Inf{frac{n*sqrt(3)} : n in integer}=0

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter caffeinemachine
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around proving that the infimum of the fractional parts of the sequence \( n \sqrt{3} \) for positive integers \( n \) is equal to zero. Participants explore various mathematical approaches and theorems related to this topic, including the equidistribution theorem and the Pigeonhole principle, while also addressing the nuances of the proof and potential misunderstandings.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose using the equidistribution theorem to show that the set of fractional parts \( \{\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(n\sqrt{3}) \mid n \in \mathbb{Z}^+\} \) is dense in the interval [0, 1].
  • Others suggest that the Pigeonhole principle can be applied to demonstrate that for sufficiently large \( n \), there exist integers \( i \) and \( j \) such that the fractional parts \( x_i \) and \( x_j \) are close together, implying that the infimum is small.
  • A later reply questions the validity of certain assumptions made in the application of the Pigeonhole principle, particularly regarding the ordering of \( x_i \) and \( x_j \).
  • Some participants express uncertainty about whether the infimum of \( \{ n \sqrt{3} : n \in \mathbb{Z}^+ \} \) is indeed zero, indicating a lack of consensus on this point.
  • One participant introduces the idea of using continued fraction approximants to \( \sqrt{3} \) as a constructive method to approach the problem, suggesting that these approximants can yield fractional parts that are very small.
  • Several participants acknowledge typographical errors in their earlier posts, which led to confusion regarding the statements made about the infimum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the proof of the infimum being zero, with multiple competing views and uncertainties remaining about the validity of certain approaches and assumptions.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note limitations in their understanding of continued fractions, and there are unresolved questions about the implications of the Pigeonhole principle in this context. Additionally, there are concerns about the correctness of earlier claims regarding the infimum of related sets.

caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
Prove that $\inf \{ \text{ frac}(n \sqrt{3}) : n \in \mathbb{Z}^+ \}$ where $frac(x)$ is the fractional part of $x$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
caffeinemachine said:
Prove that $\inf \{ \text{ frac}(n \sqrt{3}) : n \in \mathbb{Z}^+ \}$ where $frac(x)$ is the fractional part of $x$
That is not a complete question.
But guessing at what it means, I think this theorem will help.
 
The OP misses "= 0," which is present in the thread title.

Equidistribution theorem is much stronger than the fact that $\{\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(n\sqrt{3})\mid n\in\mathbb{Z}^+\}$ is dense in [0, 1], which is sufficient here. This was http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/f9/dynamics-circle-194819.html#post705803 in the old forum, but there are some differences, at least at first glance. Namely, \[\begin{aligned}0&=\inf\{m\cdot1+n\cdot \sqrt{3}\mid m\cdot1+n\cdot\sqrt{3}>0\mbox{ and }m,n\in\mathbb{Z}\}\\&\le\inf\{m\cdot1+n\cdot\sqrt{3}\mid m\cdot1+n\cdot \sqrt{3}>0,m\in\mathbb{Z}^-,n\in\mathbb{Z}^+\}\\& = \inf\{\mathop{\mbox{frac}} (n\sqrt{3}) \mid n\in\mathbb{Z}^+\}\end{aligned}\] but I am not sure about equality right away.
 
Plato said:
That is not a complete question.

I am so sorry. The infimum is to be proved to be equal to zero as Makarov has pointed out.

---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 PM ----------

Actually this can be done using Pigeon hole principle.

Denote $x_n=\text{frac}(n \sqrt{3})$

Let $n \in \mathbb{Z}^{+}$. Partition the interval $(0,1)$ into $n$ parts, viz, $(0,\frac{1}{n}),(\frac{1}{n},\frac{2}{n}), \ldots, (\frac{n-1}{n},1)$

Consider $n+1$ numbers, $x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_{n+1}$.

By PHP there exist $i,j, i \neq j$ such that $x_i,x_j \in (\frac{k}{n},\frac{k+1}{n})$.

This implies $\text{frac}(|i-j|\sqrt{3}) < \frac{1}{n}$. Thus $x_{|i-j|} < \frac{1}{n}$.

