A floor function appeared after integration. What happended?












9














I have laplace's equation, $nabla^2f=0$, inside a circle (radius $a$) for which the boundary condition (polar coordinates) is



$$
f(a,phi) =
begin{cases}
1quad text{for $0< phi < pi/2$}\
-1quad text{for $-pi < phi < -pi/2$}\
0quad text{otherwise}
end{cases}
$$



I went to solve it using the formula (for $r<a$):
$$
f(r,phi) = frac{a^2 - r^2}{2pi} int^pi_{-pi} frac{f(a,phi)}{a^2 + r^2 - 2ar cos(phi-t)}dt
$$



$$
f(r,phi) = frac{a^2 - r^2}{2pi} left[ int^{-pi/2}_{-pi} frac{-1}{a^2 + r^2 - 2ar cos(phi-t)}dt + int^{pi/2}_{0} frac{1}{a^2 + r^2 - 2ar cos(phi-t)}dtright]
$$



By using the universal trigonometric substitution, I arrived at
$$
f(r,phi) = frac{1}{pi}left[hleft(r,phi,frac{-pi}{2}right) - hleft(r,phi,-piright) - hleft(r,phi,frac{pi}{2}right) + hleft(r,phi,0right)right]
$$



Where
$$
h(r,phi,t) = arctanleft(frac{a+r}{a-r} tanleft(frac{phi - t}{2}right)right)
$$



Which agrees with wolfram alpha's result.



But then the plotting for various values of $r$ gave me



enter image description here



When I did the symbolic integration using a hp 50g calculator, a $floor$ function appeared adding to $h$.



$$
g(r,phi,t) = h(r,phi,t) + pi, text{floor} left( frac{phi-t}{2pi} +frac{1}{2} right)
$$



The final result being



$$
f(r,phi) = frac{1}{pi}left[gleft(r,phi,frac{-pi}{2}right) - gleft(r,phi,-piright) - gleft(r,phi,frac{pi}{2}right) + gleft(r,phi,0right)right]
$$



Which plotting gave me the expected result



enter image description here



Now I cannot understand what happenned. Why and how did (must) that floor function appear?










share|cite|improve this question



























    9














    I have laplace's equation, $nabla^2f=0$, inside a circle (radius $a$) for which the boundary condition (polar coordinates) is



    $$
    f(a,phi) =
    begin{cases}
    1quad text{for $0< phi < pi/2$}\
    -1quad text{for $-pi < phi < -pi/2$}\
    0quad text{otherwise}
    end{cases}
    $$



    I went to solve it using the formula (for $r<a$):
    $$
    f(r,phi) = frac{a^2 - r^2}{2pi} int^pi_{-pi} frac{f(a,phi)}{a^2 + r^2 - 2ar cos(phi-t)}dt
    $$



    $$
    f(r,phi) = frac{a^2 - r^2}{2pi} left[ int^{-pi/2}_{-pi} frac{-1}{a^2 + r^2 - 2ar cos(phi-t)}dt + int^{pi/2}_{0} frac{1}{a^2 + r^2 - 2ar cos(phi-t)}dtright]
    $$



    By using the universal trigonometric substitution, I arrived at
    $$
    f(r,phi) = frac{1}{pi}left[hleft(r,phi,frac{-pi}{2}right) - hleft(r,phi,-piright) - hleft(r,phi,frac{pi}{2}right) + hleft(r,phi,0right)right]
    $$



    Where
    $$
    h(r,phi,t) = arctanleft(frac{a+r}{a-r} tanleft(frac{phi - t}{2}right)right)
    $$



    Which agrees with wolfram alpha's result.



    But then the plotting for various values of $r$ gave me



    enter image description here



    When I did the symbolic integration using a hp 50g calculator, a $floor$ function appeared adding to $h$.



    $$
    g(r,phi,t) = h(r,phi,t) + pi, text{floor} left( frac{phi-t}{2pi} +frac{1}{2} right)
    $$



    The final result being



    $$
    f(r,phi) = frac{1}{pi}left[gleft(r,phi,frac{-pi}{2}right) - gleft(r,phi,-piright) - gleft(r,phi,frac{pi}{2}right) + gleft(r,phi,0right)right]
    $$



    Which plotting gave me the expected result



    enter image description here



    Now I cannot understand what happenned. Why and how did (must) that floor function appear?










