From the early 70s. Those problems are often doable by good mx2 students with no prior olympiad training and this one is no exception.That is from the IMO.
So would you say that most of the 1970/prior problems are good practise for problem solving skills for mx2 students?From the early 70s. Those problems are often doable by good mx2 students with no prior olympiad training and this one is no exception.
Yep although not directly relevant to the HSC syllabus they are good practice for problem solving and rigorous argument, especially for those who want to pursue mathematics further. You certainly don't have to be of modern olympiad standard to solve most of them.So would you say that most of the 1970/prior problems are good practise for problem solving skills for mx2 students?
=============
If it has at least 1 real root doesn't that mean it should have 2 real roots due to the conjugate complex root theorem and the fact that it is a quartic? Or are we not counting multiplicities here? I am sure my solution is wrong because when I sub a=1 and b=0 I get x=-1 as a real solution and 1<4.
The only geometric series I can think of are:
I got ur integral if and only if n is even :OSo would you say that most of the 1970/prior problems are good practise for problem solving skills for mx2 students?
=============
You are on the right track with geometric series. Make some strong manipulations so you can simplify your sum much more easily (or just grind out the result)The only geometric series I can think of are:
and (cis2x)+(cis2x)^2+...+(cis2x)^n
By the way, do we have to memorise the sums to products formulas? I have seen many questions that require them but I think they give the formula or ask to prove that i.e. 2sinacosb=(sin(a+b)+sin(a-b))
I am very interested in knowing the solution to your palindromic polynomial question. So far I am stuck but I found that the roots have to be 1 and/or -1.
That result is correct, it should be straightforward from there, I'm not sure how it would prove it for only n even thoughI got ur integral if and only if n is even :O
Also is ?
nevermind... I did a dirty mistake lolThat result is correct, it should be straightforward from there, I'm not sure how it would prove it for only n even though
In my opinion this is one of the few problems where induction isn't "cheap". Its not like we are getting the inequality out of nowhere since we can observe that its true for n=2 n=3 and n=4 rather easily. So its feasible to 'guess' the general case and prove by induction.What is the fastest way to prove the AM:GM inequality? My teacher uses induction + calculus which is a tedious method.