I can't think of any other proof.
 
caffeinemachine said:
By PHP there exist $i,j, i \neq j$ such that $x_i,x_j \in (\frac{k}{n},\frac{k+1}{n})$.

This implies $\text{frac}(|i-j|\sqrt{3}) < \frac{1}{n}$.
Not necessarily. Suppose $j > i$, but $\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(j\sqrt{3}) < \mathop{\mbox{frac}}(i\sqrt{3})$. Then \[\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(j\sqrt{3}-i\sqrt{3})=\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(j\sqrt{3})-\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(i\sqrt{3})+1\] so \[1-1/n<\mathop{\mbox{frac}}((j-i)\sqrt{3})<1\]

For example, $\sqrt{3}\approx1.73$ and $2\sqrt{3}\approx 3.46$, so $0 < \mathop{\mbox{frac}}(\sqrt{3})-\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(2\sqrt{3}) < 0.3$. However, $1-0.3<\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(2\sqrt{3}-\sqrt{3})<1$.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Not necessarily. Suppose $j > i$, but $\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(j\sqrt{3}) < \mathop{\mbox{frac}}(i\sqrt{3})$. Then \[\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(j\sqrt{3}-i\sqrt{3})=\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(j\sqrt{3})-\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(i\sqrt{3})+1\] so \[1-1/n<\mathop{\mbox{frac}}((j-i)\sqrt{3})<1\]

For example, $\sqrt{3}\approx1.73$ and $2\sqrt{3}\approx 3.46$, so $0 < \mathop{\mbox{frac}}(\sqrt{3})-\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(2\sqrt{3}) < 0.3$. However, $1-0.3<\mathop{\mbox{frac}}(2\sqrt{3}-\sqrt{3})<1$.
Ah! yes. My mistake.
The proof changes a little bit.
We have $x_i, x_j \in (\frac{k}{n},\frac{k+1}{n})$
suppose $x_i>x_j$ then $frac((i-j) \sqrt{3}) < \frac{1}{n} \Rightarrow x_{i-j} < \frac{1}{n}$ EDIT: what if $i<j$ :O
Similarly for $x_j > x_i$
$x_i=x_j$ is not a possibility.
 
Well after more fiddling around I can only prove that $inf \{ n \sqrt{3} : n \in \mathbb{Z} \} =0$. I am not able to show that $inf \{ n \sqrt{3} : n \in \mathbb{Z}^+ \} =0$.
I don't even know whether the latter is true.
 
Just as a little $\LaTeX$ hint: use the backslash for infinum instead of just inf. You get '$\inf$' versus '$inf$'.
 
caffeinemachine said:
I can only prove that $\inf \{ n \sqrt{3} : n \in \mathbb{Z} \} =0$.
Well, this is not true, of course, because this set is not bounded from below... I'll return to this question when I have more time.
 
  • #10
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Well, this is not true, of course, because this set is not bounded from below... I'll return to this question when I have more time.
That was a typo again... sorry:
What I meant was $\inf \{ \text{frac}(n \sqrt{3}): n \in \mathbb{Z} \}=0$
 
  • #11
caffeinemachine said:
Prove that $\inf \{ \text{ frac}(n \sqrt{3}) : n \in \mathbb{Z}^+ \} = 0$ where $\text{frac}(x)$ is the fractional part of $x$
One very constructive way to approach this is to use the continued fraction approximants to $\sqrt3$. These are alternately slightly less than, and slightly greater than, $\sqrt3.$ Take one of the approximants that is less than $\sqrt3$, for example 265/153. You can then check that $153\sqrt3\approx 265.00377...$, whose fractional part is very small.
 
  • #12
Opalg said:
One very constructive way to approach this is to use the continued fraction approximants to $\sqrt3$. These are alternately slightly less than, and slightly greater than, $\sqrt3.$ Take one of the approximants that is less than $\sqrt3$, for example 265/153. You can then check that $153\sqrt3\approx 265.00377...$, whose fractional part is very small.
Thank you Opalg but I am ignorant about continued fractions. Anyways.. thanks for the help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K