1

What I am attempting to do is the following. I want to find for some given function $f$ the unique step function $c$ (up to an arbitrary constant) such that $f(x) - c(x)$ is continuous assuming it exists. I technically have a formula based on a summation. This summation has to know which points have jump discontinuities. Therefore, I seek a function/sequence that returns the $n$-th jump discontinuity from $x = 0$ such that negative values of $n$ give jump discontinuities $a_n$ such that $a_n < 0$ unless such an $a_n$ does not exist in which case $a_n = a_0$ for all $n < 0$.

Is there such a discrete input function that allows me to "iterate" through those points like in a sequence and if so, how would I go about finding it?


Originally this question was specifically about functions of the form $\lfloor f(x) \rfloor$'s discontinuities. This is in fact equivalent to what I am editing this question into. Any function with such discontinuities can be rewritten into the form $f(x) = g(x) - j(\lfloor h(x) \rfloor)$ which means that this question and the one in the previous edit are equivalent. This version is simply easier to understand. That's all.

user64742
  • 2,207
  • You mean something like f(n) = (-1)^n * Floor[n/2] or something similar? Just a function that generates the integers? –  Mar 05 '16 at 00:49
  • You want an algorithm to find jump points of a function, right? My answer would be a difficult one: Attempt to extend the function to the complex plane, and find the singularities using the Riemann Removable Regularity Theorem. All said and done, there is no algorithm for extension; you'll have to figure it out. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Mar 05 '16 at 01:16
  • 2
    I know I am biased, but I strongly disagree with the edit. To the best of my knowledge, the question was not made under false pretenses (you meant it sincerely when asking), nor was it intended to confuse. It may or may not be complete gibberish, but it is definitely about mathematics. It is common to be wrong when doing math, even embarrassingly "obviously" wrong. This happens to everyone, including Fields medalists (see the first paragraph of "Taking a bigger bite."). – Eric Stucky Dec 08 '16 at 07:41
  • 1
    Somebody cast a delete vote upon this question, I do not know why. I honestly hope that this doesn't gete deleted, because this would lead to the loss of a really nice answer. – Alex M. Jan 07 '17 at 14:25
  • @TheGreatDuck: Voting to reopen: this question is more than decent. The fact that it already has an accepted answer does not mean that it can't receive other good ones, complementing the existing one. – Alex M. Jan 08 '17 at 09:20

1 Answers1

11

It is extremely unlikely that such a function exists, and even if it does, it's extremely likely that nobody knows it, and even if someone does, they're not going to tell you about it.

Why? Warning: This gets technical, but if you've taken Calculus I and you have some patience, you have the tools to get through it.

We denote Euler's constant by $e$, and the Euler-Mascheroni constant by $\gamma$: $$e=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac1n\right)^n \qquad\qquad \gamma = \lim_{n\to\infty} \left(\sum_{k=1}^n \frac1k ~-\int_1^n\!\frac1x~ dx\right)$$

Moreover, let $\sigma$ be the sum-of-divisors function: that is, $\sigma(n)$ is the result of adding all of the divisors of $n$. As an example, $\sigma(12)=1+2+3+4+6+12=28$.

Now, let $f$ be a function defined as follows: $$f(n)=\frac{\sigma(n+5041) \cdot e^{-\gamma}}{(n+5041)\ln(\ln(n+5041))}$$

If you're anything like me, you have no intuition at all about such a function. So you do some computations with your favorite online calculator, and you get some numbers like

\begin{align*} f(40) &= 0.26193 \\ f(959) &= 0.83677 \\ f(10001) &= 0.52237 \\ \end{align*}

You might reasonably draw the conclusion that these numbers probably never get bigger than $1$, and therefore your $g$ would be identically zero. So your desired function is supposed to tell you, that $g$ has no jump points. Equivalently, $g=0$, equivalently $0\leq f<1$, and so your function has to be strong enough to answer this question:

Question (TheGreatDuck, 2016): Is $\lfloor f(n) \rfloor=0$ for all $n\geq 0$?

Now for the punchline:

Answer (Guy Robin, 1984): This question is equivalent to the Riemann Hypothesis.

In other words, a function which answers your question is either (1) extremely useless, since it's so complicated you can't even use it to tell if $g$ is constant, or (2) worth a million dollars :P

[If it bothers you that $\sigma$ is not defined for all real numbers, you can still complete this argument by taking a piecewise-linear extension. I am sweeping the exact construction under the rug for simplicity, but I'm not doing anything illegal.]

Eric Stucky
  • 12,758
  • 3
  • 38
  • 69
  • @TheGreatDuck: What counts as a formula? This is not such an easy question to answer. If you allow sigma notations over arbitrary intervals, function composition, standard integer operations, division of integers, and the floor function, then the answer is yes: $$\sigma(n) = \sum_{k=1}^n k - k\left( \left\lceil \frac{n}{k} \right\rceil - \left\lfloor \frac{n}{k} \right\rfloor \right).$$ [As you know, ceil is expressible via floor, so no issue there.] But the point is, there is no real reason to prefer this set of operations over any other... – Eric Stucky Jan 09 '17 at 01:07
  • (Also, $f$ is definitely not monotonic: you can see in the post that it increases from 40 to 959 and decreases from 959 to 10001,) – Eric Stucky Jan 09 '17 at 01:10
  • @TheGreatDuck: I don't understand what you want with the integral and the Dirac delta here: just the indicator function of the irrational numbers is fine. (At the time I wrote this answer, you were much more dogmatic/confused about what counts as a function, so I didn't provide an actual counterexample.). To answer the question literally: no, because $\int \delta(x)\chi_{\Bbb R\smallsetminus\Bbb Q}(x)dx$ is identically zero; even the integrand is identically zero. – Eric Stucky May 19 '17 at 08:24
  • Whether or not it is possible for a formula to exist depends on the exact definition you are using for "piecewise constant" and the exact definition you are using for "formula". Since you were content to post the question without knowing what you meant, I was content with giving an answer that didn't try to guess. – Eric Stucky May 19 '17 at 20:53