MHB About fractional parts and floor functions....

DreamWeaver
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Hi all! :D

I wasn't really sure where to post this, but Analysis seemed a fair bet.

While searching on-line recently, I came across the following expressions for the Fractional Part $$\{x\}$$ and Floor Function $$\lfloor x \rfloor$$ respectively: $$\{x\}=\frac{i\log\left(-e^{-2\pi i x}\right)}{2\pi}+\frac{1}{2}$$$$\lfloor x \rfloor=x-\frac{i\log\left(-e^{-2\pi i x}\right)}{2\pi}-\frac{1}{2}$$
I can't remember where I found them, but just made a note of them... I seem to recall that a condition of both of the above was that the principal branch of the complex logarithm must be taken.

And so, finally, the question: can any of you shed intuitive light on the above? I've been trying to divine some sense out of those expressions, but sadly for me, I'm not Euler... :o:o:oAll the best, and thanks in advance! (Sun)

Gethin
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The imaginary argument of the exponential function has a period of $2 \pi$, just like the sine and the cosine. That means that:
$$e^{2\pi i x} = e^{2\pi i (\lfloor x \rfloor + \{x\})} = e^{2\pi i \{x\}}$$

The log function of this expression is:
$$\log(e^{2\pi i x}) = i (2\pi x \text{ mod }{2\pi}) = i (2\pi \{x\} \text{ mod }{2\pi})$$

The principal branch is:
$$\text{Log}(e^{2\pi i x}) = 2\pi i \{x\}$$
 
I like Serena said:
The imaginary argument of the exponential function has a period of $2 \pi$, just like the sine and the cosine. That means that:
$$e^{2\pi i x} = e^{2\pi i (\lfloor x \rfloor + \{x\})} = e^{2\pi i \{x\}}$$

The log function of this expression is:
$$\log(e^{2\pi i x}) = i (2\pi x \text{ mod }{2\pi}) = i (2\pi \{x\} \text{ mod }{2\pi})$$

The principal branch is:
$$\text{Log}(e^{2\pi i x}) = 2\pi i \{x\}$$
Doh! But of course... :o

Thank you! (Hug)
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K