f ( x ) = { x } + { x } 1
Find the minimum value of f ( x ) .
Note: { x } denotes the fractional part of x , so 0 ≤ { x } < 1 .
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Good. Bonus question: What would the answer be if I add a constraint stating that " x cannot be an integer"?
There's no I , it should be Z .
Log in to reply
Thank you for pointing it out.
For the Challenge Master question: I don't understand. f(x)=undefined when x is an integer so the same proof(that i have given below) follows. I mean, they were never under consideration were they??????????
@Calvin Lin We can say that the minimum tends to 2 and not exactly 2 , so it is not uniquely determined.
Log in to reply
Thanks, I've updated it to "infimum" instead.
Log in to reply
Sir , but adding the term infinum value will make the answer 2 , so the term minimum was fine out there.
I wrote that comment over the bonus question , that if x ∈ R , then we can't achieve any minimum value rather it would be a infinum value = 2 .
Log in to reply
@Ankit Kumar Jain – Note that the minimum is never achieved because we do not have { x } = 1 .
That's why we made the comment of "add a constraint ..." to further highlight the issue (but never cleaned up the problem until now).
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – There is no such minimum , but it is just tending to 2 , so we called it infinum. And as for the question , since earlier it demanded minimum , so the answer was simply ' Can't be determined ' but now since it has been changed to infinum , the answer would be ' 2 '.
So you can revert the changes to make the problem correct in accordance with the answer.
Log in to reply
@Ankit Kumar Jain – Oh ic. I was confused. I thought the answer was supposed to be 2, and didn't read carefully.
I have reverted the change. Thanks for following up and ensuring that the problem is correct :)
{x} belongs to [0,1).f(x) is undefined when {x}=0.So we are essentially asked to find min of x+1/x when 0<x<1 . Now f'(x)=1-1/x^2 . It is easy to see this is negative for 0<x<1. So this is a monotonically decreasing function in this open interval.So it will take the minimum value when x=the greatest number in this interval which does not exist(as this is an open interval of R )
Yes, this is the calculus approach. Though it would be better to solve this by simple algebra.
We just have to use common sense instead of A.M-G.M inequality because fractional part can be 0.1,0.0001,0.00000000000.........1,
Hence the value of given expression can not be determined
Your solution makes no sense whatsoever. Even if you check for { x } = 0 . 1 , 0 . 0 0 0 1 , 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 … 1 , you have only shown that f ( x ) becomes more and more for certain values of { x } . But you didn't prove that a minimum value is not possible.
Well this is how I did it .
Let { x } = q p where g c d ( p , q ) = 1 and q > p hence follows that :
{ x } 1 = p q → { x } + { x } 1 = q p + p q = p q p 2 + q 2
Now,by false assumption, let's suppose there exists a lower limit for the expression.That limit has to be 2 why? Because p q p 2 + q 2 ≥ 2
But if the limit exists then we must have :
( p − q ) 2 = 0 → p = q Which contradicts q > p and hence the lower limit cannot be reached.
As Joel Tan has pointed out, this solution is wrong. You couldn't simply assume that it must be rational. If so, then π − 3 is a rational number which is clearly absurd.
No one said x was rational.
Log in to reply
And neither did I!If you would have read the question thoroughly you'd understand that { x } denotes the fractional part of x and is thus , a rational number in the interval [ 0 , 1 )
Log in to reply
I think you've misunderstood the definition of the fractional part function. { x } = x − ⌊ x ⌋ So, x need not be rational.
nice trap , for person who did not check equality condition after using AM-GM inequalty...
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Applying AM-GM we get
2 f ( x ) ≥ { x } { x }
f ( x ) ≥ 2 { x } { x }
Since { x } { x } is undefined for x ∈ Z , the minimum value of f ( x ) can't be determined for x ∈ R .