    share|cite|improve this question

























      9












      9








      9


      4





      I have laplace's equation, $nabla^2f=0$, inside a circle (radius $a$) for which the boundary condition (polar coordinates) is



      $$
      f(a,phi) =
      begin{cases}
      1quad text{for $0< phi < pi/2$}\
      -1quad text{for $-pi < phi < -pi/2$}\
      0quad text{otherwise}
      end{cases}
      $$



      I went to solve it using the formula (for $r<a$):
      $$
      f(r,phi) = frac{a^2 - r^2}{2pi} int^pi_{-pi} frac{f(a,phi)}{a^2 + r^2 - 2ar cos(phi-t)}dt
      $$



      $$
      f(r,phi) = frac{a^2 - r^2}{2pi} left[ int^{-pi/2}_{-pi} frac{-1}{a^2 + r^2 - 2ar cos(phi-t)}dt + int^{pi/2}_{0} frac{1}{a^2 + r^2 - 2ar cos(phi-t)}dtright]
      $$



      By using the universal trigonometric substitution, I arrived at
      $$
      f(r,phi) = frac{1}{pi}left[hleft(r,phi,frac{-pi}{2}right) - hleft(r,phi,-piright) - hleft(r,phi,frac{pi}{2}right) + hleft(r,phi,0right)right]
      $$



      Where
      $$
      h(r,phi,t) = arctanleft(frac{a+r}{a-r} tanleft(frac{phi - t}{2}right)right)
      $$



      Which agrees with wolfram alpha's result.



      But then the plotting for various values of $r$ gave me



      enter image description here



      When I did the symbolic integration using a hp 50g calculator, a $floor$ function appeared adding to $h$.



      $$
      g(r,phi,t) = h(r,phi,t) + pi, text{floor} left( frac{phi-t}{2pi} +frac{1}{2} right)
      $$



      The final result being



      $$
      f(r,phi) = frac{1}{pi}left[gleft(r,phi,frac{-pi}{2}right) - gleft(r,phi,-piright) - gleft(r,phi,frac{pi}{2}right) + gleft(r,phi,0right)right]
      $$



      Which plotting gave me the expected result



      enter image description here



      Now I cannot understand what happenned. Why and how did (must) that floor function appear?










      share|cite|improve this question













      I have laplace's equation, $nabla^2f=0$, inside a circle (radius $a$) for which the boundary condition (polar coordinates) is



      $$
      f(a,phi) =
      begin{cases}
      1quad text{for $0< phi < pi/2$}\
      -1quad text{for $-pi < phi < -pi/2$}\
      0quad text{otherwise}
      end{cases}
      $$



      I went to solve it using the formula (for $r<a$):
      $$
      f(r,phi) = frac{a^2 - r^2}{2pi} int^pi_{-pi} frac{f(a,phi)}{a^2 + r^2 - 2ar cos(phi-t)}dt
      $$



      $$
      f(r,phi) = frac{a^2 - r^2}{2pi} left[ int^{-pi/2}_{-pi} frac{-1}{a^2 + r^2 - 2ar cos(phi-t)}dt + int^{pi/2}_{0} frac{1}{a^2 + r^2 - 2ar cos(phi-t)}dtright]
      $$



      By using the universal trigonometric substitution, I arrived at
      $$
      f(r,phi) = frac{1}{pi}left[hleft(r,phi,frac{-pi}{2}right) - hleft(r,phi,-piright) - hleft(r,phi,frac{pi}{2}right) + hleft(r,phi,0right)right]
      $$



      Where
      $$
      h(r,phi,t) = arctanleft(frac{a+r}{a-r} tanleft(frac{phi - t}{2}right)right)
      $$



      Which agrees with wolfram alpha's result.



      But then the plotting for various values of $r$ gave me



      enter image description here



      When I did the symbolic integration using a hp 50g calculator, a $floor$ function appeared adding to $h$.



      $$
      g(r,phi,t) = h(r,phi,t) + pi, text{floor} left( frac{phi-t}{2pi} +frac{1}{2} right)
      $$



      The final result being



      $$
      f(r,phi) = frac{1}{pi}left[gleft(r,phi,frac{-pi}{2}right) - gleft(r,phi,-piright) - gleft(r,phi,frac{pi}{2}right) + gleft(r,phi,0right)right]
      $$



      Which plotting gave me the expected result



      enter image description here



      Now I cannot understand what happenned. Why and how did (must) that floor function appear?







