<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5799246.post7287619472314268722..comments</id><updated>2012-01-13T15:47:11.712Z</updated><category term='mathematics'/><category term='reiser4'/><category term='file system'/><category term='kernel'/><category term='programming'/><title type='text'>Comments on a very occasional diary: The Hunt for Addi(c)tive Monster</title><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.cofault.com/feeds/7287619472314268722/comments/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5799246/7287619472314268722/comments/default'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.cofault.com/2010/01/hunt-for-addictive-monster.html'/><author><name>nikita</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09403336533089968821</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='31' height='26' src='http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QCNNSTdukHs/ScpFFFtSecI/AAAAAAAAFl4/I3rzkBZBNcY/S220/ein-fritz-lang-film.jpg'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>3</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5799246.post-919964360211169186</id><published>2012-01-13T15:47:11.712Z</published><updated>2012-01-13T15:47:11.712Z</updated><title type='text'>Nice, yes, that seems to do it. And I made a silly...</title><content type='html'>Nice, yes, that seems to do it. And I made a silly mistake above, when I suggested linearity on yQ contradicted periodicity - of course adding a multiple of s to y will typically carry you off yQ. There will be plenty of periodic solutions, since we can always specify the value 0 on some basis element.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Cheers,&lt;br /&gt;Chris</content><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5799246/7287619472314268722/comments/default/919964360211169186'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5799246/7287619472314268722/comments/default/919964360211169186'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.cofault.com/2010/01/hunt-for-addictive-monster.html?showComment=1326469631712#c919964360211169186' title=''/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author><thr:in-reply-to xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0' href='http://www.cofault.com/2010/01/hunt-for-addictive-monster.html' ref='tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5799246.post-7287619472314268722' source='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5799246/posts/default/7287619472314268722' type='text/html'/><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='blogger.itemClass' value='pid-1014598644'/></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5799246.post-3011454722254603524</id><published>2012-01-11T21:52:11.914Z</published><updated>2012-01-11T21:52:11.914Z</updated><title type='text'>Dear Chris,

thank you for your interest in the po...</title><content type='html'>Dear Chris,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;thank you for your interest in the post---it&amp;#39;s a pleasure that it helped you. You are absolutely correct that the proof of Statement 1 contains a gap and Engel&amp;#39;s device of building a periodic additive function is very ingenious.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, I think that the proof can be very easily amended: indeed, if an additive function is continuous at 0, it is continuous at arbitrary x, because for any y, such that |x - y| &amp;lt; \delta, |f(x) - f(y)| = |f(x - y)| &amp;lt; \epsilon, where \epsilon and \delta are the same as for continuity at 0.</content><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5799246/7287619472314268722/comments/default/3011454722254603524'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5799246/7287619472314268722/comments/default/3011454722254603524'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.cofault.com/2010/01/hunt-for-addictive-monster.html?showComment=1326318731914#c3011454722254603524' title=''/><author><name>nikita</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09403336533089968821</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='31' height='26' src='http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QCNNSTdukHs/ScpFFFtSecI/AAAAAAAAFl4/I3rzkBZBNcY/S220/ein-fritz-lang-film.jpg'/></author><thr:in-reply-to xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0' href='http://www.cofault.com/2010/01/hunt-for-addictive-monster.html' ref='tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5799246.post-7287619472314268722' source='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5799246/posts/default/7287619472314268722' type='text/html'/><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='blogger.itemClass' value='pid-1385305251'/></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5799246.post-6195681605647125805</id><published>2012-01-11T12:09:16.019Z</published><updated>2012-01-11T12:09:16.019Z</updated><title type='text'>Dear Nikita,

thanks for your post - I enjoyed rea...</title><content type='html'>Dear Nikita,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;thanks for your post - I enjoyed reading it, and together with some other sources, it helped me prepare a talk on this subject.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, I believe there&amp;#39;s a gap in your proof of Statement 2. Your proof of Statement 1 only works for x nonzero, because you divide by x/y at the last step. So it&amp;#39;s not enough to just prove continuity at zero in order to deduce Statement 2.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There&amp;#39;s a nice argument in Engel&amp;#39;s &amp;quot;Problem Solving Strategies&amp;quot; (page 273) that begins by using boundedness on (p,p+s) to prove boundedness on (0,s). You then look at g(x)=f(x)-f(s)x/s. This is additive and satisfies g(s)=0, and together these imply g is periodic with period s. Since it&amp;#39;s also bounded on (0,s), this means it&amp;#39;s bounded on the entire real line, and finally this implies that g is identically zero, which is what we want: if g(y) is nonzero then linearity on yQ leads to a contradiction with boundedness (or periodicity too, I suppose, which is perhaps a bit quicker).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All the best,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Chris</content><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5799246/7287619472314268722/comments/default/6195681605647125805'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5799246/7287619472314268722/comments/default/6195681605647125805'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.cofault.com/2010/01/hunt-for-addictive-monster.html?showComment=1326283756019#c6195681605647125805' title=''/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author><thr:in-reply-to xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0' href='http://www.cofault.com/2010/01/hunt-for-addictive-monster.html' ref='tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5799246.post-7287619472314268722' source='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5799246/posts/default/7287619472314268722' type='text/html'/><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='blogger.itemClass' value='pid-1014598644'/></entry></feed>
