MHB Finding Real Solutions to the Floor Function Equation: A Scientific Approach

anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
115
Solve for real (if there is any) of the equation $\left\lfloor{a}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor{2a}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor{4a}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor{8a}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor{16a}\right\rfloor=300$.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
anemone said:
Solve for real (if there is any) of the equation $\left\lfloor{a}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor{2a}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor{4a}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor{8a}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor{16a}\right\rfloor=300$.

I might clean this up tomorrow, I'm sure there is a nicer proof:

Define a function $f : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{N}$ as:
$$f(x) = \sum_{k = 0}^4 \lfloor 2^k x \rfloor = \lfloor x \rfloor + \lfloor 2x \rfloor + \lfloor 4x \rfloor + \lfloor 8x \rfloor + \lfloor 16x \rfloor$$
The floor function is monotonic, and so $f$ is monotonic as well. Thus the solutions to the equation $f(x) = 300$ can be numerically approximated to get an idea of where they lie. Via bisection, we find that $f(x) = 298$ for $x \to 9.75$, but jumps to $301$ at $x = 9.75$. We can thus conclude that the solutions, if any exist, must lie in, say, $\left ( 9.74, 9.75 \right )$. Thus, let $x \in \left ( 9.74, 9.75 \right )$. Write it as $x = 9.74 + \epsilon$ for some $0 < \epsilon < 0.01$. Then we have:
$$f(x) = \lfloor 9.74 + \epsilon \rfloor + \lfloor 19.48 + 2\epsilon \rfloor + \lfloor 38.96 + 4\epsilon \rfloor + \lfloor 77.92 + 8 \epsilon \rfloor + \lfloor 155.84 + 16 \epsilon \rfloor$$
And hence it immediately follows from $\epsilon < 0.01$ that:
$$f(x) = 9 + 19 + 38 + 77 + 155 = 298$$
In other words, $f(x) = 298$ for all $x$ approaching $9.75$, and then jumps to $f(x) = 301$ for $x = 9.75$ without taking on the value $300$. Thus there is no solution to the equation $f(x) = 300$. $\blacksquare$

Intuitively, observe that for $\epsilon < 0.01$, only the last three terms can "cross the threshold", as $9.74 + \epsilon$ and $19.48 + 2 \epsilon$ are not close enough to an integer boundary. They also cross the threshold at the same time, and thus $f$ can increase by a minimum of $3$ at that point, and therefore skips $300$.

 
Bacterius said:
I might clean this up tomorrow..

Thanks for participating, Bacterius, and I will wait for you (for another few days) just in case you're busy but want to edit it or post for another "cleaned up" solution. :)

I still welcome others to take a stab at it in the mean time...:o
 
anemone said:
Thanks for participating, Bacterius, and I will wait for you (for another few days) just in case you're busy but want to edit it or post for another "cleaned up" solution. :)

I still welcome others to take a stab at it in the mean time...:o

Yeah, I figured it out. Here we go:

Define a function $f(x) : \mathbb{R} \mapsto \mathbb{N}$ as:
$$f(x) = \lfloor x \rfloor + \lfloor 2x \rfloor + \lfloor 4x \rfloor + \lfloor 8x \rfloor + \lfloor 16x \rfloor$$
Note that if $f(x) = n$, then $f(x + 1) = n + 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 = n + 31$, and vice versa. Thus it follows that $f(x) = n$ if and only if $f(y) = n \bmod{31}$ for some $0 \leq y < 1$. Thus $x \mapsto f(x) \bmod{31}$ is periodic with unit period.

Therefore it suffices to check all possible values of $f(x)$ over the unit interval. To do this, proceed as follows: start at $x = 0$, look at all five terms, and check which one of the floored terms will reach an integer boundary first (so that $f$ increase). Increase $x$ to that value, and repeat. This is guaranteed to produce all solutions in the given interval, since $f$ is monotonic.

Iterating this algorithm, we get that $f(x)$ takes the following values over $[0, 1)$:
$$S = \{ 0, 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26 \}$$
Invoking the periodicity of $f$, we arrive at the conclusion that $f(x) = n$ has solutions if and only if $n \bmod{31} \in S$. And $300 \bmod{31} = 21$, so $f(x) = 300$ has no solutions. Notice that $301 \bmod{31} = 22$ and $298 \bmod{31} = 19$ which are both in $S$, which nicely generalizes the earlier proof's observations.
 
