4
$\begingroup$

to clarify the difference between this and the supposed duplicate, these two questions talk about completely different functions with completely different purposes

I was given this from a friend. They asked me to deduce what the equation is of. I played around with trying to compute alpha for some time. Plugging it into f(x), the function appeared to equal $0$ almost everywhere. I could never find the actual value of alpha. It appears to be an infinite irrational decimal number starting with $1.1973...$.

Let $$\alpha = \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} m * (2^{-(\sum_{j=2}^{m} (\lfloor \frac {(j-1)! + 1}{j} \rfloor - \lfloor \frac {(j-1)!}{j} \rfloor))^2}) \\* \left(\left\lfloor \frac {\sum_{i = 1}^{\lfloor \sqrt{m} \rfloor + 1} (\lfloor \frac {m}{i} \rfloor - \lfloor \frac {m-1}{i} \rfloor)-1}{\sqrt {(\sum_{i = 1}^{\lfloor \sqrt{m} \rfloor + 1} (\lfloor \frac {m}{i} \rfloor - \lfloor \frac {m-1}{i} \rfloor)-1)^2 + 1}} \right\rfloor + 1\right) * \left(\left\lfloor \frac {-\sum_{i = 1}^{\lfloor \sqrt{m} \rfloor + 1} (\lfloor \frac {m}{i} \rfloor - \lfloor \frac {m-1}{i} \rfloor)+1}{\sqrt {(\sum_{i = 1}^{\lfloor \sqrt{m} \rfloor + 1} (\lfloor \frac {m}{i} \rfloor - \lfloor \frac {m-1}{i} \rfloor)-1)^2 + 1}} \right\rfloor + 1\right)$$

Then let $f(x) = \lfloor 2^{x^2}* \alpha \rfloor - 2^{2x-1}*\lfloor 2^{(x-1)^2}*\alpha \rfloor$.

What is the function f(x)? Is there any way to reduce alpha to something simpler? I think this equation isn't something trivial. It doesn't appear to be $0$. It seems bizarre that alpha consists of so many sums. How do I reduce them into something simpler?

  • 0
    I don't see where $n$ is defined. If you let $\beta$ be that sum with upper limit $\lfloor \sqrt{m}\rfloor +1$, then the last to factors reduce to $(1-\beta^2)/1+\beta^2)$...I think.2017-02-03
  • 0
    @B.Goddard fixed2017-02-03
  • 0
    Although there are "so many sums" in the expression, they seem to be similar, possibly admitting simplification as you suspect. I'm going to tweak the math formatting for clarity; please check to make sure I'm not unintentionally changing your meaning.2017-02-03
  • 0
    @hardmath it is still correct. thank you.2017-02-03
  • 0
    @Joffan: Sure, no problem. You can also check my edit to the $\LaTeX$ as I possibly introduced an oversimplification (see edit history).2017-02-03
  • 1
    @user91500 did you even read the two questions? They're not even remotely similar.2017-02-10

1 Answers 1

4

This recurring expression: $(\lfloor \frac {m}{i} \rfloor - \lfloor \frac {m-1}{i} \rfloor)$ effectively gives $1$ if $i$ is a factor of $m$, zero otherwise. So summed over a constant $m$ up to $m$, it would be the divisor function $\sigma_0(m)$. In the case where the sum only runs to include the square root of $m$, it is $\lceil\sigma_0(m)/2\rceil$. In the expression we have some minor complication for $m=1,2$ because the sums run to $2$ in both cases:

$$g(m):=\sum_{i = 1}^{\lfloor \sqrt{m} \rfloor + 1} \left(\left\lfloor \frac {m}{i} \right\rfloor - \left\lfloor \frac {m-1}{i} \right\rfloor\right) = \begin{cases} \sigma_0(m) & m\in \{1,2\} \\ \lceil\sigma_0(m)/2\rceil & m\ge 3\\ \end{cases}$$

Of particular relevance, $g(m)=1$ for primes $>2$ and $g(m)>1$ for composite numbers.

Then if you are aware of Wilson's theorem, you can see that the top expression used as an exponent to $2$, $\sum_{j=2}^{m} (\lfloor \frac {(j-1)! + 1}{j} \rfloor - \lfloor \frac {(j-1)!}{j} \rfloor)$, is counting the number of primes to $m$, that is, $\pi(m)$.

