MedVision ad

HSC 2013 MX2 Marathon (archive) (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

JJ345

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Messages
78
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

tanx= m(1) -m(2)/1+m(1)m(2)
Where x= (n-2)*180/n
Rearranging m(1)m(2) = (m(1)-m(2) /tanx )-1 ....(1)
Rewrite (1) for all combinations m(2)m(3).....m(n)m(1)
Then add side by side. I think?
 
Last edited:

Sy123

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

tanx= m(1) -m(2)/1+m(1)m(2)
Where x= (n-2)*180/n
Rearranging m(1)m(2) = (m(1)-m(2) /tanx )-1 ....(1)
Rewrite (1) for all combinations m(2)m(3).....m(n)m(1)
Then add side by side. I think?
Yep that is correct.

============





 

JJ345

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Messages
78
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Yep nice work

===========










Not too confident with my solution here. But i'm getting something along the lines of Let a(1)=1-x(1)....continue this for 1,2,3...n
So on the LHS we get (n-1/2)/n >= nth root of what we want on the LHS numerator in our final expression. ....(1)
Similarly, Let a(1)= 1+x(1)...continue for 1,2,3..n so on LHS we get (n+1/2)/n >=nth root of what we want on the LHS numerator in our final expression ....(2)

Divide (1) by (2) and let n=1 because we know that there must be atleast one term for this to happen so (n-1/2)/ (n+1/2) will become 1/3 and nth root will disappear.

Or something along the lines of that dodgy solution...sorry don't know how to use latex yet :p
 
Last edited:

Sy123

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

Not too confident with my solution here. But i'm getting something along the lines of Let a(1)=1-x(1)....continue this for 1,2,3...n
So on the LHS we get (n-1/2)/n >= nth root of what we want on the LHS numerator in our final expression. ....(1)
Similarly, Let a(1)= 1+x(1)...continue for 1,2,3..n so on LHS we get (n+1/2)/n >=nth root of what we want on the LHS numerator in our final expression ....(2)

Divide (1) by (2) and let n=1 because we know that there must be atleast one term for this to happen so (n-1/2)/ (n+1/2) will become 1/3 and nth root will disappear.

Or something along the lines of that dodgy solution...sorry don't know how to use latex yet :p
Solution is correct until the 'let n=1' argument.

which is what you got as the lower bound

By subbing in n=1 we do get 1/3, so the next problem then is:



Or rather, Prove f(n) > f(1)

Which can be done then via.......

(an outline of the method is needed only, not the actual solution)
 
Last edited:

JJ345

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Messages
78
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Solution is correct until the 'let n=1' argument.

which is what you got as the lower bound

By subbing in n=1 we do get 1/3, so the next problem then is:



Or rather, Prove f(n) > f(1)

Which can be done then via.......

(an outline of the method is needed only, not the actual solution)
Ok, that makes sense, so proving that f(n) is increasing for n>1 should suffice?
I'm thinking of differentiating using logarithms---> but maybe this method is going a bit overboard.
 

Sy123

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

Ok, that makes sense, so proving that f(n) is increasing for n>1 should suffice?
I'm thinking of differentiating using logarithms---> but maybe this method is going a bit overboard.
Yep proving f is increasing is enough, and differentiating with logarithms is the most direct method, but its a little long and you might need to differentiate twice, alternatively:









Hence n=1 is the lowest, hence f(n) > 1/3
 
Last edited:

JJ345

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Messages
78
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Binomial expansion of (1-x^2)^n, integrate both sides between limits of x=1 and x=0.
Weird thing is i'm getting an extra 2n+1 on the denominator on the RHS of the expression, maybe I integrated incorrectly. Isn't integral of (1-x^2)^n from 0 to 1 [2^(2n)][(n!)^2])/(2n+1)!?
 
Last edited:

seanieg89

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

Solution is correct until the 'let n=1' argument.
Is it?

How does finding an upper bound for the numerator and an upper bound for the denominator help us find a lower bound for a fraction?
 

Sy123

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

Binomial expansion of (1-x^2)^n, integrate both sides between limits of x=1 and x=0, then let x=1.
Weird thing is i'm getting an extra 2n+1 on the denominator on the RHS of the expression, maybe I integrated incorrectly. Isn't integral of (1-x^2)^n from 0 to 1 [2^(2n)][(n!)^2])/(2n+1)!?
Yeah I did it again and you are correct

Is it?

How does finding an upper bound for the numerator and an upper bound for the denominator help us find a lower bound for a fraction?
Ah yes reading the solution again it is incorrect, what I had in mind was


... (1)

.... (2)

This is done by subbing in the AM-GM inequality, all substitutions are positive since x_k <= 1/2

Dividing (2) by (1), which we can do since all things are positive.

