Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Define a graph $\phi$ as;

$\phi(x)=|x|, \forall x\in [-1,1]$ and $\phi(x+2)=\phi(x)$.

I'm trying to prove that $\phi$ is a function, but it seems something is wrong in my argument.

It's not hard to see that "$\forall x\in \mathbb{R}, \exists y\in[0,1]$ such that $(x,y)\in \phi$"

I'm trying to prove that $x_1=x_2 \Rightarrow \phi(x_1)=\phi(x_2)$ and here's my argument below.

============= Suppose $x_1=x_2$.

Then there exists a unique $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $n_i≦\frac{x_i + 1}{2}<n_i + 1$, and $n_1=n_2$.

Thus $\phi(x_1)=|x_1 - 2n_1|=\phi(x_2)$. Q.E.D


I'm sure something's wrong in my argument, but don't know what it is..

(This argument works even when $\phi(1)≠1$, so something's wrong here..)

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 0 down vote accepted

Every real number is congruent to a unique real number in $(-1,1]$. (Note the open parenthesis on the left).

So if $\phi$ had been defined by $\phi(x)=|x|$ on $(-1,1]$, and $\phi(x+2)=\phi(x)$, there would be no issue whatsoever. (In principle one would need an easy induction to show that $\phi(x+2n)=\phi(x)$.)

But because $\phi(x)$ was defined as $|x|$ on the closed interval $[-1,1]$, we need to check that $\phi(x)$ is well-defined at odd integers.

The issue is that the definition, for example, simultaneously defines $\phi(5)$ as $\phi(-1)$ and as $\phi(1)$. But since $|-1|=|1|$, there is no problem.

share|cite|improve this answer
Would you explain what is wrong in my argument please? – Katlus Dec 14 '12 at 16:36
In principle there is a missing induction, which is also missing from mine, too trivial. Your assertion that $n_1=n_2$ is incorrect. We can think of $5$ as $-1+6$ or as $1+4$. – André Nicolas Dec 14 '12 at 16:45
It seems there's nothing wrong with $n_1=n_2$ since i assumed $x_1=x_2$. I just realized that taking $\phi$ as a function at the last step is incorrect,which is assuming what i was going to prove.. – Katlus Dec 14 '12 at 16:54

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.