Is there more than one meaning of the notation “$f(x)=[x]$”?
In my real analysis text book there is a question that says:
Decide whether $f(x)=[x]$ is bounded above or below on the interval $[0,a]$ where $a$ is arbitrary, and whether the function takes on it's maximum or minimum value within that same interval.
This question is very straightforward, assuming $[x]=x$. But if that is the case, then the choice of notation is very strange.
Is there another way to interpret the notation's meaning?
notation
edited Jan 4 at 6:14
Xander Henderson
14.1k103554
asked May 1 '11 at 22:42
objectiveseaobjectivesea
440413
add a comment |
In my real analysis text book there is a question that says:
Decide whether $f(x)=[x]$ is bounded above or below on the interval $[0,a]$ where $a$ is arbitrary, and whether the function takes on it's maximum or minimum value within that same interval.
This question is very straightforward, assuming $[x]=x$. But if that is the case, then the choice of notation is very strange.
Is there another way to interpret the notation's meaning?
notation
edited Jan 4 at 6:14
Xander Henderson
14.1k103554
asked May 1 '11 at 22:42
objectiveseaobjectivesea
440413
1
I have seen $[x]$ denote the fractional part of $x$, but that doesn't seem to be the desired meaning in this context.
– Brandon Carter
May 1 '11 at 22:44
2
I've seen that notation to be the nearest integer function before.
– yunone
May 1 '11 at 22:44
2
Could you specify what textbook you're using? I'm guessing there should be a place where the notation used is explained...
– J. M. is not a mathematician
May 1 '11 at 22:47
[x] is often used as the Iverson Bracket, 1 if is x is true, though that's clearly not the usage here. I've also seen it used for either floor or ceiling, when the right brackets (missing either the top or bottom) were difficult to produce.
– wnoise
May 1 '11 at 23:00
The question is from Michael Spivak's "Calculus" - 4th Edition (also 3rd edition). It's part (xii) of chapter 7 question 1.
– objectivesea
May 1 '11 at 23:20
add a comment |
In my real analysis text book there is a question that says:
Decide whether $f(x)=[x]$ is bounded above or below on the interval $[0,a]$ where $a$ is arbitrary, and whether the function takes on it's maximum or minimum value within that same interval.
This question is very straightforward, assuming $[x]=x$. But if that is the case, then the choice of notation is very strange.
Is there another way to interpret the notation's meaning?
notation
edited Jan 4 at 6:14
Xander Henderson
14.1k103554
asked May 1 '11 at 22:42
objectiveseaobjectivesea
440413
In my real analysis text book there is a question that says:
Decide whether $f(x)=[x]$ is bounded above or below on the interval $[0,a]$ where $a$ is arbitrary, and whether the function takes on it's maximum or minimum value within that same interval.
This question is very straightforward, assuming $[x]=x$. But if that is the case, then the choice of notation is very strange.
Is there another way to interpret the notation's meaning?
notation
notation
edited Jan 4 at 6:14
Xander Henderson
14.1k103554
asked May 1 '11 at 22:42
objectiveseaobjectivesea
440413
edited Jan 4 at 6:14
Xander Henderson
14.1k103554
asked May 1 '11 at 22:42
objectiveseaobjectivesea
440413
edited Jan 4 at 6:14
Xander Henderson
14.1k103554
edited Jan 4 at 6:14
Xander Henderson
14.1k103554
edited Jan 4 at 6:14
Xander Henderson
14.1k103554
14.1k103554
asked May 1 '11 at 22:42
objectiveseaobjectivesea
440413
asked May 1 '11 at 22:42
objectiveseaobjectivesea
440413
asked May 1 '11 at 22:42
objectiveseaobjectivesea
440413
440413
1
I have seen $[x]$ denote the fractional part of $x$, but that doesn't seem to be the desired meaning in this context.
– Brandon Carter
May 1 '11 at 22:44
2
I've seen that notation to be the nearest integer function before.
– yunone
May 1 '11 at 22:44
2
Could you specify what textbook you're using? I'm guessing there should be a place where the notation used is explained...
– J. M. is not a mathematician
May 1 '11 at 22:47
[x] is often used as the Iverson Bracket, 1 if is x is true, though that's clearly not the usage here. I've also seen it used for either floor or ceiling, when the right brackets (missing either the top or bottom) were difficult to produce.
