• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

HSC 2013 MX2 Marathon (archive) (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

RealiseNothing

what is that?It is Cowpea
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
4,591
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Consider the curve from the x-values n to n+k. Construct an upper bound rectangle from n to n+k as the width, and f(n) as the height. This will give the inequality:















Then do something similar for the lower bound, but I am still doing that so will edit it in.
 

Carrotsticks

Retired
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
9,494
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Very similar to last year's BOS trial question 15 by carrot.
In my paper, students were given the existence of the E-M constant. Sy's question is proving its existence.

Also Sy, how did you expect students to prove the existence of it without the monotone convergence theorem?
 
Last edited:

RealiseNothing

what is that?It is Cowpea
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
4,591
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

By considering an isosceles triangle with one of it's angles 108 degrees, prove that:

 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

In my paper, students were given the existence of the E-M constant. Sy's question is proving its existence.

Also Sy, how did you expect students to prove the existence of it without the monotone convergence theorem?
I expected students to do something similar to what Realise did. Does the existence of the limit need to be specified despite the upper bound that is independent of n?
The limit should be able to be done simply using squeeze theorem

By considering an isosceles triangle with one of it's angles 108 degrees, prove that:

Let the equal sides of the triangle be A and the side opposite 108 degrees be B.



From the sine rule of a triangle:





Now, using the cosine rule on angle theta:



Now on the larger angel:



Now:



Simplifying:






Now, we know that:



Substituting in the value for B/A we get:



I feel like I took a long approach
 

Carrotsticks

Retired
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
9,494
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

I expected students to do something similar to what Realise did. Does the existence of the limit need to be specified despite the upper bound that is independent of n?
The limit should be able to be done simply using squeeze theorem
1. Don't quite get what you mean by the upper bound of gamma being independent of n.

2. Squeeze Theorem is usually used to find the closed form for some sort of sequence/series/limit. Gamma, as we know so far, has no single closed form.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

1. Don't quite get what you mean by the upper bound of gamma being independent of n.

2. Squeeze Theorem is usually used to find the closed form for some sort of sequence/series/limit. Gamma, as we know so far, has no single closed form.
Ah sorry I thought you meant the e^k question for some reason.

For that one, I aimed for students to first consider the upper rectangles of the graph y=1/x from x=1 to x=(n)







Now the lower rectangles from x=2 to x=n







So no matter how n increases, it will always be less than 1, and greater than zero, thus converging to a finite limit.

Is this incorrect?
 

Carrotsticks

Retired
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
9,494
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Ah sorry I thought you meant the e^k question for some reason.

For that one, I aimed for students to first consider the upper rectangles of the graph y=1/x from x=1 to x=(n)







Now the lower rectangles from x=2 to x=n







So no matter how n increases, it will always be less than 1, and greater than zero, thus converging to a finite limit.

Is this incorrect?
Yep, that is incorrect. A counter-example would be the curve y=sin(x). It is always less than 1 and greater than -1, but it most certainly does NOT converge to a finite limit.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Yep, that is incorrect. A trivial example is to consider the curve y=sin(x). It is always less than 1 and greater than -1, but it most certainly does NOT converge to a finite limit.
Ah yep that is true

Apologies

EDIT: What if I showed



And then made the argument that as n increases H_n - ln(n) keeps decreasing however it is bounded on the lower by 0, then it approaches some finite limit?

We can show the above by simply showing that, then subbing in x=1/n



Which can be done through calculus.
 
Last edited:

Carrotsticks

Retired
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
9,494
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

No need for apologies, this is how we learn things =) By making mistakes.
 

Carrotsticks

Retired
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
9,494
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Ah yep that is true

Apologies

EDIT: What if I showed



And then made the argument that as n increases H_n - ln(n) keeps decreasing however it is bounded on the lower by 0, then it approaches some finite limit?
That is the monotone convergence theorem, as I mentioned earlier =)
 

RealiseNothing

what is that?It is Cowpea
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
4,591
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

I expected students to do something similar to what Realise did. Does the existence of the limit need to be specified despite the upper bound that is independent of n?
The limit should be able to be done simply using squeeze theorem



Let the equal sides of the triangle be A and the side opposite 108 degrees be B.



From the sine rule of a triangle:





Now, using the cosine rule on angle theta:



Now on the larger angel:



Now:



Simplifying:






Now, we know that:



Substituting in the value for B/A we get:



I feel like I took a long approach
My approach was to split the triangle into two smaller triangles by dividing the 108 angle into 72 and 36 angles and connecting that vertex to the opposite side. Let the equal sides of the larger triangle be 1, and the side opposite the 108 angle be some

Now one of the smaller triangles has angles 36, 36, 108, and thus is similar to the larger triangle. We can also easily find the side lengths of the smaller triangle and use the ratio of the matching sides of the similar triangles to obtain:



Solving for gives:







Now we use the sine rule on the larger triangle to obtain:



Now and

Substituting these in to what we have gives:



Cancelling out the and dividing both sides by 2 gives:



Substituting in our value for gives the result:

 

RealiseNothing

what is that?It is Cowpea
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
4,591
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

In the spirit of the AMC coming up next Thursday, here is a nice question from last year's paper:

 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

1.

It is clear through Demoivre's theorem:



Substituting in

We get:



Taking the case of m/d being an integer, we look at the series version of f(m,d) it is clear that:



There is no other case.

2.

I'm going to guess that

g(n) = f(x(n), y(n))



And not an integer for composite n.

Now,from your earlier paper about the formula for primes lie, the property of prime numbers:



I still don't know how to prove this but I'm going to take it as true

Thus, we can see that





Therefore:



3.



===

Hopefully that is correct
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

1.

It is clear through Demoivre's theorem:



Substituting in

We get:



Taking the case of m/d being an integer, we look at the series version of f(m,d) it is clear that:



There is no other case.

2.

I'm going to guess that

g(n) = f(x(n), y(n))



And not an integer for composite n.

Now,from your earlier paper about the formula for primes lie, the property of prime numbers:



I still don't know how to prove this but I'm going to take it as true

Thus, we can see that





Therefore:



3.



===

Hopefully that is correct
Well you don't need to know how to prove the factorial thing, think about the definition of a prime number...it is convenient that we have found a function f that "checks divisibility".

Your answer is quite close, but your p(n) will actually spit out (1,2,3,0,5,0,7,0,0,0,11,etc) rather than (2,3,5,7,etc).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top