      calculus integration definite-integrals






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked May 4 '17 at 23:56









      Pedro H. N. Vieira

      199111




      199111






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          Your $h$ is a local antiderivative; it has jump discontinuities whenever that argument $frac{phi-t}{2}$ of the tangent is equivalent to $frac{pi}{2}$ mod $pi$. When we increase past such a point, that tangent goes from $infty$ to $-infty$, and thus $h$ decreases by $pi$. (In practice, we'll be running the argument $phi-t$ in the opposite direction, so they'll be upward jumps)



          Except - this is an artificial singularity, introduced by our substitution. There's nothing wrong with those points in the underlying integral, and we should have an antiderivative that crosses them. In order to do that, we'll have to introduce something that cancels out the jump discontinuities - a step function. It's simplest to do that with $h$; we need something that steps up by $pi$ at every odd multiple of $pi$, and that formula $pileftlfloor frac{phi-t+pi}{2pi}rightrfloor$ is one way to do it.



          Working without this, and blindly using your original form across those points, is wrong. For example, consider what would happen if we used $f(a,theta)=1$. We would get
          $$f(r,phi)=frac{a^2-r^2}{2pi}int_{-pi}^{pi}frac{1}{a^2+r^2-2arcos(phi-t)},dt = frac1{pi}[h(r,phi,-pi)-h(r,phi,pi)] = 0$$
          (Your sign convention for $h$ is a little confusing there)

          Anyway, this is a ridiculous result; we should get that $f$ is uniformly equal to $1$ in this case, and certainly the integral of a positive function must be positive. We need a fix, and that fixed antiderivative $g$ is one way to do it. In the example, we get $frac1{pi}[h(r,phi,-pi)-h(r,phi,pi)] = 1$ as it should be, since $phi-t$ crosses the key point exactly once in any given interval of length $2pi$.



          In your problem, with the more complicated boundary conditions, the form of the erroneous solution shifts whenever that key point $phi-tequiv pi$ passes one of the jumps in $f(a,phi)$.

          For $phiin (-pi,-frac{pi}{2})$, the key point is in $(0,frac{pi}{2})$ where $f(a,phi)=1$ and missing the jump erroneously subtracts $1$ from the solution.

          For $phiin (-frac{pi}{2},0)$, the key point is in $(frac{pi}{2},pi)$ where $f(a,phi)=0$ and the solution is unchanged.

          For $phiin (0,frac{pi}{2})$, the key point is in $(-pi,-frac{pi}{2})$ where $f(a,phi)=01$ and missing the jump erroneously adds $1$ to the solution.

          For $phiin (frac{pi}{2},pi)$, the key point is in $(-frac{pi}{2},0)$ where $f(a,phi)=0$ and the solution is unchanged.



          There's your bad graph, explained.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            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%2f2266395%2fa-floor-function-appeared-after-integration-what-happended%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









            3














            Your $h$ is a local antiderivative; it has jump discontinuities whenever that argument $frac{phi-t}{2}$ of the tangent is equivalent to $frac{pi}{2}$ mod $pi$. When we increase past such a point, that tangent goes from $infty$ to $-infty$, and thus $h$ decreases by $pi$. (In practice, we'll be running the argument $phi-t$ in the opposite direction, so they'll be upward jumps)



            Except - this is an artificial singularity, introduced by our substitution. There's nothing wrong with those points in the underlying integral, and we should have an antiderivative that crosses them. In order to do that, we'll have to introduce something that cancels out the jump discontinuities - a step function. It's simplest to do that with $h$; we need something that steps up by $pi$ at every odd multiple of $pi$, and that formula $pileftlfloor frac{phi-t+pi}{2pi}rightrfloor$ is one way to do it.



            Working without this, and blindly using your original form across those points, is wrong. For example, consider what would happen if we used $f(a,theta)=1$. We would get
            $$f(r,phi)=frac{a^2-r^2}{2pi}int_{-pi}^{pi}frac{1}{a^2+r^2-2arcos(phi-t)},dt = frac1{pi}[h(r,phi,-pi)-h(r,phi,pi)] = 0$$
            (Your sign convention for $h$ is a little confusing there)

            Anyway, this is a ridiculous result; we should get that $f$ is uniformly equal to $1$ in this case, and certainly the integral of a positive function must be positive. We need a fix, and that fixed antiderivative $g$ is one way to do it. In the example, we get $frac1{pi}[h(r,phi,-pi)-h(r,phi,pi)] = 1$ as it should be, since $phi-t$ crosses the key point exactly once in any given interval of length $2pi$.



            In your problem, with the more complicated boundary conditions, the form of the erroneous solution shifts whenever that key point $phi-tequiv pi$ passes one of the jumps in $f(a,phi)$.

            For $phiin (-pi,-frac{pi}{2})$, the key point is in $(0,frac{pi}{2})$ where $f(a,phi)=1$ and missing the jump erroneously subtracts $1$ from the solution.

            For $phiin (-frac{pi}{2},0)$, the key point is in $(frac{pi}{2},pi)$ where $f(a,phi)=0$ and the solution is unchanged.

            For $phiin (0,frac{pi}{2})$, the key point is in $(-pi,-frac{pi}{2})$ where $f(a,phi)=01$ and missing the jump erroneously adds $1$ to the solution.

            For $phiin (frac{pi}{2},pi)$, the key point is in $(-frac{pi}{2},0)$ where $f(a,phi)=0$ and the solution is unchanged.



            There's your bad graph, explained.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              3














              Your $h$ is a local antiderivative; it has jump discontinuities whenever that argument $frac{phi-t}{2}$ of the tangent is equivalent to $frac{pi}{2}$ mod $pi$. When we increase past such a point, that tangent goes from $infty$ to $-infty$, and thus $h$ decreases by $pi$. (In practice, we'll be running the argument $phi-t$ in the opposite direction, so they'll be upward jumps)



              Except - this is an artificial singularity, introduced by our substitution. There's nothing wrong with those points in the underlying integral, and we should have an antiderivative that crosses them. In order to do that, we'll have to introduce something that cancels out the jump discontinuities - a step function. It's simplest to do that with $h$; we need something that steps up by $pi$ at every odd multiple of $pi$, and that formula $pileftlfloor frac{phi-t+pi}{2pi}rightrfloor$ is one way to do it.



              Working without this, and blindly using your original form across those points, is wrong. For example, consider what would happen if we used $f(a,theta)=1$. We would get
              $$f(r,phi)=frac{a^2-r^2}{2pi}int_{-pi}^{pi}frac{1}{a^2+r^2-2arcos(phi-t)},dt = frac1{pi}[h(r,phi,-pi)-h(r,phi,pi)] = 0$$
              (Your sign convention for $h$ is a little confusing there)

              Anyway, this is a ridiculous result; we should get that $f$ is uniformly equal to $1$ in this case, and certainly the integral of a positive function must be positive. We need a fix, and that fixed antiderivative $g$ is one way to do it. In the example, we get $frac1{pi}[h(r,phi,-pi)-h(r,phi,pi)] = 1$ as it should be, since $phi-t$ crosses the key point exactly once in any given interval of length $2pi$.



              In your problem, with the more complicated boundary conditions, the form of the erroneous solution shifts whenever that key point $phi-tequiv pi$ passes one of the jumps in $f(a,phi)$.

              For $phiin (-pi,-frac{pi}{2})$, the key point is in $(0,frac{pi}{2})$ where $f(a,phi)=1$ and missing the jump erroneously subtracts $1$ from the solution.

              For $phiin (-frac{pi}{2},0)$, the key point is in $(frac{pi}{2},pi)$ where $f(a,phi)=0$ and the solution is unchanged.

              For $phiin (0,frac{pi}{2})$, the key point is in $(-pi,-frac{pi}{2})$ where $f(a,phi)=01$ and missing the jump erroneously adds $1$ to the solution.

              For $phiin (frac{pi}{2},pi)$, the key point is in $(-frac{pi}{2},0)$ where $f(a,phi)=0$ and the solution is unchanged.



              There's your bad graph, explained.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                3












                3








                3






                Your $h$ is a local antiderivative; it has jump discontinuities whenever that argument $frac{phi-t}{2}$ of the tangent is equivalent to $frac{pi}{2}$ mod $pi$. When we increase past such a point, that tangent goes from $infty$ to $-infty$, and thus $h$ decreases by $pi$. (In practice, we'll be running the argument $phi-t$ in the opposite direction, so they'll be upward jumps)



                Except - this is an artificial singularity, introduced by our substitution. There's nothing wrong with those points in the underlying integral, and we should have an antiderivative that crosses them. In order to do that, we'll have to introduce something that cancels out the jump discontinuities - a step function. It's simplest to do that with $h$; we need something that steps up by $pi$ at every odd multiple of $pi$, and that formula $pileftlfloor frac{phi-t+pi}{2pi}rightrfloor$ is one way to do it.



