Blitzs Theorem First case (discovered by intuition):

( ( (

) ) ) ( )

Second case:

( ( ( (

) ) )

) )

Third case:

( ( ( ( (

) ) ) ) )

( ( ( (

) ) ) )

( (

) )

Final Theorem: ( )

Proof: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ( | | | | ) | |

| ( ) | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |

| | | | | | |( |(
|(

| | | | | | )( )(
)( )|

| | | | | | | | )| )| ) | | | | | |

( (

)( )

Q.E.D.

Next problem: Prove that ( Which is easy to prove, just need to show that ( for all n and a. Next, prove that ( ) ) )

Then, one can come up with all kinds of new ideas for cryptography, etc. using irrational base numbers and fractional/irrational number of digits. Turns out, Makes sense ( ( ) ( ) ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

For a base-10, 4-digit long number: ( ( ( ( ) ) ) )

This happens to be the correct answer! Just need to prove it. Easy since the numbers can be repeated, we use permutations with repetition: _ _ _ _ _ base-5 However, since that includes having 0 0 0 0 0 0, the maximum number would have to be So how is my equation useful?

Maybe this? ( No. Max number for a base-pi number with e digits? )( )

(
(

)
)
(

)
) ( ) )

) (

) (

WRONG Number of digits What about for negative number of digits? Try comparing a non-integer upper limit with an infinite upper limit, as seen above (not in red). Solve for each (solve for the one in the middle using the thing on the left, and compare to solution of one on the right.) o ) o ( Also try comparing a non-integer upper limit with an integer upper limit, as seen above (not in red). Solve for each (solve for the one in the middle using the thing on the left, and compare to solution of one on the right.) o ) o ( ) o ( o
( )

Try other values I dont know, try other things related to the expression above.

Basic Form, solving for z, with a as the variable. ( ) ( )

( ) ( )

( )

( ) ( )

( )

( ( )

( ( )

( ( )

( ( )

It seems that when we change the base of the expression, the value of z-2 changes slightly. a 4 9 16 20 25 36 n 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

a 4 9 16 20 25 36

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Basic Form, solving for z, with n as the variable.

Need to do more tests with z being a fraction with a denominator that is not two. a 2 2 2 2 2 2 n 2.2 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.2 5.7 0.2 0.5

a 2 2

2 Strong Breakthrough:

0.7

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

So. I have shown that for: ( )

( Proof?

( ( ( ( So:

) )

) ( ) )

[(

[(

[(

[(

[(

[(

[(

[(

[(

[(

Work with n-digit numbers

1 1 1 1 1 = 31 16 8 4 2 1 = 31 Whats the last term in a fractional digit?

2 3 3 3 32 16 4 1

6 8 8 27 9 1

Lets run some more tests.

6 8 8 8 27 81 9 1 It seems that the variable a determines the last digit, not the power. Try with different values besides 4 and 9.

12 15 15 64 16 1 Now how about with a different fractional part, different from ?

 4 7 7 16 8 1 Hmm

Major Breakthrough: The positional number system for an n-digit number base-a (where n > 1)

That is the positional number representation. Now, what is the variable x? ( ( ) ) ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( )( ) )( )) )( ) ) ) ( ) ( )) ) ( )

Interesting. It seems that

( )

For all a>1, n is real. So the positional number system (

Now thats interesting. Another big question is there a natural base for a positional numeric system the way that e is the natural base for logarithms? Is a positional number system even the best system? See how different irrational numbers act in different bases maybe there is a base that designates all irrational numbers as rational numbers?

Another idea: If

Maybe this relates to how a Fibonacci relates to the two previous numbers?

WAIT! (

If we just say that we are dealing with just 2 positions, then the second position would be an irrational number if the number 1 was there.