Proof of infinite limit
$begingroup$
My question is really as to whether I can consider the following results as proof of one another, since $(2a)$&$(2b)$ cannot be true unless $(0)$ is true, and vice versa.
So if for below I prove $(0)$ using the elementary means in Real Analysis, can I also then consider this to be proof for $(2a)$&$(2b)$?
I am looking to prove with the standard epsilon approach that:
$$x in mathbb R Rightarrowlim _{nrightarrow infty }Bigl({frac { lfloor nx rfloor }{n}
}Bigr)=x
$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(0)}$$
Which has become necessary in the following context:
It's well known that in the p-adic coefficient of a natural number:
$$d_{n,p,j}=
Bigllfloor{n,{p}^{,j- {lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor} -1}} Bigrrfloor-pBigllfloor{n,{p}^{,j- {lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor} -2}} Bigrrfloor$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(1)}$$
as seen in the p-adic expansion of that number:
$$n=sum_{j=1}^{lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor+1}d_{n,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor+1-j}quadforall n in mathbb N$$
can likewise be used to separate any positive real number into it's integer and fractional parts:
$$lfloor xrfloor=sum_{j=1}^{lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1}d_{x,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1-j}quadforall x in mathbb R^{+}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(2a)}$$
$${{x}}=sum_{j=lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+2}^{infty}d_{x,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1-j}quadforall x in mathbb R^{+}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(2b)}$$
And because the corresponding finite sum for the above always computes a value much like the one I am trying to prove:
$$sum_{j=1}^{n}d_{x,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1-j}=frac{lfloor Nxrfloor}{N}$$
Then if it is true that taking the limit $n rightarrow infty$ results in convergence to $x$ in the manner described above, this means that proving $(0)$ to be true also concurrently proves $(2a)$ & $(2b)$ to be true.
number-theory limits p-adic-number-theory
asked Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
AdamAdam
560114
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My question is really as to whether I can consider the following results as proof of one another, since $(2a)$&$(2b)$ cannot be true unless $(0)$ is true, and vice versa.
So if for below I prove $(0)$ using the elementary means in Real Analysis, can I also then consider this to be proof for $(2a)$&$(2b)$?
I am looking to prove with the standard epsilon approach that:
$$x in mathbb R Rightarrowlim _{nrightarrow infty }Bigl({frac { lfloor nx rfloor }{n}
}Bigr)=x
$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(0)}$$
Which has become necessary in the following context:
It's well known that in the p-adic coefficient of a natural number:
$$d_{n,p,j}=
Bigllfloor{n,{p}^{,j- {lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor} -1}} Bigrrfloor-pBigllfloor{n,{p}^{,j- {lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor} -2}} Bigrrfloor$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(1)}$$
as seen in the p-adic expansion of that number:
$$n=sum_{j=1}^{lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor+1}d_{n,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor+1-j}quadforall n in mathbb N$$
can likewise be used to separate any positive real number into it's integer and fractional parts:
$$lfloor xrfloor=sum_{j=1}^{lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1}d_{x,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1-j}quadforall x in mathbb R^{+}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(2a)}$$
$${{x}}=sum_{j=lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+2}^{infty}d_{x,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1-j}quadforall x in mathbb R^{+}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(2b)}$$
And because the corresponding finite sum for the above always computes a value much like the one I am trying to prove:
$$sum_{j=1}^{n}d_{x,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1-j}=frac{lfloor Nxrfloor}{N}$$
Then if it is true that taking the limit $n rightarrow infty$ results in convergence to $x$ in the manner described above, this means that proving $(0)$ to be true also concurrently proves $(2a)$ & $(2b)$ to be true.
number-theory limits p-adic-number-theory
asked Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
AdamAdam
560114
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The simplest proof of (0) starts by noting that for all real $r$, $r-1<lfloor rrfloorle r$.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Dec 30 '18 at 2:45
$begingroup$
Sure but more to the point of what I am asking, can the final remark I've made being that the sum of $(2a)$ and $(2b)$ in the infinite limit for the upper bound being the same form as $(0)$ allow me to state QED for those having proven $(0)$ in an elementary manner as you stated, or do I need to prove them separately?
$endgroup$
– Adam
Dec 30 '18 at 2:58
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My question is really as to whether I can consider the following results as proof of one another, since $(2a)$&$(2b)$ cannot be true unless $(0)$ is true, and vice versa.
So if for below I prove $(0)$ using the elementary means in Real Analysis, can I also then consider this to be proof for $(2a)$&$(2b)$?
I am looking to prove with the standard epsilon approach that:
$$x in mathbb R Rightarrowlim _{nrightarrow infty }Bigl({frac { lfloor nx rfloor }{n}
}Bigr)=x
$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(0)}$$
Which has become necessary in the following context:
It's well known that in the p-adic coefficient of a natural number:
$$d_{n,p,j}=
Bigllfloor{n,{p}^{,j- {lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor} -1}} Bigrrfloor-pBigllfloor{n,{p}^{,j- {lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor} -2}} Bigrrfloor$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(1)}$$
as seen in the p-adic expansion of that number:
$$n=sum_{j=1}^{lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor+1}d_{n,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor+1-j}quadforall n in mathbb N$$
can likewise be used to separate any positive real number into it's integer and fractional parts:
$$lfloor xrfloor=sum_{j=1}^{lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1}d_{x,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1-j}quadforall x in mathbb R^{+}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(2a)}$$
$${{x}}=sum_{j=lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+2}^{infty}d_{x,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1-j}quadforall x in mathbb R^{+}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(2b)}$$
And because the corresponding finite sum for the above always computes a value much like the one I am trying to prove:
$$sum_{j=1}^{n}d_{x,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1-j}=frac{lfloor Nxrfloor}{N}$$
Then if it is true that taking the limit $n rightarrow infty$ results in convergence to $x$ in the manner described above, this means that proving $(0)$ to be true also concurrently proves $(2a)$ & $(2b)$ to be true.
number-theory limits p-adic-number-theory
asked Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
AdamAdam
560114
$endgroup$
My question is really as to whether I can consider the following results as proof of one another, since $(2a)$&$(2b)$ cannot be true unless $(0)$ is true, and vice versa.
