The Student Room Group

A Summer of Maths

Scroll to see replies

Original post by nuodai
Similar things happen in other cases, but I don't really know enough about this to tell you (i) under what conditions noninteger derivatives exist, or (ii) what they are useful for, if anything.


Yes, I read something quickly about them. I liked something sketched on Wikipedia with Laplace transforms. :tongue:
It is quite interesting though, what information this may provide about the behaviour of a function.. does anyone know Newton's e-mail? :biggrin:
Original post by ben-smith
Feynman speaks about half derivatives and other stuff in one of his books.


Which one of his books? :tongue:
Reply 502
Original post by jack.hadamard
It is quite interesting though, what information this may provide about the behaviour of a function.. does anyone know Newton's e-mail? :biggrin:


Hardy har. I'm not sure how much help he'd be even if he did have email...
Original post by Lord of the Flies
Woops, I wrote that without thinking. I meant to say (e^a)^b = e^(ab) loses validity. Sorry about the confusion, I should head to bed!

Learn something knew everyday. So the lhs is not a complex number but a reimann surface, which arises from multivalued complex number functions like log(z).
Original post by nuodai
Hardy har. I'm not sure how much help he'd be even if he did have email...


It wasn't meant to be an insult to him. :smile:
He was a bit shorter, but also a lot smarter than his contemporaries; I don't underestimate this intelligence. :tongue:


I found a killer question. :tongue:

Question:

Let Γ\Gamma be a finite multiplicative group of matrices with complex entries, and MM the sum of all matrices in Γ\Gamma.

Prove that det(M)\det(M) is an integer.
Reply 505
I think ill get at least AA in maths and further maths in August and will be starting a maths degree at Nottingham with some luck, and I havent got a clue where to start on the majority of the problems posted on here... how do I go about starting some of these problems that dont 'lead' you through what to do as A level questions do, and should I be a bit worried?
Original post by DJMayes
At the Nottingham University Open Day there was a "Maths Trail" with several interesting questions on it. The questions ranged from requiring a working knowledge of arithmetic progressions and combinations to lowest common multiples and counting squares; and more emphasis was put on thinking about them than slogging through endless manipulation. I thought I'd share one with you. The question is of the kind that could be set in C1, but is an interesting one:

A rectangle is inscribed inside a circle of radius 6 units such that each of the vertices of the rectangle lie on the circumference of the circle. Given that the perimeter of the rectangle is 28 units, what is the area?

Required Knowledge:

Spoiler



Hints:

Spoiler



Full Solution:

Spoiler



I don't get how the diagonal of the circle is the diameter? Is that always the case?
Original post by skibur
I think ill get at least AA in maths and further maths in August and will be starting a maths degree at Nottingham with some luck, and I havent got a clue where to start on the majority of the problems posted on here... how do I go about starting some of these problems that dont 'lead' you through what to do as A level questions do, and should I be a bit worried?


Answer to the bit in bold: NO!

As it was mentioned earlier, on several occasions, these problems are (already) a lot more advanced than they should be.


Did you have a look at Cambridge's Mathematics Workbook? Oxfords problems are in the OP (first post in this thread).
In case you find these reasonably straightforward, how about STEP papers (in particular STEP III)?

(Feel free to ask any questions about any of the above problems)


I could not find a reading list for Mathematics on Nottingham's website, but probably you could.

Alternatively, either of the two books under category Introductory/First-year books may be helpful to you.
Today (at some point), I will post couple of problems from these two books, so that one can try a piece of them before buying. :tongue:

Also, I think Li Shen's notes on Numbers and Sets (an introductory course) can be quite useful.

Original post by David_Skiller
your on part III already- but you understanding is VERY VERY weak!


Am I? Perhaps, your's is better. :tongue:
Reply 508
Original post by When you see it...
I don't get how the diagonal of the circle is the diameter? Is that always the case?


goes through the centre.....
Original post by jack.hadamard
Am I? Perhaps, your's is better. :tongue:


KUTA!

David :biggrin:
Original post by Rahul.S
goes through the centre.....


