an integer root of an integer coef polynomial divides the least degree coef (i.e. Rational Root Test). For example



                                          $qquad11001_2 = g(2),, g(x) = x^4+x^3+1$



                                          $qquad 10011_2 = h(2), h(x) = x^4+x+1$



                                          If they're equal $, 0 = g(2)-h(2) =: f(2),$ for $,f = g-h = x(x^2-1),$ so $,2,$ is a root of $,x^2-1,$ so $, 2^2 = 1,Rightarrow, 2mid 1,,$ contradiction. This idea works generally - the nonzero coef's of $g-h$ are $pm1$ contra the root $2$ must divide the least degree such coef. Below is the proof for general radix.




                                          If $,g(x) = sum g_i x^i$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients $,g_i,$ such that $,0le g_i < b,$ and $,g(b) = n,$ then we call $,(g,b),$ a radix $,b,$ representation of $,n.,$ It is unique: $ $ if $,n,$ has another rep $,(h,b),,$ with $,g(x) ne h(x),,$ then $,f(x)= g(x)-h(x)ne 0,$ has root $,b,$ but all coefficients $,color#c00,,$ contra the below slight generalization of: $ $ integer roots of integer polynomials divide their constant term.



                                          Theorem $ $ If $,f(x) = x^k(color#0a0f_0!+f_1 x +cdots + f_n x^n)=x^kbar f(x),$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients $,f_i,$ and with $,color#0a0f_0ne 0,$ then an integer root $,bne 0,$ satisfies $,bmid f_0,,$ so $,color#c00f_0$



                                          Proof $ 0 = f(b) = b^k bar f(b),oversetlarge b,ne, 0Rightarrow, 0 = bar f(b),,$ so, subtracting $,f_0$ from both sides yields $$-f_0 =, b,(f_1!+f_2 b+,cdots+f_n b^n-1), Rightarrow,bmid f_0, oversetlarge color#0a0f_0,ne, 0Rightarrow, |b| le |f_0|qquad bf QEDqquadquad$$



                                          Remark $ $ Thus uniqueness of radix rep is essentially a special case of the Rational Root Test,






                                          share|cite|improve this answer














                                          Hint $ $ Uniqueness of radix rep can be deduced intuitively from the simple fact that an integer root of an integer coef polynomial divides the least degree coef (i.e. Rational Root Test). For example



                                          $qquad11001_2 = g(2),, g(x) = x^4+x^3+1$



                                          $qquad 10011_2 = h(2), h(x) = x^4+x+1$



                                          If they're equal $, 0 = g(2)-h(2) =: f(2),$ for $,f = g-h = x(x^2-1),$ so $,2,$ is a root of $,x^2-1,$ so $, 2^2 = 1,Rightarrow, 2mid 1,,$ contradiction. This idea works generally - the nonzero coef's of $g-h$ are $pm1$ contra the root $2$ must divide the least degree such coef. Below is the proof for general radix.




                                          If $,g(x) = sum g_i x^i$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients $,g_i,$ such that $,0le g_i < b,$ and $,g(b) = n,$ then we call $,(g,b),$ a radix $,b,$ representation of $,n.,$ It is unique: $ $ if $,n,$ has another rep $,(h,b),,$ with $,g(x) ne h(x),,$ then $,f(x)= g(x)-h(x)ne 0,$ has root $,b,$ but all coefficients $,color#c00,,$ contra the below slight generalization of: $ $ integer roots of integer polynomials divide their constant term.



                                          Theorem $ $ If $,f(x) = x^k(color#0a0f_0!+f_1 x +cdots + f_n x^n)=x^kbar f(x),$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients $,f_i,$ and with $,color#0a0f_0ne 0,$ then an integer root $,bne 0,$ satisfies $,bmid f_0,,$ so $,color#c00f_0$



                                          Proof $ 0 = f(b) = b^k bar f(b),oversetlarge b,ne, 0Rightarrow, 0 = bar f(b),,$ so, subtracting $,f_0$ from both sides yields $$-f_0 =, b,(f_1!+f_2 b+,cdots+f_n b^n-1), Rightarrow,bmid f_0, oversetlarge color#0a0f_0,ne, 0Rightarrow, |b| le |f_0|qquad bf QEDqquadquad$$



                                          Remark $ $ Thus uniqueness of radix rep is essentially a special case of the Rational Root Test,







                                          share|cite|improve this answer














                                          share|cite|improve this answer



                                          share|cite|improve this answer








                                          edited Nov 28 at 17:58

























                                          answered Nov 28 at 17:04









                                          Bill Dubuque

                                          207k29189624




                                          207k29189624




















                                              up vote
                                              3
                                              down vote













                                              A very simple proof is by the pigeonhole principle. The key observation is that not only does any natural number $n$ have a binary expansion $$n = sum_j=0^m epsilon_j(n) 2^j,$$ but if $0leq n<2^N$ then we need no powers of $2$ above $2^N-1$ so we can take $m=N-1$. Now, for any fixed $N$, there are $2^N$ natural numbers $n$ such that $0leq n<2^N$ and $2^N$ different ways of choosing $epsilon_j(n)in0,1$ for each $j$ from $0$ to $N-1$. So, all $2^N$ of these binary expansions must have distinct sums, or else they would not be able to represent all $2^N$ of the different values of $n$.



                                              This proves that for any $N$, a natural number $n$ has at most one binary expansion using powers of $2$ up to $2^N-1$. It follows that $n$ has only one binary expansion, up to adding $0$s at the start (since given two expansions of different lengths, you can always extend one by $0$s to make them the same length, and then they must become the same).






                                              share|cite|improve this answer
























                                                up vote
                                                3
                                                down vote













                                                A very simple proof is by the pigeonhole principle. The key observation is that not only does any natural number $n$ have a binary expansion $$n = sum_j=0^m epsilon_j(n) 2^j,$$ but if $0leq n<2^N$ then we need no powers of $2$ above $2^N-1$ so we can take $m=N-1$. Now, for any fixed $N$, there are $2^N$ natural numbers $n$ such that $0leq n<2^N$ and $2^N$ different ways of choosing $epsilon_j(n)in0,1$ for each $j$ from $0$ to $N-1$. So, all $2^N$ of these binary expansions must have distinct sums, or else they would not be able to represent all $2^N$ of the different values of $n$.



                                                This proves that for any $N$, a natural number $n$ has at most one binary expansion using powers of $2$ up to $2^N-1$. It follows that $n$ has only one binary expansion, up to adding $0$s at the start (since given two expansions of different lengths, you can always extend one by $0$s to make them the same length, and then they must become the same).






                                                share|cite|improve this answer






















                                                  up vote
                                                  3
                                                  down vote










                                                  up vote
                                                  3
                                                  down vote









                                                  A very simple proof is by the pigeonhole principle. The key observation is that not only does any natural number $n$ have a binary expansion $$n = sum_j=0^m epsilon_j(n) 2^j,$$ but if $0leq n<2^N$ then we need no powers of $2$ above $2^N-1$ so we can take $m=N-1$. Now, for any fixed $N$, there are $2^N$ natural numbers $n$ such that $0leq n<2^N$ and $2^N$ different ways of choosing $epsilon_j(n)in0,1$ for each $j$ from $0$ to $N-1$. So, all $2^N$ of these binary expansions must have distinct sums, or else they would not be able to represent all $2^N$ of the different values of $n$.



                                                  This proves that for any $N$, a natural number $n$ has at most one binary expansion using powers of $2$ up to $2^N-1$. It follows that $n$ has only one binary expansion, up to adding $0$s at the start (since given two expansions of different lengths, you can always extend one by $0$s to make them the same length, and then they must become the same).






                                                  share|cite|improve this answer












                                                  A very simple proof is by the pigeonhole principle. The key observation is that not only does any natural number $n$ have a binary expansion $$n = sum_j=0^m epsilon_j(n) 2^j,$$ but if $0leq n<2^N$ then we need no powers of $2$ above $2^N-1$ so we can take $m=N-1$. Now, for any fixed $N$, there are $2^N$ natural numbers $n$ such that $0leq n<2^N$ and $2^N$ different ways of choosing $epsilon_j(n)in0,1$ for each $j$ from $0$ to $N-1$. So, all $2^N$ of these binary expansions must have distinct sums, or else they would not be able to represent all $2^N$ of the different values of $n$.



