The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 3120
Original post by ukdragon37
This line, second part of IBP in the bracket. In general (fdx)gdxfdxgdx\displaystyle\int \left(\int f dx \right) g dx \ne \int f dx \int g dx. The inner integral is not definite, as IBP refers to the function integrated.

Ah, and there was me thinking I could take it outside because it was a constant for some reason! Thanks for clearing that up. :smile:
Original post by CD315
With STEP papers, can somebody give me a good year so start on? I'm planning on working backwards, and saving the past few years for mocks. Going to focus on STEP I to begin with.


I have only recently started STEP stuff, so there might be better papers, but I think 2005 is brilliant...
Reply 3122
A (poor) second attempt at a question

Given that f'(x) = (1-y)(2-y)
a) Sketch f(x) without calculation, with y=1.5 at x=0
b) Solve for f(x) and now evaluate the validity of your sketch.
c) Given now that x is a complex number, find x when y=1.5
d) Find the volume of revolution formed by rotating y about the x-axis between a and b
e) A section is removed from the solid from x=-50 to x=50
State the volume from x=-n to x=n, where n>50
Original post by TheMagicMan
Here is a question I’ve adapted from somewhere else that could be used.


It is a good question, but I think it needs more hints. Also, you could consider turning A3 1998 into a STEP question.
In my opinion, the latter is easier to grasp and explain (i.e. IVT is intuitive) and makes a nice use of the MVT.

EDIT: I am looking forward to Mechanics and Stats questions. Any ideas for a question that uses Bayes' theorem?
(edited 11 years ago)
Hi guys
I've been attempting STEP I & II questions for a while now just going through papers, doing as many questions as I can and as much of a question as I can. But basically I seem to be getting nowhere, I'm lucky if I go through a whole paper and get even 1 question completely right. Most of the time I start a question, write a few lines, get stuck, think about it for forever and eventually resort to looking at the answers.
I thought I would gradually get better but that's not happening. Has anyone got any advice on what to do because I had originally intended to do STEP I, II and III this summer but now I just don't see how I'll manage it when I can barley do any questions and I'm not seeing any signs of improving at all :frown:



Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by jack.hadamard
EDIT: I am looking forward to Mechanics and Stats questions. Any ideas for a question that uses Bayes' theorem?


I might be able to think of one that is based on quantum computing, but that risks it to be far too obscure/un-STEP-like :wink:
I'm working on a mechanics one to do with resonance :biggrin:
Original post by jack.hadamard
EDIT: I am looking forward to Mechanics and Stats questions. Any ideas for a question that uses Bayes' theorem?


9F in this?
Original post by jack.hadamard
It is a good question, but I think it needs more hints. Also, you could consider turning A3 1998 into a STEP question.
In my opinion, the latter is easier to grasp and explain (i.e. IVT is intuitive) and makes a nice use of the MVT.

EDIT: I am looking forward to Mechanics and Stats questions. Any ideas for a question that uses Bayes' theorem?


I could make a stats problem based on the famous chestnut

'Choose two random numbers from [0,1][0, 1] and let them be the endpoints of an interval. Repeat this nn times. What is the probability that there is an interval which intersects all others?'

It is interesting primarily because of the unusual and counterintuitive answer. The solution is quite long though and very difficult, so lots of hints would be needed.

Another one I like is 'Suppose you play a game with a friend where he writes down randomly two positive integers on separate pieces a paper. You then pick one of the pieces of paper and try to guess whether the number on it is greater than the other number. Exhibit a strategy whereby you guess correctly with probability greater than 0.5 or show that such a strategy does not exist.'

Again I would intuitively say the latter should hold, but there does exist such a strategy.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by TheMagicMan


'Choose two random numbers from [0,1][0, 1] and let them be the endpoints of an interval. Repeat this nn times. What is the probability that there is an interval which intersects all others?'



Spoiler



:colone:
What level of questions are in the Siklo's booklet? I.e STEP I, II or III? If it's all 3, is there a way to tell which?
Original post by boromir9111

Spoiler



:colone:


Indeed :wink:

I still think it should depend on n :tongue:
Original post by I am Ace
What level of questions are in the Siklo's booklet? I.e STEP I, II or III? If it's all 3, is there a way to tell which?


All 3....there's an * sign next to each question....* = I...**= II etc.
Reply 3133
Original post by TheMagicMan
Another one I like is 'Suppose you play a game with a friend where he writes down randomly two positive integers on separate pieces a paper. You then pick one of the pieces of paper and try to guess whether the number on it is greater than the other number. Exhibit a strategy whereby you guess correctly with probability greater than 0.5 or show that such a strategy does not exist.'

Again I would intuitively say the latter should hold, but there does exist such a strategy.

