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
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
7 replies · 4K views
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:
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