Does the floor function satisfy floor(x) = x + O(x^(1/2))?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter zetafunction
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether the floor function satisfies the equation floor(x) = x + O(x^(1/2)). Participants explore the nature of the floor function, its oscillating contributions, and the implications of different orders of growth in relation to the floor function.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the floor function can be expressed as floor(x) = x + O(x^(1/2)), suggesting a smooth part and an oscillating contribution.
  • One participant questions why the order of the difference between x and the floor function would depend on the order of x.
  • Another participant agrees with the initial proposition and introduces a stronger claim that floor(x) = x + O(2^(2^x)), describing both as "needlessly weak."
  • There is a discussion about the meaning of "weak," with one participant explaining that O(2^(2^x)) is weaker than O(√x) in terms of the functions it encompasses.
  • One participant suggests that since floor(x) - x is bounded, it follows that floor(x) = x + O(1), indicating a different perspective on the order of growth.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the original claim regarding the floor function and its relationship with O(x^(1/2)). Some agree on the bounded nature of the difference between floor(x) and x, while others propose alternative formulations. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various orders of growth and their implications without reaching a consensus on the strongest or most accurate representation of the floor function's behavior.

zetafunction
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
does the floor function satisfy

[tex]floor(x)= x + O(x^{1/2})[/tex]

the idea is the floor function would have an 'smooth' part given by x and a oscillating contribution with amplitude proportional to [tex]x^{1/2}[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why would the order of [tex]x-\lfloor x\rfloor[/tex] depend on the order of x?
 
Last edited:
zetafunction said:
does the floor function satisfy

[tex]floor(x)= x + O(x^{1/2})[/tex]

Yes. It also satisfies

[tex]\lfloor x\rfloor=x+O(2^{2^x})[/tex].

But both are needlessly weak.
 
CRGreathouse said:
Yes. It also satisfies

[tex]\lfloor x\rfloor=x+O(2^{2^x})[/tex].

But both are needlessly weak.

what do you mean by 'weak' , is there a proof for [tex]\lfloor x\rfloor=x+O(x^{1/2})[/tex].
 
zetafunction said:
what do you mean by 'weak' , is there a proof for [tex]\lfloor x\rfloor=x+O(x^{1/2})[/tex].

[tex]O(2^{2^x})[/tex] is weaker than [tex]O(\sqrt x)[/tex] in the sense that there are functions which are in the former but not the latter, but none in the latter but in the former.

You should be able to give a one-line proof of a statement stronger than [tex]\lfloor x\rfloor=x+O(\sqrt x)[/tex].
 
[tex] \lfloor x\rfloor-x[/tex] can not be bigger than one by the definition of floor function and fractional part so

perhaps [tex] \lfloor x\rfloor=x+O(x^{e})[/tex] fore any e=0 or bigger than 0 is this what you meant ??
 
I think what the others are trying to say is that, since [itex]\lfloor x\rfloor-x[/itex] is bounded, then [itex]\lfloor x\rfloor=x+O(1)[/itex].

Petek
 
Petek said:
I think what the others are trying to say is that, since [itex]\lfloor x\rfloor-x[/itex] is bounded, then [itex]\lfloor x\rfloor=x+O(1)[/itex].

Indeed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K