– wnoise
May 1 '11 at 23:00
The question is from Michael Spivak's "Calculus" - 4th Edition (also 3rd edition). It's part (xii) of chapter 7 question 1.
– objectivesea
May 1 '11 at 23:20
add a comment |
1
I have seen $[x]$ denote the fractional part of $x$, but that doesn't seem to be the desired meaning in this context.
– Brandon Carter
May 1 '11 at 22:44
2
I've seen that notation to be the nearest integer function before.
– yunone
May 1 '11 at 22:44
2
Could you specify what textbook you're using? I'm guessing there should be a place where the notation used is explained...
– J. M. is not a mathematician
May 1 '11 at 22:47
[x] is often used as the Iverson Bracket, 1 if is x is true, though that's clearly not the usage here. I've also seen it used for either floor or ceiling, when the right brackets (missing either the top or bottom) were difficult to produce.
– wnoise
May 1 '11 at 23:00
The question is from Michael Spivak's "Calculus" - 4th Edition (also 3rd edition). It's part (xii) of chapter 7 question 1.
– objectivesea
May 1 '11 at 23:20
1
1
I have seen $[x]$ denote the fractional part of $x$, but that doesn't seem to be the desired meaning in this context.
– Brandon Carter
May 1 '11 at 22:44
I have seen $[x]$ denote the fractional part of $x$, but that doesn't seem to be the desired meaning in this context.
– Brandon Carter
May 1 '11 at 22:44
2
2
I've seen that notation to be the nearest integer function before.
– yunone
May 1 '11 at 22:44
I've seen that notation to be the nearest integer function before.
– yunone
May 1 '11 at 22:44
2
2
Could you specify what textbook you're using? I'm guessing there should be a place where the notation used is explained...
– J. M. is not a mathematician
May 1 '11 at 22:47
Could you specify what textbook you're using? I'm guessing there should be a place where the notation used is explained...
– J. M. is not a mathematician
May 1 '11 at 22:47
[x] is often used as the Iverson Bracket, 1 if is x is true, though that's clearly not the usage here. I've also seen it used for either floor or ceiling, when the right brackets (missing either the top or bottom) were difficult to produce.
– wnoise
May 1 '11 at 23:00
[x] is often used as the Iverson Bracket, 1 if is x is true, though that's clearly not the usage here. I've also seen it used for either floor or ceiling, when the right brackets (missing either the top or bottom) were difficult to produce.
– wnoise
May 1 '11 at 23:00
The question is from Michael Spivak's "Calculus" - 4th Edition (also 3rd edition). It's part (xii) of chapter 7 question 1.
– objectivesea
May 1 '11 at 23:20
The question is from Michael Spivak's "Calculus" - 4th Edition (also 3rd edition). It's part (xii) of chapter 7 question 1.
– objectivesea
May 1 '11 at 23:20
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
It had been fairly standard for $[x]$ to represent "the greatest integer not greater than $x$" (aka, the "floor" function). With fancier type-setting options allowing for $lfloor x rfloor$ for a more suggestive "floor" notation ---as well as $lceil x rceil$ for the counterpart "ceiling" ("smallest integer not smaller than $x$")--- I've seen $[x]$ taking on the role of "nearest integer" (that is, the "rounding" function) although $lfloor x rceil$ is also available for this, freeing up $[x]$ for author's discretion.
With regard to @Brandon's "fractional part", I've seen that more often represented as ${ x }$, usually in conjunction with the floor interpretation of $[x]$, so that one would write $x = [x] + {x}$ (at least for non-negative $x$).
answered May 1 '11 at 23:15
BlueBlue
47.7k870151
add a comment |
It's certainly not $[x]=x$.
Rather, it's undoubtedly the greatest integer function, aka floor function (also denoted $lfloor xrfloor$); that is, the greatest integer less than or equal to $x$. The ceiling function ($lceil xrceil$) is, correspondingly, the smallest integer greater than or equal to $x$..
According to this, Spanier and Oldham called it the "integer value" in $1987$. (Incidentally, I took a course from Spanier, and I consider him to have been an outstanding mathematician.
