Proof: [3x] = [x] + [x + 1/3] + [x + 2/3]

  • Thread starter Thread starter nicnicman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The proof demonstrates that for any real number x, the equation [3x] = [x] + [x + 1/3] + [x + 2/3] holds true, where [x] denotes the floor function. The proof is structured into three distinct cases based on the fractional part E of x, leading to definitive conclusions for each range of E: 0 ≤ E < 1/3, 1/3 ≤ E < 2/3, and 2/3 ≤ E < 1. Each case confirms that the left-hand side equals the right-hand side, validating the equation across all scenarios.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the floor function and its properties
  • Basic knowledge of real numbers and integer partitions
  • Familiarity with mathematical proof techniques, particularly case analysis
  • Concept of fractional parts in real numbers
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the floor function in greater depth
  • Explore mathematical proofs involving piecewise functions
  • Learn about the implications of fractional parts in number theory
  • Investigate other mathematical identities involving floor functions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in number theory or mathematical proofs will benefit from this discussion. It is particularly useful for those studying properties of the floor function and its applications in proofs.

nicnicman
Messages
132
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Note: [x] denotes the floor of x.

Prove that [3x] = [x] + [x + 1/3] + [x + 2/3]


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Let x = n + E, where n is an integer and 0≤ E < 1. We have three cases:

Case 1: 0 ≤ E < 1/3
3x = 3n + 3E and [3x] = 3n, since 0 ≤ 3E < 1.
[x + 1/3} = n, since x + 1/3 = n + (1/3 + E) and 0 ≤ 1/3 + E < 1.
[x + 2/3} = n, since x + 2/3 = n + (2/3 + E) and 0 ≤ 1/3 + E < 1.
Thus, [3x] = 3n, and [x] + [x + 1/3] + [x + 2/3] = n + n + n = 3n.

Case 2: 1/3 ≤ E < 2/3
3x = 3n = 3E = (3n + 1) + (3E -1) and [3x] = 3n + 1, since 0 ≤ 3E - 1 < 1.
[x + 1/3] = n, since x + 1/3 = n + (1/3 + E) and 0 ≤ 1/3 + E < 1.
[x + 2/3] = [n + (2/3 + E)] = [n + 1 + (E - 1/3)] = n + 1, since 0 ≤ E - 1/3 < 1.
Thus, [3x] = 3n + 1, and [x] + [x + 1/3] + [x + 2/3] = n + n + (n + 1) = 3n + 1.

Case 3: 2/3 ≤ E < 1
3x = 3n = 3E = (3n + 2) + (3E -2) and [3x] = 3n + 2, since 0 ≤ 3E - 2 < 1.
[x + 1/3] = [n + (1/3 + E)] = [n + 1 + (E - 2/3)] = n + 1, since 0 ≤ E - 2/3 < 1.
[x + 2/3] = [n + (2/3 + E)] = [n + 1 + (E - 1/3)] = n + 1, since 0 ≤ E - 1/3 < 1.
Thus, [3x] = 3n + 2, and [x] + [x + 1/3] + [x + 2/3] = n + (n + 1) + (n + 1) = 3n + 2.

How does this look? I just want to make sure I'm not over looking something.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any comments?
 
nicnicman said:
Any comments?

Doesn't look like you missed anything to me. I might have missed a typo in a line or two, but it's certainly the right idea.
 
Yeah, there's a pretty good chance there's at least one typo. Thanks for looking it over I know it's tedious--I spent more time writing it than I care to admit.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K