During a math class, a proposed problem on a handout is as follows:

Prove that $\lfloor x\rfloor +\dfrac{\lfloor 2x\rfloor}{2}+\dfrac{\lfloor 3x\rfloor}{3}+\cdots +\dfrac{\lfloor nx\rfloor}{n}\le \lfloor nx\rfloor$ for all positive reals $x$ and integer $n$.

Can someone help me prove it? I tried to use a periodic argument, proving it true for $x\in [0,1)$ then plugging in $x=x'+k$ for positive integer $k$ to prove the inequality for all other $x$. However it didn't work, because my inequality substitutions were too strict and I ended up with $(n-1)x\le \lfloor nx\rfloor$ which is not true.

Thanks!

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

$</code> ... <code>$</code>...<code>."> Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in $</span> ... <span>$ or $</span> ... <span>$ to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewesthttp://mks.mff.cuni.cz/kalva/usa/usoln/usol815.html

Log in to reply

Apparently this is USAMO 1981 #5.

Log in to reply

Yep.

Log in to reply

I was just gonna say...

Log in to reply

I think using induction approach should also work

Log in to reply

I don't know if I am right or wrong ... So please correct me ... Thanks in advance ... here is my Solution : As we know, floor(x) = x - {x} , where {x} is fractional part. if we replace all the floor values in the above eqn will reduce to

LHS : nx - [ {x} + ({2x}/2) + ({3x}/3) + ({4x}/4) + ........... + ({nx}/n) ]

What is interesting to see is that {x} = {2x}/2 = {3x}/3 = ..... = {nx}/n (You can check it with any value of x :) )

Hence LHS will become : nx - n{x}

Solving RHS we got : floor(nx) = nx - {nx} As the fractional part of {nx} will always lie between 0 and 1, i.e. 0 <= {nx} < 1

And it is easy to see that the product of n and {x} in LHS is always greater than or equal to (in case of 0 as fractional value) {nx} in RHS.

Probably this will prove it ... What say guys ???

Log in to reply

@Daniel Liu @Finn Hulse : Guys can you please check the above solution ???

Log in to reply

I still don't think it proves it. @Finn Hulse

Your solution depends on the fact that $\{x\}+\dfrac{\{2x\}}{2}+\cdots+\dfrac{\{nx\}}{n}\ge \{nx\}$ but you didn't prove that.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

It's good as far as I can tell! :D

Log in to reply

$n\{x\}\neq \{nx\}$. Try, e.g., $x=0.6$, $n=2$. Then $2\cdot \{0.6\}=1.2\neq\{2\cdot 0.6\}=0.2$.

Log in to reply

When did I say n{x} = {nx} ??? Please check it once more :)

Log in to reply

I could have equally said that $\{x\}\neq \frac{\{nx\}}{n}$, just multiply both sides of your equality by $n$ (we can, since $n\neq 0$). Both of the equalities are equivalent.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

that should prove it man :)...... i don't find any serious anomaly..... good job

Log in to reply

{x} = {2x}/2 = {3x}/3 = ..... = {nx}/n is false (see my other comments).

Log in to reply

Log in to reply