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
The discussion focuses on proving the equation [3x] = [x] + [x + 1/3] + [x + 2/3], where [x] represents the floor function. The proof is structured into three cases based on the fractional part E of x, demonstrating that the equation holds true for each interval of E: 0 ≤ E < 1/3, 1/3 ≤ E < 2/3, and 2/3 ≤ E < 1. In each case, the calculations confirm that both sides of the equation yield consistent results. Participants express confidence in the proof's validity while acknowledging the potential for minor typographical errors. Overall, the proof appears solid and well-structured.
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.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

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