← Latest papers
🔢 mathematics

Multivariable automatic arrays and transcendence

This paper establishes that real numbers defined by multidimensional automatic arrays weighted by multiplicatively independent bases are either rational or transcendental, thereby extending a previous result by Adamczewski and Bugeaud to the multidimensional setting using combinatorial properties and Schmidt's Subspace Theorem.

Original authors: Aadrita Paul, Anwesh Ray

Published 2026-04-15
📖 5 min read🧠 Deep dive

Original authors: Aadrita Paul, Anwesh Ray

Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer

Imagine you are trying to guess the next number in a very long, complicated list. Sometimes, these lists are generated by simple, repetitive rules (like a robot following a strict instruction manual). In mathematics, we call these automatic sequences.

This paper, written by Aadritya Paul and Anwesh Ray, asks a big question: If you take these simple, repetitive lists and use them to build a giant, multi-dimensional number, what kind of number do you get?

Is it a simple fraction (like 1/2 or 3/4)? Or is it a wild, never-ending, non-repeating number (like π\pi or 2\sqrt{2})?

Here is the breakdown of their discovery, using some everyday analogies.

1. The Ingredients: The "Robot" and the "Recipe"

Imagine you have rr different robots.

  • The Robots (Automatic Sequences): Each robot is programmed with a simple set of rules. It spits out a stream of numbers. Because the rules are simple, the stream of numbers has a hidden pattern. It's not random; it's "stammering," meaning it repeats blocks of itself over and over, like a broken record that skips in a predictable way.
  • The Bases (The Bins): You have rr different bins, labeled with numbers like 2, 3, 5, or 7. These are the "bases" (like the base-10 system we use for money). The paper requires that these bases are "multiplicatively independent." Think of this as saying: "You can't make a 6 by multiplying 2s and 3s together in a way that cancels out perfectly." They are distinct and don't overlap in their mathematical DNA.
  • The Recipe (The Function ff): You take the output from all your robots, mix them together according to a specific recipe, and drop the result into a giant mathematical pot.

2. The Dish: The "Infinite Soup"

The authors are cooking up a specific type of number, let's call it α\alpha.
They take the outputs of the robots and place them into a giant, multi-dimensional grid.

  • In a 1D world (one robot), this is like writing a decimal number: 0.a1a2a3...0.a_1 a_2 a_3...
  • In their multi-dimensional world, it's like a 3D (or rr-dimensional) grid of numbers, where every cell holds a value based on the robots' outputs.
  • They sum up all these values, dividing them by powers of their bases. It's like adding up an infinite amount of tiny crumbs, where each crumb gets smaller and smaller.

3. The Big Question: Is it Rational or Transcendental?

In math, numbers fall into two main camps:

  • Rational: These are "nice" numbers. They can be written as a simple fraction (like 1/31/3). Their decimal expansion eventually repeats forever (0.3333...).
  • Transcendental: These are the "wild" numbers. They are not just irrational; they are so complex they can't be the solution to any simple polynomial equation (like π\pi or ee). Their decimal expansion never repeats and never settles into a pattern.

The authors' discovery (The Main Result):
They proved that if you build this number α\alpha using these "robot" sequences, there is no middle ground.

  • Either the number is Rational (simple and repeating).
  • Or it is Transcendental (wild and chaotic).
  • It cannot be an "algebraic irrational" number (like 2\sqrt{2}). You will never find a number like 2\sqrt{2} hiding inside a structure built by these simple robots.

4. How Did They Prove It? (The Detective Work)

To prove this, they used a powerful mathematical tool called Schmidt's Subspace Theorem. Think of this theorem as a super-detective that hunts for patterns in how well we can approximate numbers with fractions.

Here is the analogy of their method:

  1. The "Stammering" Clue: Because the robots follow simple rules, their output sequences "stammer." They have long stretches of repeated blocks.
  2. The "Fake" Approximation: The authors created a series of "fake" numbers (αn\alpha_n) that look almost exactly like the real number α\alpha. These fakes are built by taking the robot's output, cutting it off, and making it repeat perfectly (turning the robot into a perfect loop).
  3. The Trap: Because the real sequence "stammers," the real number α\alpha is incredibly close to these "fake" repeating numbers.
  4. The Confrontation: They used the Subspace Theorem to show that if α\alpha were a "middle-ground" number (like 2\sqrt{2}), it would be impossible for it to be this close to so many different fractions without being a simple fraction itself. The math forces the number to either be simple (Rational) or completely wild (Transcendental).

5. Why Does This Matter?

Before this paper, mathematicians knew this rule worked for 1D lists (one robot). This paper extends it to multi-dimensional arrays (many robots working together in a grid).

It's like discovering a new law of physics: "If you build a structure out of Lego bricks that follow a simple, repetitive instruction manual, the final shape will either be a perfect, repeating cube, or a chaotic, impossible-to-describe sculpture. It will never be a 'slightly imperfect' cube."

This helps us understand the deep connection between computational complexity (how hard it is to generate a number) and arithmetic nature (what kind of number it is). It tells us that simple computer programs cannot generate the "middle-class" numbers of mathematics; they only produce the very simple or the very complex.

Drowning in papers in your field?

Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.

Try Digest →