Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
For an irrational r > 0 and an integer k ≥ 1, the word s_k(n) = ⌊(2n+k)r⌋ − ⌊(n+k)r⌋ − ⌊nr⌋ takes only the values 0 and 1, each with density 1/2. In 2019 Kimberling added to the OEIS eleven such words, for r ∈ {φ, √2, √3, e} and k ≤ 4, together with the 22 sequences a(n) listing the positions of their 0s and 1s. For 21 of these he conjectured that 2n − a(n) is unbounded below and above, and for the remaining one that a(n) − 2n is unbounded above. We settle all 22 conjectures: 19 are true and 3 are false. The false ones all come from r = √2 with k ∈ {2, 4}: the partial sums of 2s_k(n) − 1 never exceed 0 (for k = 2) or 1 (for k = 4). Hence a(n) ≥ 2n for A327207, 2n − a(n) ≥ 1 for A327206, and 2n − a(n) ≥ 0 for A327223. For even k the qualitative statements follow, through a short reduction, from a theorem of Ying and Zheng on the one-sided boundedness of the local discrepancy D_N(α, 1/2), and also from earlier formulas of Roçadas and Schoißengeier, which Amoroso and Omarjee applied to r = e; for r ∈ {φ, √2, √3} they also follow from results of Boshernitzan and Ralston and of Dolgopyat and Sarig. The cases with odd k, where that reduction leads to a sum of two local discrepancies with irrational cut points, are new, and so are the exact bounds. For quadratic r we prove the results with Ostrowski-automatic sequences, verified in Walnut, and an exact block-sum analysis that also gives the growth rates of the extremes; for even k these rates also follow from known results on D_N(α, 1/2). For r = e we prove an exact formula for the discrepancy at N = t·q_i, where q_i are the convergent denominators of e, and obtain closed forms along N = t·q3j−2.Version 2: the scripts blockformula.py and e_verify.py now exit with a nonzero status on any unexpected mismatch (e_verify.py still accepts the two cases with j = 1, which Theorem 10 excludes; see Remark 11), and the README now explains why the quadruple-precision floors for e in exact.c are exact (error bound in the Verification section of the paper). The paper is unchanged.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alex Ashburn (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: