• 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

sryy another binomial q help plss (1 Viewer)

tickboom

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
72
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
Uni Grad
2008
Could you differentiate both sides? And then note that for the RHS, when r=0 that term drops off? I think that gets you there …
 

yashbb

Active Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2021
Messages
194
Gender
Male
HSC
2022
Could you differentiate both sides? And then note that for the RHS, when r=0 that term drops off? I think that gets you there …
but then what do i do with the r=1, do i start with that as the first term?
 

tickboom

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
72
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
Uni Grad
2008
Could you differentiate both sides? And then note that for the RHS, when r=0 that term drops off? I think that gets you there …
Oh actually I think there’s still an issue with the x^r instead of x^(r-1) on the RHS … hmmmm
 

tickboom

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
72
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
Uni Grad
2008
Unfortunately nothing jumps out ... I did a quick crack at induction but no luck ...
 

tickboom

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
72
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
Uni Grad
2008
Oh wait, I think my first idea does work ... Just needed a few little extra steps ...

Pic.jpg
 

Life'sHard

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2021
Messages
1,102
Gender
Male
HSC
2021
Uni Grad
2025
Maybe create one thread dedicated to just binomial questions whenever you have a question you can post them there.
 
Last edited:

CM_Tutor

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
2,642
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Perhaps easier to see without the sigma notation:



I can re-write this theorem as:


Now, we are given that:









A minor quibble with @tickboom's approach, mostly for the sake of MX2 students... saying that , which is effectively the calculation


involves the implicit assumption that , because you can't divide by zero. Thus, Tickboom's proof has actually shown that


and to be completed, needs the case to be addressed separately. Now, that case is trivial in that it has LHS = 0 and RHS = 0, and would quite likely be ignored in an MX1 question... but in an MX2 question under the proof topic, some markers would note that the proof was incomplete. My proof, above, does not have any such problem as it multiplies by rather than dividing. It is true that multiplying by 0 must be done with caution (as it can take a false statement and produce a true one), but in this case, it is taking a statement that is known to be true, in which case multiplying by any (including ) will not produce a false statement, and so the proof covers all real . Note also that my proof could be written more concisely... I have separated the differentiation steps to make what is happening clearer and more explanatory... I would write a briefer proof in an exam situation, something like:



I can re-write this theorem as:



Starting from the given binomial expansion:



An Alternative Proof

Anyone familiar with the standard proof might recognise, or notice from the result on RHS of the theorem, that there is an extra . So , start with:


and, by multiplying by :







We have thus established that:


And thus know that either or we have our required result...
 

yashbb

Active Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2021
Messages
194
Gender
Male
HSC
2022
Perhaps easier to see without the sigma notation:



I can re-write this theorem as:


Now, we are given that:









A minor quibble with @tickboom's approach, mostly for the sake of MX2 students... saying that , which is effectively the calculation


involves the implicit assumption that , because you can't divide by zero. Thus, Tickboom's proof has actually shown that


and to be completed, needs the case to be addressed separately. Now, that case is trivial in that it has LHS = 0 and RHS = 0, and would quite likely be ignored in an MX1 question... but in an MX2 question under the proof topic, some markers would note that the proof was incomplete. My proof, above, does not have any such problem as it multiplies by rather than dividing. It is true that multiplying by 0 must be done with caution (as it can take a false statement and produce a true one), but in this case, it is taking a statement that is known to be true, in which case multiplying by any (including ) will not produce a false statement, and so the proof covers all real . Note also that my proof could be written more concisely... I have separated the differentiation steps to make what is happening clearer and more explanatory... I would write a briefer proof in an exam situation, something like:



I can re-write this theorem as:



Starting from the given binomial expansion:



An Alternative Proof

Anyone familiar with the standard proof might recognise, or notice from the result on RHS of the theorem, that there is an extra . So , start with:


and, by multiplying by :







We have thus established that:


And thus know that either or we have our required result...
THANK YOUUUU
 

Undefined

New Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
10
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2023
I think that sigma notation is extension 2 now. Nesa writes " Sigma notation is formally introduced in the Mathematics Extension 2 course in the topic MEX-P2: Further Proof by Mathematical Induction. ". You need to still be able to do this question though - I recognize it from a yearly paper I can't remember which though.
 

tickboom

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
72
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
Uni Grad
2008
Whats the purpose of the second line?
The second line differentiates both sides wrt x. The purpose of doing that is to get the exponents to match what we are being asked to prove.
 

=)(=

Active Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
647
Gender
Male
HSC
2023
The second line differentiates both sides wrt x. The purpose of doing that is to get the exponents to match what we are being asked to prove.
ohh sorry i mean the second last one where you have 0+...
 

tickboom

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
72
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
Uni Grad
2008
ohh sorry i mean the second last one where you have 0+...
ohhhh … that step is to show why you can start the summation from r=1 instead of r=0 (notice the subtle difference in where the sigma starts).
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top