Of course, that puts me in a fairly large club. But I digress.)
The formula would be: $lfloor xrfloor =n$, where $n$ is the integer such that $nle xlt n+1$.
Another way of describing it, would be to take the number's decimal representation, and truncate it. That is, set the part after the decimal to zero.
answered Jan 4 at 7:11
Chris CusterChris Custer
11k3824
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
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%2f36291%2fis-there-more-than-one-meaning-of-the-notation-fx-x%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It had been fairly standard for $[x]$ to represent "the greatest integer not greater than $x$" (aka, the "floor" function). With fancier type-setting options allowing for $lfloor x rfloor$ for a more suggestive "floor" notation ---as well as $lceil x rceil$ for the counterpart "ceiling" ("smallest integer not smaller than $x$")--- I've seen $[x]$ taking on the role of "nearest integer" (that is, the "rounding" function) although $lfloor x rceil$ is also available for this, freeing up $[x]$ for author's discretion.
With regard to @Brandon's "fractional part", I've seen that more often represented as ${ x }$, usually in conjunction with the floor interpretation of $[x]$, so that one would write $x = [x] + {x}$ (at least for non-negative $x$).
answered May 1 '11 at 23:15
BlueBlue
47.7k870151
add a comment |
It had been fairly standard for $[x]$ to represent "the greatest integer not greater than $x$" (aka, the "floor" function). With fancier type-setting options allowing for $lfloor x rfloor$ for a more suggestive "floor" notation ---as well as $lceil x rceil$ for the counterpart "ceiling" ("smallest integer not smaller than $x$")--- I've seen $[x]$ taking on the role of "nearest integer" (that is, the "rounding" function) although $lfloor x rceil$ is also available for this, freeing up $[x]$ for author's discretion.
With regard to @Brandon's "fractional part", I've seen that more often represented as ${ x }$, usually in conjunction with the floor interpretation of $[x]$, so that one would write $x = [x] + {x}$ (at least for non-negative $x$).
answered May 1 '11 at 23:15
BlueBlue
47.7k870151
add a comment |
It had been fairly standard for $[x]$ to represent "the greatest integer not greater than $x$" (aka, the "floor" function). With fancier type-setting options allowing for $lfloor x rfloor$ for a more suggestive "floor" notation ---as well as $lceil x rceil$ for the counterpart "ceiling" ("smallest integer not smaller than $x$")--- I've seen $[x]$ taking on the role of "nearest integer" (that is, the "rounding" function) although $lfloor x rceil$ is also available for this, freeing up $[x]$ for author's discretion.
With regard to @Brandon's "fractional part", I've seen that more often represented as ${ x }$, usually in conjunction with the floor interpretation of $[x]$, so that one would write $x = [x] + {x}$ (at least for non-negative $x$).
answered May 1 '11 at 23:15
BlueBlue
47.7k870151
It had been fairly standard for $[x]$ to represent "the greatest integer not greater than $x$" (aka, the "floor" function). With fancier type-setting options allowing for $lfloor x rfloor$ for a more suggestive "floor" notation ---as well as $lceil x rceil$ for the counterpart "ceiling" ("smallest integer not smaller than $x$")--- I've seen $[x]$ taking on the role of "nearest integer" (that is, the "rounding" function) although $lfloor x rceil$ is also available for this, freeing up $[x]$ for author's discretion.
With regard to @Brandon's "fractional part", I've seen that more often represented as ${ x }$, usually in conjunction with the floor interpretation of $[x]$, so that one would write $x = [x] + {x}$ (at least for non-negative $x$).
answered May 1 '11 at 23:15
BlueBlue
47.7k870151
answered May 1 '11 at 23:15
BlueBlue
47.7k870151
answered May 1 '11 at 23:15
BlueBlue
47.7k870151
answered May 1 '11 at 23:15
BlueBlue
47.7k870151
47.7k870151
add a comment |
add a comment |
It's certainly not $[x]=x$.
Rather, it's undoubtedly the greatest integer function, aka floor function (also denoted $lfloor xrfloor$); that is, the greatest integer less than or equal to $x$. The ceiling function ($lceil xrceil$) is, correspondingly, the smallest integer greater than or equal to $x$..