So if for below I prove $(0)$ using the elementary means in Real Analysis, can I also then consider this to be proof for $(2a)$&$(2b)$?
I am looking to prove with the standard epsilon approach that:
$$x in mathbb R Rightarrowlim _{nrightarrow infty }Bigl({frac { lfloor nx rfloor }{n}
}Bigr)=x
$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(0)}$$
Which has become necessary in the following context:
It's well known that in the p-adic coefficient of a natural number:
$$d_{n,p,j}=
Bigllfloor{n,{p}^{,j- {lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor} -1}} Bigrrfloor-pBigllfloor{n,{p}^{,j- {lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor} -2}} Bigrrfloor$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(1)}$$
as seen in the p-adic expansion of that number:
$$n=sum_{j=1}^{lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor+1}d_{n,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(n)rfloor+1-j}quadforall n in mathbb N$$
can likewise be used to separate any positive real number into it's integer and fractional parts:
$$lfloor xrfloor=sum_{j=1}^{lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1}d_{x,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1-j}quadforall x in mathbb R^{+}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(2a)}$$
$${{x}}=sum_{j=lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+2}^{infty}d_{x,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1-j}quadforall x in mathbb R^{+}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(2b)}$$
And because the corresponding finite sum for the above always computes a value much like the one I am trying to prove:
$$sum_{j=1}^{n}d_{x,p,j},p^{,lfloor
ln_p(x)rfloor+1-j}=frac{lfloor Nxrfloor}{N}$$
Then if it is true that taking the limit $n rightarrow infty$ results in convergence to $x$ in the manner described above, this means that proving $(0)$ to be true also concurrently proves $(2a)$ & $(2b)$ to be true.
number-theory limits p-adic-number-theory
number-theory limits p-adic-number-theory
asked Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
AdamAdam
560114
asked Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
AdamAdam
560114
edited Jan 2 at 11:48
Adam
asked Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
AdamAdam
560114
asked Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
AdamAdam
560114
asked Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
AdamAdam
560114
560114
2
$begingroup$
The simplest proof of (0) starts by noting that for all real $r$, $r-1<lfloor rrfloorle r$.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Dec 30 '18 at 2:45
$begingroup$
Sure but more to the point of what I am asking, can the final remark I've made being that the sum of $(2a)$ and $(2b)$ in the infinite limit for the upper bound being the same form as $(0)$ allow me to state QED for those having proven $(0)$ in an elementary manner as you stated, or do I need to prove them separately?
$endgroup$
– Adam
Dec 30 '18 at 2:58
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
The simplest proof of (0) starts by noting that for all real $r$, $r-1<lfloor rrfloorle r$.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Dec 30 '18 at 2:45
$begingroup$
Sure but more to the point of what I am asking, can the final remark I've made being that the sum of $(2a)$ and $(2b)$ in the infinite limit for the upper bound being the same form as $(0)$ allow me to state QED for those having proven $(0)$ in an elementary manner as you stated, or do I need to prove them separately?
$endgroup$
– Adam
Dec 30 '18 at 2:58
2
2
$begingroup$
The simplest proof of (0) starts by noting that for all real $r$, $r-1<lfloor rrfloorle r$.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Dec 30 '18 at 2:45
$begingroup$
The simplest proof of (0) starts by noting that for all real $r$, $r-1<lfloor rrfloorle r$.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Dec 30 '18 at 2:45
$begingroup$
Sure but more to the point of what I am asking, can the final remark I've made being that the sum of $(2a)$ and $(2b)$ in the infinite limit for the upper bound being the same form as $(0)$ allow me to state QED for those having proven $(0)$ in an elementary manner as you stated, or do I need to prove them separately?
$endgroup$
– Adam
Dec 30 '18 at 2:58
$begingroup$
Sure but more to the point of what I am asking, can the final remark I've made being that the sum of $(2a)$ and $(2b)$ in the infinite limit for the upper bound being the same form as $(0)$ allow me to state QED for those having proven $(0)$ in an elementary manner as you stated, or do I need to prove them separately?
$endgroup$
– Adam
Dec 30 '18 at 2:58
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3056459%2fproof-of-infinite-limit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3056459%2fproof-of-infinite-limit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
The simplest proof of (0) starts by noting that for all real $r$, $r-1<lfloor rrfloorle r$.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Dec 30 '18 at 2:45
$begingroup$
Sure but more to the point of what I am asking, can the final remark I've made being that the sum of $(2a)$ and $(2b)$ in the infinite limit for the upper bound being the same form as $(0)$ allow me to state QED for those having proven $(0)$ in an elementary manner as you stated, or do I need to prove them separately?
$endgroup$
– Adam
Dec 30 '18 at 2:58