MHB Finding $f(84)$ with the Defined Function $f$

  • Thread starter Thread starter anemone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
AI Thread Summary
The function \( f \) is defined for integers, with two cases: \( f(n) = n - 3 \) for \( n \geq 1000 \) and \( f(n) = f(f(n + 5)) \) for \( n < 1000 \). The discussion centers on finding \( f(84) \), with participants noting a typo in the function's definition regarding the inequality. The correct interpretation is crucial for solving the problem accurately. Acknowledgment of errors and the importance of checking work before posting are highlighted as part of the conversation. The thread emphasizes the collaborative nature of problem-solving in mathematical discussions.
anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
115
The function $f$ is defined on the set of integers and satisfies

\[ f(n)=\begin{cases}
n-3, & \text{if} \,\,n\geq 1000 \\
f(f(n+5)), & \text{if}\,\, n< 1000
\end{cases}
\]

Find $f(84)$.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
anemone said:
The function $f$ is defined on the set of integers and satisfies

\[ f(n)=\begin{cases}
n-3, & \text{if} \,\,n\leq 1000 \\
f(f(n+5)), & \text{if}\,\, n< 1000
\end{cases}
\]

Find $f(84)$.

I think 1st condition should be $>=$
 
Ah, thanks to kaliprasad for pointing it out! Sorry all! I made a blunder, I think for those who know me well, you can tell this wasn't the first time I made a typo in my posting, hehehe...but, I apologize. This shouldn't happen in the first place, I should have checked both before and after posting too!
 
anemone said:
Ah, thanks to kaliprasad for pointing it out! Sorry all! I made a blunder, I think for those who know me well, you can tell this wasn't the first time I made a typo in my posting, hehehe...but, I apologize. This shouldn't happen in the first place, I should have checked both before and after posting too!

No one is perfect, and only those who do things put themselves at the risk of making a mistake. When I see that someone contributing to a site has possibly made a typo or other error in a post, I tend to send them a PM so they can correct it with minimal embarrassment. :)
 
As for the value of f(n) for n less than 1000 can be computed if we now for n+5 so let us compute f(n) for n = 1004 to 995 downwards
$f(1004) = 1004- 3 = 1001$
$f(1003) = 1003 - 3 = 1000$
$f(1002) = 1002-3 = 999$
$f(1001) = 1001 - 3 = 998$
$f(1000) = 1000-3 = 997$
$f(999) = f(f(1004)) = f(1001) = 998$
$f(998) = f(f(1003)) = f(1000) = 997$
$f(997) = f(f(1002)) = f(999) = 998$
$f(996) = f(f(1001)) = f(998) = 997$
$f(995) = f(f(1000)) = f(997) = 998$

Now as 84 + 915 = 999 or 84 + 183 * 5 = 999 So let us evaluate f(999-5k) for some k

we have $f(994) = f(f(999)) = f(998) = 997$
$f(989) = f(f(994)) = f(997) = 998$
$f(984) = f(f(989)) = f(998) = 997$
from the above we see that $f(999-kn)$ is $998$ if k is even and is $997$ if k is odd

as $999- 84 = 183 * 5$ so we get $f(84) = 997$
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top