Challenge IX: Dealing with Mod 1 solved by mfb

  • Thread starter Thread starter micromass
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Challenge
AI Thread Summary
The challenge proposed by Boorglar involves proving that a sequence defined by multiplying a positive real number a by natural numbers n will exceed 1/n infinitely often if it does not eventually become zero. The discussion outlines various cases based on the value of the sequence elements, leading to the conclusion that if the sequence avoids case 1 (where it becomes zero), it will cycle through cases 2 and 3 infinitely. A follow-up question explores conditions under which the sequence remains below 1/n infinitely, revealing that not all values of a and n allow this. The conversation also touches on the implications of the sequence's behavior in relation to its base n representation, emphasizing the significance of non-terminating decimal expansions. Overall, the problem was effectively solved, with contributions highlighting interesting mathematical properties and potential generalizations.
micromass
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
22,169
Reaction score
3,327
This challenge was proposed by Boorglar. Many thanks to him!

Let n be a natural number larger than 1, and a be a positive real number.
Prove that if the sequence \{a\}, \{an\}, \{an^2\},... does not eventually become 0, then it will exceed 1/n infinitely many times.

Here {x} means x - floor(x).
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
As x-{x} is an integer, {an}={{a}n} for natural numbers n.
This implies that it is sufficient to consider 0<=a<1. In addition, every value in the sequence depends on the previous value (and n) only.
As a special case, {0n}=0, for a=0 there is nothing to show.

Let ai={ani}.

  1. case ai=1/n or ai=0: Our sequence will end at 0, nothing to show.
  2. case 0<ai<1/n: There is a smallest k such that 1/n<aink<=1. If aink=1, our sequence becomes 0 and there is nothing to show. Otherwise, {aink} exceeds 1/n.
  3. case 1/n < ai < 1: Good, we found another element that exceeds 1/n. {an} will be one of the three cases again.

Each a which does not end up in case 1 has to stay in case 2 and 3, and case 2 always leads to case 3 in a finite number of steps. Therefore, case 3 gets visited infinitely many times.



Follow-up question: can we find general conditions such that the sequence is below 1/n infinitely many times?
This is not true for all (a,n), as the example a=1/2, n=3 shows.
 
^ This looks right to me.

A rephrasing toward some generalization.
Let G:=\{z\in\mathbb C:\enspace |z|=1\}=\{e^{i\theta}\}_{\theta\in\mathbb R}, a nice (compact abelian) topological group under multiplication. Fixing n, let f:G\to G be the n^{\text{th}} power map, a group covering.

Let A:= \left\{e^{i\theta}:\enspace 0&lt;\theta&lt; \frac1n\right\}\subseteq G. Note that f|_A is injective.

Let B:=\{z\in G: \enspace \nexists k\in \mathbb N \text{ with } f^k(z)=1\}, the set of elements that don't have finite order divisible by n.

We want to show that iterating f on any element of B crosses through G\backslash A infinitely many times. By the inductive argument mfb used (which works because f^{-1}(B)=B and f is surjective), it's enough to show that iterating f on any element of B crosses through G\backslash A at least once.

So an equivalent formulation is the following:

Show that there does not exist a nonempty S \subseteq A such that f(S)\subseteq S.

[Note that such S would be a subset of B as well, as it excludes 1.]

I think an interesting question is: What are some sufficient conditions on G and f:G\to G to ensure that for every connected A\subseteq G\backslash\{1\} on which f is injective, there does not exist a nonempty S \subseteq A such that f(S)\subseteq S?
 
Regarding the follow-up question, here are some calculations:

Let k be the greatest natural number such that ##A_k = \{a × 3^k\} < \frac{1}{3}##.
Let ##x = A_k##.

##0 < x < \frac{1}{3}##
##\{3x\} ≥ \frac{1}{3}##
##\frac{1}{9} ≤ x < \frac{1}{3}##

##1 ≤ 9x < 3##
##\{9x\} ≥ 1/3##
##\frac{4}{3} ≤ 9x < \frac{6}{3}##, ##\frac{7}{3} ≤ 9x < \frac{9}{3}##
##\frac{4}{27} ≤ x < \frac{6}{27}##, ##\frac{7}{27} ≤ x < \frac{9}{27}##

And so on, giving:

##A_k \in \{ x \in (0, \frac{1}{3}) : \forall k ≥ 0, \forall n ≥ 2, x \in \bigcup \; [ \; (1 + 3k)/3^n, (3 + 3k)/3^n \; ) \; \}##

This is an interesting set. I don't know that much about it but the smallest number it contains is ##\frac{1}{6}##, the limit of this sequence: ##\frac{1}{9}, \frac{4}{27}, \frac{13}{81}, \frac{40}{243}, \frac{3^n - 1}{6.3^n}##. But this means ##\{y : \frac{1}{3} < y < \frac{1}{2} \land \{y × 3^n\} ≥ 1/3 \} = ∅##, for if there was such a y, ##\frac{y}{3}## would be a candidate for ##A_k## above, but ##\frac{y}{3} < \frac{1}{6}##.

So there is an interesting void between ##\frac{1}{3}## and ##\frac{1}{2}## where no number is such that the fractional part is never below 1/3.
 
Last edited:
Congratulations to mfb for giving a nice solution to the problem.

I'm wondering if there are nice solutions to the follow-up questions by mfb and economicsnerd. Verty already came up with something nice though.

Thanks everybody for their contributions!
 
Since the original question seems to have been solved, I might just as well post my own solution, which is basically the same as mfb's but more visual I guess.

Write a as a infinite decimal in base n. Then a = a_0.a_1a_2a_3... where 0 ≤ a_i ≤ n - 1. Multiplying by n is equivalent to shifting the decimal point towards the right, and taking the fractional part changes to 0 all digits left of the decimal point. So basically
\{an^k\} = 0.a_{k+1}a_{k+2}a_{k+3}....

If a is a rational number with denominator which divides n, then (as in base 10 for 1/2 and 1/5) the base n expansion eventually terminates and all remaining digits will be 0 which corresponds to the sequence becoming 0. Otherwise, if the base n expansion doesn't terminate then there will always be some non-zero digit no matter how far. When shifting, these non-zero digits will eventually arrive at the a_1 position and we have a number larger than 0.100000... which is 1/n. Since there are infinitely many nonzero digits, the sequence exceeds 1/n infinitely many times as stated.

For the follow-up, for the sequence to be below 1/n infinitely many times is equivalent to the number a containing infinitely many 0's in its base n expansion. So for example, if n = 3, then the numbers for which the sequence does not get below 1/n infinitely many times are those that end with an infinite sequence of 1's and/or 2's, such as:
0.10120(12)... or 0.2012112111211112111112... This set looks a bit similar to the Cantor set.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
125
Views
19K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
2
Replies
67
Views
11K
2
Replies
93
Views
14K
Replies
42
Views
10K
Replies
5
Views
2K
2
Replies
61
Views
11K
Back
Top