Like the title said:

Is it true that if $\lceil x\lfloor x\rfloor\rceil+\lfloor x\lceil x\rceil\rfloor=A$ has real solutions of $x$ with positive range of $\alpha\le x\le\beta$, then $A=\alpha\left\lceil\ \sqrt{\frac A2}\ \right\rceil+\beta\left\lfloor\ \sqrt{\frac A2}\ \right\rfloor$ must be true?

Inspired by Raghav Vaidyanathan which was inspired by Pi Han Goh.

No vote yet

1 vote

Easy Math Editor

This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.

When posting on Brilliant:

`*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`\(`

...`\)`

or`\[`

...`\]`

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:

TopNewestHmm , nice inspirations !

@Raghav Vaidyanathan , @Pi Han Goh

Log in to reply

C++ code... Tested for a lot of numbers.. seems that it isn't always true... especially in the vicinity of numbers of form $2n^2$

Log in to reply

So you've found a counterexample? Can you show me which values of $A$ shows that is not true?

Log in to reply

I think $A=129$ doesn't satisfy. And also, numbers like $A=128$ have $\alpha=\beta$.

Log in to reply

$x$ when $A=129$ so it doesn't satisfy the condition. Well technically, if $A$ is in the form of $2B^2$ for some integer $B$, then $\alpha = \beta$, so by squeeze theorem, $x = \alpha = \beta$ which doesn't contradict the statement. In other words, it's trivial to pointless to disprove this statement when $x$ is an integer.

There's no solution forLog in to reply

$2n^2$ and also numbers which don't yield a solution. Now try $A=137$...

I agree with you on numbers of the formLog in to reply

$8 < x < \frac{73}9$ is the range for $x$ when $x=137$, by applying the inequality, we can have $\alpha =8 + \epsilon, \beta = \frac{73}{9} - \epsilon$ for an extremely small positive value $\epsilon$. In other words $\alpha \gtrsim 8, \beta \lesssim \frac{73}9$.

BecauseSo my statement still holds.

If this is a cop out explanation, then you've successfully disproven my statement! (and I can't have that, haha!)

Log in to reply

$\alpha, \beta$ are one thing, but you may notice that: $9\alpha+8\beta \ne 137$. Counterexample.

The values ofLog in to reply

Okay this is disproven! Thank you for your cooperation. I knew this is too good to be true.

Log in to reply

$\lceil x\lfloor x\rfloor\rceil+\lfloor x\lceil x\rceil\rfloor=A$ has real solutions of $x$ with positive range in a closed interval $[\alpha, \beta ]$ for $\alpha \ne \beta$, then $A=\alpha\left\lceil\ \sqrt{\frac A2}\ \right\rceil+\beta\left\lfloor\ \sqrt{\frac A2}\ \right\rfloor$ must be true?

Follow up (or modified) question: Is it true that ifThat means to say that we can't take $A=137$ as an example because the range of solution of positive $x$ is an open interval: $\left(8, \frac{73}9\right)$.

Log in to reply

@Pi Han Goh Sir , does the equality hold on the upper limit side?

Log in to reply

I don't understand your question at all. The claim clearly states that we have to first find $\alpha$ and $\beta$.

Log in to reply