Oh yeah.
Original post by When you see it...
Oh yeah.


To see it, you can consider Thales' theorem (done at A-level!), and notice that you can construct any inscribed rectangle from the right-angled triangle and its replica.

Alternatively, parametrise the point (x,y)(x,y) on the unit circle (without loss of generality) by y=sinθy = \sin\theta and x=cosθx = \cos\theta.
By doing so, you can find the diagonal of any inscribed rectangle (under an assumption that does not matter) and show it goes through the origin.
Original post by jack.hadamard
To see it, you can consider Thales' theorem (done at A-level!), and notice that you can construct any inscribed rectangle from the right-angled triangle and its replica.

Alternatively, parametrise the point (x,y)(x,y) on the unit circle (without loss of generality) by y=sinθy = \sin\theta and x=cosθx = \cos\theta.
By doing so, you can find the diagonal of any inscribed rectangle (under an assumption that does not matter) and show it goes through the origin.


I don't really understand, but thanks.
Original post by When you see it...
I don't really understand, but thanks.


Which method don't you understand? I can try to give more details, or explain it differently.
The purpose of this thread is to help people learn and understand new things. If it fails to do so, then it is useless. :wink:
Original post by jack.hadamard
Which method don't you understand? I can try to give more details, or explain it differently.
The purpose of this thread is to help people learn and understand new things. If it fails to do so, then it is useless. :wink:


Well the circle has a radius of 6, so I don't get how you can use the unit-circle co-ordinates with it. Although generally I can see how that would help explain it.
Original post by When you see it...
Well the circle has a radius of 6, so I don't get how you can use the unit-circle co-ordinates with it. Although generally I can see how that would help explain it.


To prove this, you use the angle from the horizontal to the ray from the origin to that point, and nothing else from circle's properties!
This angle does not change when you rescale the graph of the circle; i.e. it is the same for all circles and is called an 'invariant' property (apparently, by construction).

In other words, if you fix θ\theta, then your result will be true for all (acosθ,asinθ)(a\cos\theta, a\sin\theta) with a>0a > 0. If true for all required θ\theta, then it is true for all circles.
The thing is, you have a symmetric choice before choosing the point, but once you choose it, all the rest is fixed about this problem.

Using Thales' theorem is a much simpler (and more interesting) approach to show this feature of the problem.
Original post by jack.hadamard
To prove this, you use the angle from the horizontal to the ray from the origin to that point, and nothing else from circle's properties!
This angle does not change when you rescale the graph of the circle; i.e. it is the same for all circles and is called an 'invariant' property (apparently, by construction).

In other words, if you fix θ\theta, then your result will be true for all (acosθ,asinθ)(a\cos\theta, a\sin\theta) with a>0a > 0. If true for all required θ\theta, then it is true for all circles.
The thing is, you have a symmetric choice before choosing the point, but once you choose it, all the rest is fixed about this problem.

Using Thales' theorem is a much simpler (and more interesting) approach to show this feature of the problem.


I think we can agree that it is true regardless of the standards of evidence. Anyway, thanks for trying to explain it.
Here is an old chestnut.


What is the expression

Unparseable latex formula:

\displaystyle 1 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle 1 + \frac{1}{1 + \frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle 1 + \frac{1}{1 + \cdots}}}}}}



equal to as a number?
Reply 518
Original post by jack.hadamard
What is the expression

Unparseable latex formula:

\displaystyle 1 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle 1 + \frac{1}{1 + \frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle 1 + \frac{1}{1 + \cdots}}}}}}



equal to as a number?


I like this one; it leads to one of those "when you see it you'll **** bricks" moments. Even more so when you discover that it's equal to 1+1+1+\sqrt{1 + \sqrt{1 + \sqrt{1 + \cdots}}}.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by nuodai
I like this one; it leads to one of those "when you see it you'll **** bricks" moments. Even more so when you discover that it's equal to 1+1+1+\sqrt{1 + \sqrt{1 + \sqrt{1 + \cdots}}}.


Ooh, wow! :eek:

Quick Reply

Latest