                Working without this, and blindly using your original form across those points, is wrong. For example, consider what would happen if we used $f(a,theta)=1$. We would get
                $$f(r,phi)=frac{a^2-r^2}{2pi}int_{-pi}^{pi}frac{1}{a^2+r^2-2arcos(phi-t)},dt = frac1{pi}[h(r,phi,-pi)-h(r,phi,pi)] = 0$$
                (Your sign convention for $h$ is a little confusing there)

                Anyway, this is a ridiculous result; we should get that $f$ is uniformly equal to $1$ in this case, and certainly the integral of a positive function must be positive. We need a fix, and that fixed antiderivative $g$ is one way to do it. In the example, we get $frac1{pi}[h(r,phi,-pi)-h(r,phi,pi)] = 1$ as it should be, since $phi-t$ crosses the key point exactly once in any given interval of length $2pi$.



                In your problem, with the more complicated boundary conditions, the form of the erroneous solution shifts whenever that key point $phi-tequiv pi$ passes one of the jumps in $f(a,phi)$.

                For $phiin (-pi,-frac{pi}{2})$, the key point is in $(0,frac{pi}{2})$ where $f(a,phi)=1$ and missing the jump erroneously subtracts $1$ from the solution.

                For $phiin (-frac{pi}{2},0)$, the key point is in $(frac{pi}{2},pi)$ where $f(a,phi)=0$ and the solution is unchanged.

                For $phiin (0,frac{pi}{2})$, the key point is in $(-pi,-frac{pi}{2})$ where $f(a,phi)=01$ and missing the jump erroneously adds $1$ to the solution.

                For $phiin (frac{pi}{2},pi)$, the key point is in $(-frac{pi}{2},0)$ where $f(a,phi)=0$ and the solution is unchanged.



                There's your bad graph, explained.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Your $h$ is a local antiderivative; it has jump discontinuities whenever that argument $frac{phi-t}{2}$ of the tangent is equivalent to $frac{pi}{2}$ mod $pi$. When we increase past such a point, that tangent goes from $infty$ to $-infty$, and thus $h$ decreases by $pi$. (In practice, we'll be running the argument $phi-t$ in the opposite direction, so they'll be upward jumps)



                Except - this is an artificial singularity, introduced by our substitution. There's nothing wrong with those points in the underlying integral, and we should have an antiderivative that crosses them. In order to do that, we'll have to introduce something that cancels out the jump discontinuities - a step function. It's simplest to do that with $h$; we need something that steps up by $pi$ at every odd multiple of $pi$, and that formula $pileftlfloor frac{phi-t+pi}{2pi}rightrfloor$ is one way to do it.



                Working without this, and blindly using your original form across those points, is wrong. For example, consider what would happen if we used $f(a,theta)=1$. We would get
                $$f(r,phi)=frac{a^2-r^2}{2pi}int_{-pi}^{pi}frac{1}{a^2+r^2-2arcos(phi-t)},dt = frac1{pi}[h(r,phi,-pi)-h(r,phi,pi)] = 0$$
                (Your sign convention for $h$ is a little confusing there)

                Anyway, this is a ridiculous result; we should get that $f$ is uniformly equal to $1$ in this case, and certainly the integral of a positive function must be positive. We need a fix, and that fixed antiderivative $g$ is one way to do it. In the example, we get $frac1{pi}[h(r,phi,-pi)-h(r,phi,pi)] = 1$ as it should be, since $phi-t$ crosses the key point exactly once in any given interval of length $2pi$.



                In your problem, with the more complicated boundary conditions, the form of the erroneous solution shifts whenever that key point $phi-tequiv pi$ passes one of the jumps in $f(a,phi)$.

                For $phiin (-pi,-frac{pi}{2})$, the key point is in $(0,frac{pi}{2})$ where $f(a,phi)=1$ and missing the jump erroneously subtracts $1$ from the solution.

                For $phiin (-frac{pi}{2},0)$, the key point is in $(frac{pi}{2},pi)$ where $f(a,phi)=0$ and the solution is unchanged.

                For $phiin (0,frac{pi}{2})$, the key point is in $(-pi,-frac{pi}{2})$ where $f(a,phi)=01$ and missing the jump erroneously adds $1$ to the solution.

                For $phiin (frac{pi}{2},pi)$, the key point is in $(-frac{pi}{2},0)$ where $f(a,phi)=0$ and the solution is unchanged.



                There's your bad graph, explained.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered yesterday









                jmerry

                2,076210




                2,076210






























                    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.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • 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.


                    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%2f2266395%2fa-floor-function-appeared-after-integration-what-happended%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

                    An IMO inspired problem

                    Management

                    Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?