One of the Cambridge lecturers (can't remember who) did a presentation on something like this at the maths open day. I can't remember much of it though...
Original post by tommyridges
Hi guys
I've been attempting STEP I & II questions for a while now just going through papers, doing as many questions as I can and as much of a question as I can. But basically I seem to be getting nowhere, I'm lucky if I go through a whole paper and get even 1 question completely right. Most of the time I start a question, write a few lines, get stuck, think about it for forever and eventually resort to looking at the answers.
I thought I would gradually get better but that's not happening. Has anyone got any advice on what to do because I had originally intended to do STEP I, II and III this summer but now I just don't see how I'll manage it when I can barley do any questions and I'm not seeing any signs of improving at all :frown:

Posted from TSR Mobile


Let's see whether I can put my point concisely.

I would suggest you read Chapter One of Terry Tao's "Solving Mathematical Problems" available on his website.
Quoting Julia Wolf, "This is a beautiful book that talks about lots of beautiful problems. More importantly, it is an
amazingly lucid and intuitive discussion on how to find non-obvious solutions to those problems."

Solving a problem is more of an art and you should not be simply interested in the final answer, but also in the process of
obtaining it. I would also suggest that you spend more time thinking what the questions are actually about, because most
of them are quite nifty. Albert Einstein once said, "If I had an hour to solve a problem, I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about
the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions." Of course, this is impractical in examination conditions, but, when you
are learning, do take your time to appreciate the beauty of the problems and their solutions. You are making progress just
by attempting such questions. You are getting somewhere, but you are just impatient by expecting to master it in no time.

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." -- Lao Tzu

A tip: If you did all you can from a paper and you solved only half of a particular question:
First, take a break. Second, start over. Third, give up, read the solution and think about its key steps (you didn't see).

A recipe (for pleasure after each paper you attempt):

1. What was the most exciting question I solved?
2. What was the most exciting question I couldn't solve?

a) Where do these questions come from?
b) Can I deduce further results from them?
c) Does the same technique apply in other situations?


O.K. that's my contribution. :tongue:


Can we somehow get the general opinion for questions? So far, people have said a little about the suggestions.
The point being, in the end, the questions chosen could be considered "sensible" according to the people here. :biggrin:

Any feedback on Shamika's suggestion?
Original post by jack.hadamard
The point being, in the end, the questions chosen could be considered "sensible" according to the people here. :biggrin:
I would love if we had some suggestions/input from DFranklin but he probably already hates what we have been doing in this thread! :tongue:
Original post by jack.hadamard
Can we somehow get the general opinion for questions? So far, people have said a little about the suggestions.
The point being, in the end, the questions chosen could be considered "sensible" according to the people here. :biggrin:

Any feedback on Shamika's suggestion?


I've been silent on the whole concept of the paper because...

Spoiler

Original post by L'art pour l'art
Whoa! Check this beauty out! This is why I call it magic differentiation! :love:

Let I(λ)=01xλ  dx=11+λ.\displaystyle I(\lambda) = \int_{0}^{1}x^{\lambda}\;{dx} = \frac{1}{1+\lambda}. Differentiating this w.r.t λ\lambda we have:

I(n)(λ)=01xλlognx  dx=(1)nn!(1+λ)n+1\displaystyle I^{(n)}(\lambda) = \int_{0}^{1}x^{\lambda}\log^{n}{x}\;{dx} = \frac{(-1)^nn!}{(1+\lambda)^{n+1}} -- therefore we have:

01xx  dx=n0(1)nn!01xnlnn  dx=n01(1+n)n+1\displaystyle \int_{0}^{1} x^{-x} \;{dx} = \sum_{n \ge 0}\frac{(-1)^n}{n!} \int_{0}^{1}x^n\ln^n\;{dx} = \sum_{n \ge 0}\frac{1}{(1+n)^{n+1}}

Also 01xx  dx=n01n!01xnlnn  dx=n0(1)n(1+n)n+1.\displaystyle \int_{0}^{1} x^{x} \;{dx} = \sum_{n \ge 0}\frac{1}{n!} \int_{0}^{1}x^n\ln^n\;{dx} = \sum_{n \ge 0}\frac{(-1)^n}{(1+n)^{n+1}}.


Original post by shamika
...
I agree about the Riemann zeta function one, but the Fourier series one is fine in my opinion. It's not like university bookwork stuff doesn't appear on STEP. There was a question that gave the definition of Laplace transform and basically asked to derive the Laplace transform of several trivial functions. That's not much different than the Fourier series one. I remember another one proving the rational root theorem. I could name many others (and I haven't done that many STEP papers at all). My point is that STEP is not as clean (in the sense of not being bookwork) as we may think.

Latest

Trending

Trending