Undergrad ##S_{n}(\alpha)=\sum_{k=1}^{n} (-1)^{\lfloor{k\alpha\rfloor}}##

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the mathematical expression S_n(α) = ∑_{k=1}^{n} (-1)^{⌊kα⌋} and the challenge of proving that for irrational α, S_n(α) equals zero for infinitely many n. Computational examples with α set to π and e illustrate that S_n(α) can yield zero for specific values of n, suggesting a pattern. The conversation also explores the possibility of simplifying α to a range between 0 and 1 to analyze behavior more easily. Additionally, there is a suggestion to consider the implications if α were rational, hinting at a deeper connection between rational approximations and the behavior of the sum. The need for a formal proof remains a central concern.
elias001
Messages
389
Reaction score
30
TL;DR
I would like to know how to show ##S_{n}(\alpha)=\sum_{k=1}^{n} (-1)^{\lfloor{k\alpha\rfloor}}##.
For the following question, I am not sure how to go about solving it.

For ##n\in \mathbb{N}## and ##\alpha \in \mathbb{R}##, let ##S_{n}(\alpha)=\sum_{k=1}^{n} (-1)^{\lfloor{k\alpha\rfloor}}.## Prove that if ##\alpha## is irrational, then ##S_{n}(\alpha)=0## for infinitely many ##n \in \mathbb{N}##

I tried the following computational examples to check if the statement is true.

##S_{n}(\alpha)## for:

##n = 1## and ##\alpha = \pi##, ##S_{1}=(\pi)=-1##

##n = 2## and ##\alpha = \pi##, ##S_{2}=(\pi)= (-1)^{\lfloor{\pi\rfloor}} +(-1)^{\lfloor{2\pi\rfloor}} = (-1) + 1 = 0##

##n = 3## and ##\alpha = \pi##, ##S_{3}=(\pi)= (-1)^{\lfloor{\pi\rfloor}} +(-1)^{\lfloor{2\pi\rfloor}} + (-1)^{\lfloor{3\pi\rfloor}} = (-1) + 1 + (-1) = -1##

##n = 4## and ##\alpha = \pi##, ##S_{4}=(\pi)= (-1)^{\lfloor{\pi\rfloor}} +(-1)^{\lfloor{2\pi\rfloor}} + (-1)^{\lfloor{3\pi\rfloor}} + (-1)^{\lfloor{4\pi\rfloor}} = (-1) + 1 + (-1) + 1 = 0##

For:

##n = 1## and ##\alpha =e##, ##S_{1}=(e)=1##

##n = 2## and ##\alpha =e##, ##S_{2}=(e)= (-1)^{\lfloor{e\rfloor}} +(-1)^{\lfloor{2e\rfloor}} = 1 + (-1) = 0##

##n = 3## and ##\alpha =e##, ##S_{3}=(e)= (-1)^{\lfloor{e\rfloor}} +(-1)^{\lfloor{2e\rfloor}} + (-1)^{\lfloor{3e\rfloor}} = 1 + (-1) + 1 = 1 ##

##n = 4## and ##\alpha =e##, ##S_{4}=(e)= (-1)^{\lfloor{e\rfloor}} +(-1)^{\lfloor{2e\rfloor}} + (-1)^{\lfloor{3e\rfloor}} + (-1)^{\lfloor{4e\rfloor}} = 1 + (-1) + 1 + 1 = 2##

Thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I let EXCEL calcuate up to n=40 for approximate values of sqrt(2) and e.

1751080896217.webp


Without losing generality we can make ##|\alpha|<1## by adding/deleting even numbers. For example ##\pi-4## instead of ##\pi##, ##\sqrt{2}-2## instead of ##\sqrt{2}## work. ##\alpha## and -##\alpha## are equivalent in the behavior with opposite siganure, so further we can reduce ##0<\alpha<1##. Please find the graph showing for each k on x axis, +1 or -1. We find that + and - are almost same in number which shows sum =0 would take place infinite times though it is not proved yet.
1751160146797.webp
 
Last edited:
Either you have some theorem that just surprisingly crushes this, or my guess is you're going to have to think about how you can approximate irrational numbers with rational numbers and use what happens to this with rational numbers. So the first thing I would do is think about what happens if ##\alpha## is rational actually.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
814
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K