Now, taking $h(m):=g(m)-1$, this simplifies the expression to $$\alpha = \sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\left [ m \left(2^{\large -(\pi(m))^2}\right) \left(\left\lfloor \frac {h(m)}{\sqrt {(h(m))^2 + 1}} \right\rfloor + 1\right) \left(\left\lfloor \frac {-h(m)}{\sqrt {(h(m))^2 + 1}} \right\rfloor + 1\right) \right]$$

And now this expression:

$$\left(\left\lfloor \frac {-h(m)}{\sqrt {(h(m))^2 + 1}} \right\rfloor + 1\right) $$ will be zero for most $m$, but will be $1$ when $h(m)=0$ which is when $m=1$ or $m$ is an odd prime. The similar expression before it, without the minus sign, is always $1$.

So for $m=1$, the expression inside the summation evaluates to $1\cdot2^{-\pi(1)^2}=2^0 = 1$ and the whole expression becomes $$\alpha = 1+\sum_{p \text{ odd prime}}^{\infty} p \cdot 2^{\large -(\pi(p))^2}$$

or, considering $\{p_i\}$ as the primes in sequence, $$\alpha = 1+\sum_{2}^{\infty} p_i \cdot 2^{\large -i^2}$$

Also it turns out that if $2$ were not zeroed out, and $1$ was, the formula result would be unchanged, because for $i=1$, $p_1=2$, and $$ p_1 \cdot 2^{\large -1^2} = 2\cdot2^{-1} = 1$$

and so $$\alpha = \sum_{1}^{\infty} p_i \cdot 2^{\large -i^2}$$

The first few terms of the summation (after $1$, however that is regarded as arising) are $\{ 0.1875, 9.765625\cdot 10^{-3},1.06812\cdot 10^{-4}, 3.27826\cdot 10^{-7}, 1.89175\cdot 10^{-10}, 3.01981\cdot 10^{-14} \}$ after which everything carries on getting vanishingly small and not materially affecting the total, which is $1.197372765$

I don't know what the significance of this value of $\alpha$ has in the definition of $f(x)$ in the question, but clearly we're looking at another "state detection" type formula, that gives zero or non-zero depending on some condition, since without the floor functions

$$ {\Large[}2^{x^2}* \alpha {\Large]} - 2^{2x-1}*{\Large[}2^{(x-1)^2}*\alpha {\Large]} = \alpha (2^{x^2}- 2^{2x-1}*2^{(x^2-2x+1}) = \alpha (2^{x^2}- 2^{x^2}) = 0$$

  • 0
    you're right. there was a transcription error. I forgot that there was an extra +1 term in that case. I will fix it in an edit. I apologize for the inconvenience.2017-02-04
  • 0
    @TheGreatDuck Hmm. OK, I think that makes a difference; we can now get values when $m$ is an odd prime. I will update2017-02-04
  • 0
    I will await it patiently. :D2017-02-04
  • 0
    Ah, I know exactly what this is. Googling some of the terms I found *this page*: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_and_ceiling_functions#Formulas_for_prime_numbers. It would appear that f(x) is supposed to be the sequence of prime numbers (though I just keep getting 0's in places according to a java brute force thing I made to approximate alpha, though that could also be undefined or some weird junk). Perhaps it isn't meant to include 1? I better tell them to fix it.2017-02-04
  • 0
    I like the note at the bottom of section: "None of the formulas in this section are of any practical use"2017-02-04
  • 0
    Intriguingly enough: "Any one of these formulas (or any similar one) would attain a different status if the exact value of the number ***α*** ... could be expressed ***independently of the primes***. There seems no likelihood of this, but it cannot be ruled out as entirely impossible.". Perhaps this equation was meant as a failed result that turned into a joke considering how wolfram alpha deals with it. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=floor(2%5E(x%5E2)*1.197372765)+-+2%5E(2x-1)*floor(2%5E((x-1)%5E2)*1.197372765)+at+6 Yup. 44 is definitely a prime number! Add it to the list! XD2017-02-04
  • 0
    @Joffan: Nice analysis! (+1)2017-02-04
  • 0
    @Joffan I don't think f(x) is a state detection equation. According to wikipedia, for proper values of alpha that function returns the nTH prime number.2017-02-05
  • 0
    @TheGreatDuck Ah right, that does sound possible.2017-02-05
  • 0
    @Joffan of course, then there is the debate as to whether or not the alpha in the question is actually equal to the supposed value for alpha in the wikipedia article when r = 2. It might be that only the exact value for alpha yields the prime sequence. I'm not sure.2017-02-05