We get (P is what we want)

Then flip everything, when we do that the inequality sign switches, yeilding P > (that)

But I was skimming through her solution and wasn't really paying attention, which is why I couldn't see that.

=====


I'm making way too many mistakes :(

(there is no mistake in this one)





 

seanieg89

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

Yeah I did it again and you are correct



Ah yes reading the solution again it is incorrect, what I had in mind was


... (1)

.... (2)

This is done by subbing in the AM-GM inequality, all substitutions are positive since x_k <= 1/2

Dividing (2) by (1), which we can do since all things are positive.

We get (P is what we want)

Then flip everything, when we do that the inequality sign switches, yeilding P > (that)

But I was skimming through her solution and wasn't really paying attention, which is why I couldn't see that.

=====


I'm making way too many mistakes :(

(there is no mistake in this one)





Uhhh same issue, division will not preserve inequality in general.

Eg.
2 > 1 & 5 > 2 does not imply that 2/5 > 1/2.
 

Sy123

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

Uhhh same issue, division will not preserve inequality in general.

Eg.
2 > 1 & 5 > 2 does not imply that 2/5 > 1/2.
Yeah that's true :/

Also for anybody wanting to attempt that question, it is a correct result since I got it from a book, so the problem still stands if someone wants to attempt it.
 

seanieg89

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

Yeah that's true :/

Also for anybody wanting to attempt that question, it is a correct result since I got it from a book, so the problem still stands if someone wants to attempt it.
Which book? Lagrange multipliers slay it pretty easily, but don't have the time to play around with MX2 tools right now. If it is something that can be done with elementary methods (I suspect it can, but nothing immediately jumps out at me) and no-one answers it by tomorrow evening I will have more time to look at it.
 

Sy123

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

Which book? Lagrange multipliers slay it pretty easily, but don't have the time to play around with MX2 tools right now. If it is something that can be done with elementary methods (I suspect it can, but nothing immediately jumps out at me) and no-one answers it by tomorrow evening I will have more time to look at it.
Book my teacher lent me:

'Mathematical Circles (Russian Experience)' by Dimitri Fomin, Sergey Genkin and Ilia Itenberg

Its a problem solving book for training and teaching olympiad students. The inequalities chapter uses only uses elementary inequalities such as AM-GM.
The non-MX2 chapters preceding it (just in case they might want you to use past knowledge) is Pigeon-hole Principle, Divisibility, Games, Graphs, Invariants. None of which I would imagine could be used to solve an inequality like this.
 

JJ345

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Messages
78
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Dividing doesn't preserve the inequality, but can we get away with using logs then subtracting?
Like ln(1-x)>=M
ln(1+x)>=N
Then saying ln(1-x/1+x) >= M-N
Either way I wouldn't know how to use the fact that x(1)+x(2)+....+x(n)= 1/2 in this method.
 

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

Book my teacher lent me:

'Mathematical Circles (Russian Experience)' by Dimitri Fomin, Sergey Genkin and Ilia Itenberg

Its a problem solving book for training and teaching olympiad students. The inequalities chapter uses only uses elementary inequalities such as AM-GM.
The non-MX2 chapters preceding it (just in case they might want you to use past knowledge) is Pigeon-hole Principle, Divisibility, Games, Graphs, Invariants. None of which I would imagine could be used to solve an inequality like this.
Is the book any good? I've been meaning to find a good problem solving book.
 

seanieg89

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

Dividing doesn't preserve the inequality, but can we get away with using logs then subtracting?
Like ln(1-x)>=M
ln(1+x)>=N
Then saying ln(1-x/1+x) >= M-N
Either way I wouldn't know how to use the fact that x(1)+x(2)+....+x(n)= 1/2 in this method.
No, that's just rewriting the same fallacy in a different form.
 

Sy123

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

Dividing doesn't preserve the inequality, but can we get away with using logs then subtracting?
Like ln(1-x)>=M
ln(1+x)>=N
Then saying ln(1-x/1+x) >= M-N
Either way I wouldn't know how to use the fact that x(1)+x(2)+....+x(n)= 1/2 in this method.
Subtraction is essentially adding the negative version, so when we minus N, we are first multiplying by -1 then adding side by side.
Because for even with subtracting logs, we get stuff like

2 > 1, 5 > 2, ln(2/5) > ln(1/2) which doesn't work.

It seems that the only operations that one can work with inequalities side by side are addition and multiplication

Is the book any good? I've been meaning to find a good problem solving book.
I'd say its pretty good, there are only solutions for half of them though
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top