According to this, Spanier and Oldham called it the "integer value" in $1987$. (Incidentally, I took a course from Spanier, and I consider him to have been an outstanding mathematician.
Of course, that puts me in a fairly large club. But I digress.)
The formula would be: $lfloor xrfloor =n$, where $n$ is the integer such that $nle xlt n+1$.
Another way of describing it, would be to take the number's decimal representation, and truncate it. That is, set the part after the decimal to zero.
answered Jan 4 at 7:11
Chris CusterChris Custer
11k3824
add a comment |
It's certainly not $[x]=x$.
Rather, it's undoubtedly the greatest integer function, aka floor function (also denoted $lfloor xrfloor$); that is, the greatest integer less than or equal to $x$. The ceiling function ($lceil xrceil$) is, correspondingly, the smallest integer greater than or equal to $x$..
According to this, Spanier and Oldham called it the "integer value" in $1987$. (Incidentally, I took a course from Spanier, and I consider him to have been an outstanding mathematician.
Of course, that puts me in a fairly large club. But I digress.)
The formula would be: $lfloor xrfloor =n$, where $n$ is the integer such that $nle xlt n+1$.
Another way of describing it, would be to take the number's decimal representation, and truncate it. That is, set the part after the decimal to zero.
answered Jan 4 at 7:11
Chris CusterChris Custer
11k3824
add a comment |
It's certainly not $[x]=x$.
Rather, it's undoubtedly the greatest integer function, aka floor function (also denoted $lfloor xrfloor$); that is, the greatest integer less than or equal to $x$. The ceiling function ($lceil xrceil$) is, correspondingly, the smallest integer greater than or equal to $x$..
According to this, Spanier and Oldham called it the "integer value" in $1987$. (Incidentally, I took a course from Spanier, and I consider him to have been an outstanding mathematician.
Of course, that puts me in a fairly large club. But I digress.)
The formula would be: $lfloor xrfloor =n$, where $n$ is the integer such that $nle xlt n+1$.
Another way of describing it, would be to take the number's decimal representation, and truncate it. That is, set the part after the decimal to zero.
answered Jan 4 at 7:11
Chris CusterChris Custer
11k3824
It's certainly not $[x]=x$.
Rather, it's undoubtedly the greatest integer function, aka floor function (also denoted $lfloor xrfloor$); that is, the greatest integer less than or equal to $x$. The ceiling function ($lceil xrceil$) is, correspondingly, the smallest integer greater than or equal to $x$..
According to this, Spanier and Oldham called it the "integer value" in $1987$. (Incidentally, I took a course from Spanier, and I consider him to have been an outstanding mathematician.
Of course, that puts me in a fairly large club. But I digress.)
The formula would be: $lfloor xrfloor =n$, where $n$ is the integer such that $nle xlt n+1$.
Another way of describing it, would be to take the number's decimal representation, and truncate it. That is, set the part after the decimal to zero.
answered Jan 4 at 7:11
Chris CusterChris Custer
11k3824
answered Jan 4 at 7:11
Chris CusterChris Custer
11k3824
answered Jan 4 at 7:11
Chris CusterChris Custer
11k3824
answered Jan 4 at 7:11
Chris CusterChris Custer
11k3824
11k3824
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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%2f36291%2fis-there-more-than-one-meaning-of-the-notation-fx-x%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
1
I have seen $[x]$ denote the fractional part of $x$, but that doesn't seem to be the desired meaning in this context.
– Brandon Carter
May 1 '11 at 22:44
2
I've seen that notation to be the nearest integer function before.
– yunone
May 1 '11 at 22:44
2
Could you specify what textbook you're using? I'm guessing there should be a place where the notation used is explained...
– J. M. is not a mathematician
May 1 '11 at 22:47
[x] is often used as the Iverson Bracket, 1 if is x is true, though that's clearly not the usage here. I've also seen it used for either floor or ceiling, when the right brackets (missing either the top or bottom) were difficult to produce.
– wnoise
May 1 '11 at 23:00
The question is from Michael Spivak's "Calculus" - 4th Edition (also 3rd edition). It's part (xii) of chapter 7 question 1.
– objectivesea
May 1 '11 at 23:20