Prove that if $nm ≤ nx < nm + n $, where $ n,m ∈ ℤ $ and $ x ∈ ℝ$, then there exists …












-1












$begingroup$



Prove that if $nm ≤ nx < nm + n $, where $ n,m ∈ ℤ $ and $ x ∈ ℝ$, then there exists $j$ such that $j ∈ ℤ$ and $0≤ j <n$ for which $ nm+j≤ nx <nm+j+1 $.




I'm trying to prove Hermite's identity, which states that enter image description here for every real number $x$, and every positive integer $n$.



Part of the proof states what is underlined in red:



enter image description here



I don't understand why that is true; I've tried to prove it, but have failed to do so. Any ideas on why this happens?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    What did you try? What do you know about the floor function? Have you tried particular cases? Do you understand what is happening, but do not see how to make it rigorous, or do not have an intuitive understanding yet?
    $endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Dec 28 '18 at 14:07
















-1












$begingroup$



Prove that if $nm ≤ nx < nm + n $, where $ n,m ∈ ℤ $ and $ x ∈ ℝ$, then there exists $j$ such that $j ∈ ℤ$ and $0≤ j <n$ for which $ nm+j≤ nx <nm+j+1 $.




I'm trying to prove Hermite's identity, which states that enter image description here for every real number $x$, and every positive integer $n$.



Part of the proof states what is underlined in red:



enter image description here



I don't understand why that is true; I've tried to prove it, but have failed to do so. Any ideas on why this happens?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    What did you try? What do you know about the floor function? Have you tried particular cases? Do you understand what is happening, but do not see how to make it rigorous, or do not have an intuitive understanding yet?
    $endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Dec 28 '18 at 14:07














-1












-1








-1





$begingroup$



Prove that if $nm ≤ nx < nm + n $, where $ n,m ∈ ℤ $ and $ x ∈ ℝ$, then there exists $j$ such that $j ∈ ℤ$ and $0≤ j <n$ for which $ nm+j≤ nx <nm+j+1 $.




I'm trying to prove Hermite's identity, which states that enter image description here for every real number $x$, and every positive integer $n$.



Part of the proof states what is underlined in red:



enter image description here



I don't understand why that is true; I've tried to prove it, but have failed to do so. Any ideas on why this happens?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





Prove that if $nm ≤ nx < nm + n $, where $ n,m ∈ ℤ $ and $ x ∈ ℝ$, then there exists $j$ such that $j ∈ ℤ$ and $0≤ j <n$ for which $ nm+j≤ nx <nm+j+1 $.




I'm trying to prove Hermite's identity, which states that enter image description here for every real number $x$, and every positive integer $n$.



Part of the proof states what is underlined in red:



enter image description here



I don't understand why that is true; I've tried to prove it, but have failed to do so. Any ideas on why this happens?







algebra-precalculus functions discrete-mathematics floor-function






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 28 '18 at 14:05









Andrés E. Caicedo

65.5k8159250




65.5k8159250










asked Dec 28 '18 at 4:48









Daniel Bonilla JaramilloDaniel Bonilla Jaramillo

464310




464310












  • $begingroup$
    What did you try? What do you know about the floor function? Have you tried particular cases? Do you understand what is happening, but do not see how to make it rigorous, or do not have an intuitive understanding yet?
    $endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Dec 28 '18 at 14:07


















  • $begingroup$
    What did you try? What do you know about the floor function? Have you tried particular cases? Do you understand what is happening, but do not see how to make it rigorous, or do not have an intuitive understanding yet?
    $endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Dec 28 '18 at 14:07
















$begingroup$
What did you try? What do you know about the floor function? Have you tried particular cases? Do you understand what is happening, but do not see how to make it rigorous, or do not have an intuitive understanding yet?
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Dec 28 '18 at 14:07




$begingroup$
What did you try? What do you know about the floor function? Have you tried particular cases? Do you understand what is happening, but do not see how to make it rigorous, or do not have an intuitive understanding yet?
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Dec 28 '18 at 14:07










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















-1












$begingroup$

Let $ j = [nx] - nm$ and then the magic happens. Think that the inequality is a fancy way to find the remainder of the floor modulo $n$.



Your inequalities still hold when applying floor, so $nm leq [nx] < nm + n$. But, by definition, $[nx] = nm + j$ (such $j$ must exist because of $[nx]$ bounds) and you'll get $[nx] = mn + j leq [nx] < mn + j + 1 = [nx]+1$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Can the downvoter please explain?
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Henrique
    Dec 28 '18 at 4:58











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054574%2fprove-that-if-nm-%25e2%2589%25a4-nx-nm-n-where-n-m-%25e2%2588%2588-%25e2%2584%25a4-and-x-%25e2%2588%2588-%25e2%2584%259d-then-there-ex%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









-1












$begingroup$

Let $ j = [nx] - nm$ and then the magic happens. Think that the inequality is a fancy way to find the remainder of the floor modulo $n$.



Your inequalities still hold when applying floor, so $nm leq [nx] < nm + n$. But, by definition, $[nx] = nm + j$ (such $j$ must exist because of $[nx]$ bounds) and you'll get $[nx] = mn + j leq [nx] < mn + j + 1 = [nx]+1$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Can the downvoter please explain?
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Henrique
    Dec 28 '18 at 4:58
















-1












$begingroup$

Let $ j = [nx] - nm$ and then the magic happens. Think that the inequality is a fancy way to find the remainder of the floor modulo $n$.



Your inequalities still hold when applying floor, so $nm leq [nx] < nm + n$. But, by definition, $[nx] = nm + j$ (such $j$ must exist because of $[nx]$ bounds) and you'll get $[nx] = mn + j leq [nx] < mn + j + 1 = [nx]+1$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Can the downvoter please explain?
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Henrique
    Dec 28 '18 at 4:58














-1












-1








-1





$begingroup$

Let $ j = [nx] - nm$ and then the magic happens. Think that the inequality is a fancy way to find the remainder of the floor modulo $n$.



Your inequalities still hold when applying floor, so $nm leq [nx] < nm + n$. But, by definition, $[nx] = nm + j$ (such $j$ must exist because of $[nx]$ bounds) and you'll get $[nx] = mn + j leq [nx] < mn + j + 1 = [nx]+1$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Let $ j = [nx] - nm$ and then the magic happens. Think that the inequality is a fancy way to find the remainder of the floor modulo $n$.



Your inequalities still hold when applying floor, so $nm leq [nx] < nm + n$. But, by definition, $[nx] = nm + j$ (such $j$ must exist because of $[nx]$ bounds) and you'll get $[nx] = mn + j leq [nx] < mn + j + 1 = [nx]+1$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 28 '18 at 13:55

























answered Dec 28 '18 at 4:55









Lucas HenriqueLucas Henrique

1,026414




1,026414








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Can the downvoter please explain?
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Henrique
    Dec 28 '18 at 4:58














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Can the downvoter please explain?
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Henrique
    Dec 28 '18 at 4:58








1




1




$begingroup$
Can the downvoter please explain?
$endgroup$
– Lucas Henrique
Dec 28 '18 at 4:58




$begingroup$
Can the downvoter please explain?
$endgroup$
– Lucas Henrique
Dec 28 '18 at 4:58


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054574%2fprove-that-if-nm-%25e2%2589%25a4-nx-nm-n-where-n-m-%25e2%2588%2588-%25e2%2584%25a4-and-x-%25e2%2588%2588-%25e2%2584%259d-then-there-ex%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

Ellipse (mathématiques)

Quarter-circle Tiles

Mont Emei