1
$\begingroup$

In my real analysis text book there is a question that says:

Decide whether $f(x)=[x]$ is bounded above or below on the interval $[0,a]$ where $a$ is arbitrary, and whether the function takes on it's maximum or minimum value within that same interval.

This question is very straightforward, assuming $[x]=x$. But if that is the case, then the choice of notation is very strange.

Is there another way to interpret the notation's meaning?

  • 1
    I have seen $\[x\]$ denote the fractional part of $x$, but that doesn't seem to be the desired meaning in this context.2011-05-01
  • 2
    I've seen that notation to be the nearest integer function before.2011-05-01
  • 2
    Could you specify what textbook you're using? I'm guessing there should be a place where the notation used is explained...2011-05-01
  • 0
    [x] is often used as the [Iverson Bracket](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iverson_bracket), 1 if is x is true, though that's clearly not the usage here. I've also seen it used for either floor or ceiling, when the right brackets (missing either the top or bottom) were difficult to produce.2011-05-01
  • 0
    The question is from Michael Spivak's "Calculus" - 4th Edition (also 3rd edition). It's part (xii) of chapter 7 question 1.2011-05-01

2 Answers 2

7

It had been fairly standard for $[x]$ to represent "the greatest integer not greater than $x$" (aka, the "floor" function). With fancier type-setting options allowing for $\lfloor x \rfloor$ for a more suggestive "floor" notation ---as well as $\lceil x \rceil$ for the counterpart "ceiling" ("smallest integer not smaller than $x$")--- I've seen $[x]$ taking on the role of "nearest integer" (that is, the "rounding" function) although $\lfloor x \rceil$ is also available for this, freeing up $[x]$ for author's discretion.

With regard to @Brandon's "fractional part", I've seen that more often represented as $\{ x \}$, usually in conjunction with the floor interpretation of $[x]$, so that one would write $x = [x] + \{x\}$ (at least for non-negative $x$).

0

It's certainly not $[x]=x$.

Rather, it's undoubtedly the greatest integer function, aka floor function (also denoted $\lfloor x\rfloor$); that is, the greatest integer less than or equal to $x$. The ceiling function ($\lceil x\rceil$) is, correspondingly, the smallest integer greater than or equal to $x$..

According to this, Spanier and Oldham called it the "integer value" in $1987$. (Incidentally, I took a course from Spanier, and I consider him to have been an outstanding mathematician. Of course, that puts me in a fairly large club. But I digress.)

The formula would be: $\lfloor x\rfloor =n$, where $n$ is the integer such that $n\le x\lt n+1$.

Another way of describing it, would be to take the number's decimal representation, and truncate it. That is, set the part after the decimal to zero.