                                                  This proves that for any $N$, a natural number $n$ has at most one binary expansion using powers of $2$ up to $2^N-1$. It follows that $n$ has only one binary expansion, up to adding $0$s at the start (since given two expansions of different lengths, you can always extend one by $0$s to make them the same length, and then they must become the same).







                                                  share|cite|improve this answer












                                                  share|cite|improve this answer



                                                  share|cite|improve this answer










                                                  answered Nov 28 at 23:10









                                                  Eric Wofsey

                                                  176k12202327




                                                  176k12202327




















                                                      up vote
                                                      0
                                                      down vote













                                                      This argument is very basic but I think the notation is easy to follow:
                                                      Suppose a number has two different expansions $a_i$ and $b_i$. Then
                                                      $$ sum_i=0^m a_i(n) 2^i = sum_i=0^m b_i(n) 2^i $$ Break off the first term in both sums and you can get $$ a_o(n) - b_0(n) = 2sum_i=1^m (b_i(n)-a_i(n)) 2^i-1$$
                                                      The l.h.s can only be ($0-0$), ($0-1$), ($1-0$), or ($1-1$), and it must be divisible by $2$, so it must equal $0$, i.e. $a_0(n) = b_0(n)$. Then you can divide by the $2$ in front of the sum, and repeat the argument (or use induction) to get $a_i(n) = b_i(n)$ for all $i$.






                                                      share|cite|improve this answer
























                                                        up vote
                                                        0
                                                        down vote













                                                        This argument is very basic but I think the notation is easy to follow:
                                                        Suppose a number has two different expansions $a_i$ and $b_i$. Then
                                                        $$ sum_i=0^m a_i(n) 2^i = sum_i=0^m b_i(n) 2^i $$ Break off the first term in both sums and you can get $$ a_o(n) - b_0(n) = 2sum_i=1^m (b_i(n)-a_i(n)) 2^i-1$$
                                                        The l.h.s can only be ($0-0$), ($0-1$), ($1-0$), or ($1-1$), and it must be divisible by $2$, so it must equal $0$, i.e. $a_0(n) = b_0(n)$. Then you can divide by the $2$ in front of the sum, and repeat the argument (or use induction) to get $a_i(n) = b_i(n)$ for all $i$.






                                                        share|cite|improve this answer






















                                                          up vote
                                                          0
                                                          down vote










                                                          up vote
                                                          0
                                                          down vote









                                                          This argument is very basic but I think the notation is easy to follow:
                                                          Suppose a number has two different expansions $a_i$ and $b_i$. Then
                                                          $$ sum_i=0^m a_i(n) 2^i = sum_i=0^m b_i(n) 2^i $$ Break off the first term in both sums and you can get $$ a_o(n) - b_0(n) = 2sum_i=1^m (b_i(n)-a_i(n)) 2^i-1$$
                                                          The l.h.s can only be ($0-0$), ($0-1$), ($1-0$), or ($1-1$), and it must be divisible by $2$, so it must equal $0$, i.e. $a_0(n) = b_0(n)$. Then you can divide by the $2$ in front of the sum, and repeat the argument (or use induction) to get $a_i(n) = b_i(n)$ for all $i$.






                                                          share|cite|improve this answer












                                                          This argument is very basic but I think the notation is easy to follow:
                                                          Suppose a number has two different expansions $a_i$ and $b_i$. Then
                                                          $$ sum_i=0^m a_i(n) 2^i = sum_i=0^m b_i(n) 2^i $$ Break off the first term in both sums and you can get $$ a_o(n) - b_0(n) = 2sum_i=1^m (b_i(n)-a_i(n)) 2^i-1$$
                                                          The l.h.s can only be ($0-0$), ($0-1$), ($1-0$), or ($1-1$), and it must be divisible by $2$, so it must equal $0$, i.e. $a_0(n) = b_0(n)$. Then you can divide by the $2$ in front of the sum, and repeat the argument (or use induction) to get $a_i(n) = b_i(n)$ for all $i$.







                                                          share|cite|improve this answer












                                                          share|cite|improve this answer



                                                          share|cite|improve this answer










                                                          answered Nov 29 at 0:26









                                                          JonathanZ

                                                          2,089613




                                                          2,089613












                                                              Popular posts from this blog

                                                              How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                                                              Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                                                              How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?