Last edited:
The clever work is all done by Bacterius, so I'll do the tedious job - here's a neat method for computing $S$ (not sure if this is what he meant by "increase $x$ and repeat") :

Consider $x \in [0, 1)$, and partition the interval as $ \bigcup_{1 \leq i \leq 16}^\star (i/16-1/16, i/16] \cup \{0\}$ where the star indicates that the interval for $i = 16$ is totally open.

If $x = 0$, $f(x) = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0$.
If $x \in (0, 1/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 = 1$
If $x \in (1/16, 2/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 2 = 3$
If $x \in (2/16, 3/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 3 = 4$
If $x \in (3/16, 4/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 7$
If $x \in (4/16, 5/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 5 = 8$
If $x \in (5/16, 6/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 0 + 1 + 3 + 6 = 10$
If $x \in (6/16, 7/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 0 + 1 + 3 + 7 = 11$
If $x \in (7/16, 8/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 15$
If $x \in (8/16, 9/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 9 = 16$
If $x \in (9/16, 10/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 1 + 2 + 5 + 10 = 18$
If $x \in (10/16, 11/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 1 + 2 + 5 + 11 = 19$
If $x \in (11/16, 12/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 1 + 3 + 6 + 12 = 22$
If $x \in (12/16, 13/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 1 + 3 + 6 + 13 = 23$
If $x \in (13/16, 14/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 1 + 3 + 7 + 14 = 25$
If $x \in (14/16, 15/16]$, $f(x) = 0 + 1 + 3 + 7 + 15 = 26$
If $x \in (15/16, 1)$, $f(x) = 0 + 1 + 3 + 7 + 15 = 26$

Thus, all the possible values $f(x)$ takes on $[0, 1)$ is $S = \{ 0, 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26\}$.

PS : This in no way stands as a possible solution to the question asked. It's an addendum to Bacterius's solution above.
 
Bacterius said:
Yeah, I figured it out. Here we go:

Define a function $f(x) : \mathbb{R} \mapsto \mathbb{N}$ as:
$$f(x) = \lfloor x \rfloor + \lfloor 2x \rfloor + \lfloor 4x \rfloor + \lfloor 8x \rfloor + \lfloor 16x \rfloor$$
Note that if $f(x) = n$, then $f(x + 1) = n + 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 = n + 31$, and vice versa. Thus it follows that $f(x) = n$ if and only if $f(y) = n \bmod{31}$ for some $0 \leq y < 1$. Thus $x \mapsto f(x) \bmod{31}$ is periodic with unit period.

Therefore it suffices to check all possible values of $f(x)$ over the unit interval. To do this, proceed as follows: start at $x = 0$, look at all five terms, and check which one of the floored terms will reach an integer boundary first (so that $f$ increase). Increase $x$ to that value, and repeat. This is guaranteed to produce all solutions in the given interval, since $f$ is monotonic.

Iterating this algorithm, we get that $f(x)$ takes the following values over $[0, 1)$:
$$S = \{ 0, 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26 \}$$
Invoking the periodicity of $f$, we arrive at the conclusion that $f(x) = n$ has solutions if and only if $n \bmod{31} \in S$. And $300 \bmod{31} = 21$, so $f(x) = 300$ has no solutions. Notice that $301 \bmod{31} = 22$ and $298 \bmod{31} = 19$ which are both in $S$, which nicely generalizes the earlier proof's observations.

Well done, Bacterius! Thanks for participating...thanks to you too, Balarka for your post!

Here is another easy proof of other that I wanted to share:

Suppose that there is one real $a>0$ that satisfies

$\left\lfloor{a}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor{2a}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor{4a}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor{8a}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor{16a}\right\rfloor=300$.

Then we may write

$a=N+\dfrac{p}{2}+\dfrac{q}{4}+\dfrac{r}{8}+\dfrac{s}{16}+t$ where $N$ is a positive integer, $p,q,r,s\in \{0,1\}$ and $t\in\left[0,\,\dfrac{1}{16}\right)$.

We then obtain, from the original equation

$30N+15p+7q+3r+s=300$

Thus, $300N< 300\,\,\,\rightarrow\,\,\,N< 10$

Also, $300< 300N+15+7+3+1\,\,\,\rightarrow\,\,\,N< 9\dfrac{2}{15}$

Putting these two results together, we see that $9\dfrac{2}{15}< N < 10$, which is impossible since $N$ is supposed to be an integer.

Therefore, the original equation has no solution.
 
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...
Back
Top