2
$\begingroup$

I would just like to ask someone to confirm or correct the following 'proof' of continuity of the floor function.

Let $\varepsilon>0$ be given. Set $\delta:=\min\lbrace x-\lfloor x\rfloor,\lceil x\rceil-x\rbrace.$ If $f(x):=\lfloor x\rfloor$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}$ satisfies $0<|x-x_0|<\delta=\min\lbrace x-\lfloor x\rfloor,\lceil x\rceil-x\rbrace$, then the distance between $x$ and $x_0$ is less than the distance between $x$ and the nearest integer to $x$ so that $|f(x)-f(x_0)|=0<\varepsilon.$ Hence the floor function is continuous on $\mathbb{R}.$

First, is the above proof correct? Second, assuming I have not made a silly mistake with the definition of the $\delta$ that I need to correct, is it okay to have a delta which is defined in terms of your original function? If it is not, can somebody please give an example where defining a $\delta$ in such a way leads to a problem? Thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I didn't read your answer, but it is wrong. You want to prove that $$\forall x_0\in \mathbb R\forall \varepsilon >0\,\exists \delta >0\,\forall x\in \mathbb R\left(|x-x_0|<\delta\implies \left|\lfloor x\rfloor-\lfloor x_0\rfloor\right|\right).$$ So you start out with "let $x_0\in \mathbb R$ and let $\varepsilon >0$". Now you're trying to define $\delta$ as a function of something that doesn't exist, namely $x$. Your $\delta$ can only depend on constants or previously fixed variables (in this case $\varepsilon$ and $x_0$). $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Jun 11 '14 at 9:07
  • $\begingroup$ @GitGud He just seems to exchange the roles of $x$ and $x_0$. $\endgroup$ – martini Jun 11 '14 at 9:13
  • $\begingroup$ @martini After my comment I read a little bit more and I don't think the OP does that. The OP says "If $f(x):=\lfloor x\rfloor$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}$ satisfies $0<|x-x_0|<\delta=\min\lbrace x-\lfloor x\rfloor,\lceil x\rceil-x\rbrace$", not even mentioning $x_0$ and quantifying only $x$. Not mentioning what $x_0$ is what people usually do when it's fixed (I think). $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Jun 11 '14 at 9:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ How could you even think that the floor function is everywhere continuous? $\endgroup$ – Christian Blatter Apr 7 '15 at 9:15
4
$\begingroup$

Your $\delta$ is not positive if $x$ is an integer (as then $x = \lfloor x \rfloor = \lceil x \rceil$). It is ok to define $\delta $ in terms of $f$, but you have to check that $\delta > 0$.

Note that your proof works for $x \in \mathbb R - \mathbb Z$, so it proves that $\lfloor.\rfloor\colon \mathbb R -\mathbb Z \to \mathbb Z$ is continuous.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think you want $\Bbb Z$ in place of $\Bbb N$ here. $\endgroup$ – Mario Carneiro Apr 6 '15 at 14:04
  • $\begingroup$ @MarioCarneiro Right, thx. $\endgroup$ – martini Apr 7 '15 at 8:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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