The Student Room Group

Difficult Maths/Physics Problems Help Thread

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Navo D.

Spoiler



I got that as well.
Reply 81
Original post by Navo D.

Spoiler



That's correct, the base could be Graham's number and you'd still get the same result
Original post by Elcor
Made this one up last academic year:

Find dydx\dfrac{dy}{dx} if y=log50xlog5020y=\dfrac{\log_{50}{x}}{\log_{50}{20}}


Spoiler

(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 83
What's bigger, Graham's number to the googolplex, or googolplex to the Graham's number? :lol:
Reply 84
Original post by Elcor
That's correct, the base could be Graham's number and you'd still get the same result


Ahaha yes :smile: This may be a shot in the dark but fellow numberphile subscriber here?
Reply 85
Original post by Navo D.
Ahaha yes :smile: This may be a shot in the dark but fellow numberphile subscriber here?


Absolutely :smile:
Reply 86
Original post by Elcor
Made this one up last academic year:

Find dydx\dfrac{dy}{dx} if y=log50xlog5020y=\dfrac{\log_{50}{x}}{\log_{50}{20}}


Spoiler



Edit: Whoops, didn't realise everyone else had done it!
Original post by Elcor
What's bigger, Graham's number to the googolplex, or googolplex to the Graham's number? :lol:


I'm going to guess googolplex to Graham's number because if we compare x^y and y^x, log both sides we get y*lnx and x*lny. If y>x and x,y>1 (maybe also x,y>e), it looks like x^y is at least as large.

That could be complete rubbish though.

Also that number would be massive :laugh:
(edited 9 years ago)
I was quite happy when I solved this, because I usually find these questions very hard.


If f:QQ f: \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q} satisfies

1)f(1)=2 f(1)=2
2)x,yQ,f(xy)=f(x)f(y)f(x+y)+1 \displaystyle \forall x,y\in\mathbb{Q}, f(xy)=f(x)f(y)-f(x+y)+1

Find f(x) f(x)
Reply 89
Original post by Necrosyrtes

Spoiler



I can't really follow this method, but you've got it right.


Original post by Krollo

Spoiler



Edit: Whoops, didn't realise everyone else had done it!


I basically did it this way ^

Spoiler

Reply 90
Sketch the graph of y=log1xy=\log_1x (not that hard but fairly interesting)

Original post by Necrosyrtes
I'm going to guess googolplex to Graham's number because if we compare x^y and y^x, log both sides we get y*lnx and x*lny. If y>x and x,y>1 (maybe also x,y>e), it looks like x^y is at least as large.

That could be complete rubbish though.

Also that number would be massive :laugh:


That's a good way of looking at it, because as xx\rightarrow\infty , y increases much more slowly for lnx \ln{x} than a scalar increase, if that makes sense.

If you put ln(100000000000000000000000000) in your calculator it is surprisingly small.
I am having some difficulty finding a combinatorial proof of the identity

(n+1)C(k+1)=((n+1)/(k+1))*nCk where C is the choose symbol.

any suggestions ?
Reply 92
Original post by ThatPerson
I was quite happy when I solved this, because I usually find these questions very hard.


If f:QQ f: \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q} satisfies

1)f(1)=2 f(1)=2
2)x,yQ,f(xy)=f(x)f(y)f(x+y)+1 \displaystyle \forall x,y\in\mathbb{Q}, f(xy)=f(x)f(y)-f(x+y)+1

Find f(x) f(x)


Spoiler

Reply 93
Original post by Xenorebrem
I am having some difficulty finding a combinatorial proof of the identity

(n+1)C(k+1)=((n+1)/(k+1))*nCk where C is the choose symbol.

any suggestions ?


What do you mean by combinatorial?
Do you mean by relating it to a 'real' problem?

If you do it via factorials it comes out straight away.
Original post by Gawain

Spoiler



Spoiler

Original post by ThatPerson
I was quite happy when I solved this, because I usually find these questions very hard.


If f:QQ f: \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q} satisfies

1)f(1)=2 f(1)=2
2)x,yQ,f(xy)=f(x)f(y)f(x+y)+1 \displaystyle \forall x,y\in\mathbb{Q}, f(xy)=f(x)f(y)-f(x+y)+1

Find f(x) f(x)


Spoiler

(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Gawain
What do you mean by combinatorial?
Do you mean by relating it to a 'real' problem?

If you do it via factorials it comes out straight away.


Yes I mean by relating it to a real scenario. I understand how easy it can be done algebraically. I am just practising how to prove identities via "non-algebraic" methods.
Reply 97
Currently attempting the last (huge) question from the 2011 PAT: https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/PAT-2011-Paper.pdf

Stuck on the first part so far. Making groundbreaking progress :facepalm2:
Original post by Elcor
Sketch the graph of y=log1xy=\log_1x (not that hard but fairly interesting)



That's a good way of looking at it, because as xx\rightarrow\infty , y increases much more slowly for lnx \ln{x} than a scalar increase, if that makes sense.

If you put ln(100000000000000000000000000) in your calculator it is surprisingly small.



Spoiler

Original post by Necrosyrtes

Spoiler



If you've proved it for the real numbers then you have proved it for the rationals as QR \mathbb{Q} \subseteq \mathbb{R} . Proving it for R is a more general case. Are you sure you don't mean that you proved it for when xZ x \in \mathbb{Z}?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending