Proving the Falsehood of y = x + ceiling[x] for All Real Numbers y and x

  • Thread starter jumbogala
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, the statement "For all real numbers y, there is a real number x such that y = x + ceiling[x]" is false. To prove its negation, there exists a real number y such that for all real numbers x, y ≠ x + ceiling[x]. This can be shown by choosing a value for y and showing that there is no value for x that satisfies the equation. However, it is important to note that choosing a specific y, such as y = 2x + 1, limits the possible values of x and does not prove the statement for all values of x. Therefore, it is necessary to use a different variable, such as t, to represent y in the equation.
  • #1
jumbogala
423
4

Homework Statement


Prove that the following statement is either true or false:

For all real numbers y, there is a real number x such that y = x + ceiling[x].

Note: ceiling[x] = n such that n-1 < x ≤ n. For example, if x = 3.2, then ceiling[x] = 4.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I think the statement is false. So I am going to prove its negation is true.

Negation: There exists a real number y such that for all real numbers x, y ≠ x + ceiling[x].

Proof:
Suppose x is a real number.

Suppose y = 2x + 1. Then y is a real number because x is a real number. (I think I can do this because I just have to show that my statement holds for at least one y.)

Now suppose that y = x + ceiling[x].

Define x1 = ceiling[x] - x. Then 0 ≤ x1 < 1.

So ceiling[x] = x1 + x. Plug this into y = x + ceiling[x].

So y = x + x1 + x = 2x + x1

But by one of my assumptions, y= 2x + 1. Therefore, x1 = 1.

However, x1 < 1. This is a contradiction.

So y ≠ x + ceiling[x]. Negation of the statement is proved, so the original statement is true.

--
Is this correct? I showed it to a friend who told me this doesn't prove the right thing. Apparently this only shows that y ≠ x + ceiling[x], and doesn't actually prove my original statement. I'm confused because I think it works. Help!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It is not a correct proof for this problem. Yes, you can choose a y, but you can't specify how it is related to x.

Try some fairly simple examples & see what happens.

Pick several values for y, see if you can find a value for x that works.

Pick several values for x, see you get for y. (I think this way works best.)
 
  • #3
But for all x, there exists a y such that y = 2x + 1 right?

So why can't I pick that particular y? I don't understand why I can't specify how it's related to x. The statement just has to work for one y right, why can't it be the one I pick?

I tried picking several values for x, and seeing what I got for y. y jumps.
 
  • #4
But you need to show that for ALL x that y ≠ x + ceiling[x] . However by saying y = 2x+1, you have already limited what x can be.

Actually, a better way to say y ≠ x + ceiling[x] would to say | y - (x + ceiling[x]) | > 0 .

I suggest: Find a specific y --- a number. Do this by trying several different values for x & see what values of y seem to be missed. --- or --- Perhaps Graph y = x + ceiling[x]). Look for gaps in the range of this graph.
 
  • #5
I can't quite get my head wrapped around this. How does that limit what x can be? For y = 2x + 1, x can still be any real number since there is no condition on y.

If I said let y = 5, then I could show that there is no x such that 5 = x + ceiling[x]. I figured out how to do that:

x = 5 - ceiling[x]. Ceiling[x] is an integer, so x must be an integer. So x = ceiling[x].

Then 5 = 2x, or x = 5/2. But 5/2 is not an integer so you arrive at a contradiction. This definitely works.

I still want to understand why I can't do what I originally did though.
 
  • #6
Fine, but then you need to use a different variable than x in the expression x + ceiling[x] , i.e.

y ≠ t + ceiling[t] , for all t.
 
  • #7
And then how would that change my proof?

So I'm still supposing y = 2x + 1 where x is any real number.

Then I suppose that y = t + ceiling[t].

Then I still show all that stuff with x1, arrive at a contradiction, and so y ≠ t + ceiling[t]? And then my proof works?
 
  • #8
You're just showing that one particular number, x1 + x , where x1 - ceiling(x) -x , gives inequality. But, all values of x must also give inequality.
 
  • #9
Okay, I think that makes a bit more sense. I'll give it some more thought and hopefully it will be clearer to me. Thanks for your help!
 
  • #10
Actually saying that y = 2x+1 doesn't say anything about y, unless you are somehow restricting x in some way, such as making it be an integer.

By the way, you are correct in saying that the statement is false.
 

FAQ: Proving the Falsehood of y = x + ceiling[x] for All Real Numbers y and x

What is "Ceiling Proof"?

"Ceiling Proof" is a term used in construction and engineering to describe the ability of a structure or material to withstand a certain amount of weight or pressure without collapsing or failing.

How is "Ceiling Proof" measured?

The "Ceiling Proof" of a structure or material is typically measured in terms of weight per unit area, such as pounds per square inch (psi) or kilograms per square meter (kg/m2).

What factors can affect the "Ceiling Proof" of a structure?

The "Ceiling Proof" of a structure can be affected by several factors, such as the type and quality of materials used, the design and construction methods, and any additional load or stress placed on the structure.

How can the "Ceiling Proof" of a structure be improved?

The "Ceiling Proof" of a structure can be improved by using stronger and more durable materials, implementing better construction techniques, and ensuring that the structure is designed to withstand any potential loads or stresses.

Why is it important to consider the "Ceiling Proof" of a structure?

The "Ceiling Proof" of a structure is important to consider because it ensures the safety and stability of the structure, as well as the people and objects that rely on it. It also helps to prevent potential damage or collapse in the event of extreme circumstances, such as natural disasters or accidents.

Back
Top