The Student Room Group

Fp2 integration

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Zacken
That's a nice analytic approach. I was looking into getting the inequality bounds by looking at the Laurent series for the function and deducing then from there but I don't have quite enough experience to know whether that's viable or not.


I only use the term "Laurent series" for bad functions with singularities i.e. with 1/zn1/z^n terms in their expansion. I use "Taylor series" if it's a nice function. But anyway...

I think the argument would go like this:

Given f(x)=cosxsinx=2cos(x+π4)f(x)=2sin(x+π4)f(x) =\cos x - \sin x = \sqrt{2}\cos(x+\frac{\pi}{4}) \Rightarrow f'(x) = -\sqrt{2}\sin(x+\frac{\pi}{4}) so that over the range [0,π/4][0, \pi/4] we have 1f(x)2-1 \le f'(x) \le -\sqrt{2}.

So f(x)f'(x) is more negative than the gradient of the tangent over the whole range, so we must have f(x)<1xf(x) < 1-x as required.

Also, f(π/4)=21.414<1.3˙=4/3<4/πf'(\pi/4) = -\sqrt{2} \approx -1.414 < -1.\dot{3} = -4/3 < -4/\pi so for some x0(0,π/4)x_0 \in (0,\pi/4) we have f(x0)=4/πf'(x_0) = -4/\pi.

But in (0,x0)(0,x_0), 1<f(x)<4/π-1 < f(x) < -4/\pi so we must have f(x0)>14x0/πf(x_0) > 1-4x_0/\pi. But suppose that f(x1)<14x1/πf(x_1) < 1-4x_1/\pi for some x1(x0,π/4)x_1 \in (x_0, \pi/4).

Then we would have f(π/4)<0=14(π/4)/4f(\pi/4) < 0 = 1-4(\pi/4)/4 since f(x)<4/πf'(x) < -4/\pi in (x0,π/4)(x_0, \pi/4) which is a contradiction.

I'm hoping that 1) this makes sense and 2) there's an easier argument that doesn't waffle so much.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 21
Argument makes perfect sense up to the last two lines, granted I don't have much experience with Taylor expansions so that's no great suprise, it looks 'nicer' than the way I used though


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 22
Original post by drandy76
Argument makes perfect sense up to the last two lines, granted I don't have much experience with Taylor expansions so that's no great suprise, it looks 'nicer' than the way I used though


I don't think he used Taylor expansions anywhere.
Reply 23
Original post by Zacken
I don't think he used Taylor expansions anywhere.


I just assumed the bit where I lost it was that tbh :/


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 25


Instructions not clear enough, ended up with 10 different tabs open


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 26
Original post by drandy76
Instructions not clear enough, ended up with 10 different tabs open


Posted from TSR Mobile


BTW: Look at Q3 here.
Original post by drandy76
Argument makes perfect sense up to the last two lines, granted I don't have much experience with Taylor expansions so that's no great suprise, it looks 'nicer' than the way I used though


Posted from TSR Mobile


I don't use a Taylor expansion at all. The argument is as follows:

1) For the upper line, i.e. the tangent, f(x)f'(x) is more negative over the whole range, so f(x)f(x) must always lie below that line as it decreases more quickly. So that part of the inequality is done.

2) We need to show that f(x)f(x) always lies above the other line, the chord. I split this into two parts.

First, I show that, since f(x)f'(x) eventually exceeds the gradient of the chord, then there is some point x0x_0 where f(x)f'(x) must be equal to that gradient - so in the interval between 0 and x0x_0, the average gradient of f(x)f(x) is less than than of the chord, so it decreases more slowly in this region, so is always above the chord in (0,x0)(0,x_0)

Then we have to show that it is above the chord even in the region where f(x)f(x) is decreasing faster than then chord. I do this by contradiction: essentially I say that if at some point f(x)f(x) was below the chord in this region, then it would stay below it thereafter, since f(x)f(x) is decreasing faster than the chord - the chord could never "catch it up" again.

But we know that the chord and f(x)f(x) meet at π/4\pi/4 i.e. we know that f(x)f(x) is *not* below the chord, at the end of the region in question. Hence, there can be no point in the region where it was below the chord i.e. the chord is always below f(x)f(x). QED.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 28
Original post by Zacken
BTW: Look at Q3 here.


I'll give it a go now


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 29
Original post by atsruser
I don't use a Taylor expansion at all. The argument is as follows:

1) For the upper line, i.e. the tangent, f(x)f'(x) is more negative over the whole range, so f(x)f(x) must always lie below that line as it decreases more quickly. So that part of the inequality is done.

2) We need to show that f(x)f(x) always lies above the other line, the chord. I split this into two parts.

First, I show that, since f(x)f'(x) eventually exceeds the gradient of the chord, then there is some point x0x_0 where f(x)f'(x) must be equal to that gradient - so in the interval between 0 and x0x_0, the average gradient of f(x)f(x) is less than than of the chord, so it decreases more slowly in this region, so is always above the chord in (0,x0)(0,x_0)

Then we have to show that it is above the chord even in the region where f(x)f(x) is decreasing faster than then chord. I do this by contradiction: essentially I say that if at some point f(x)f(x) was below the chord in this region, then it would stay below it thereafter, since f(x)f(x) is decreasing faster than the chord - the chord could never "catch it up" again.

But we know that the chord and f(x)f(x) meet at π/4\pi/4 i.e. we know that f(x)f(x) is *not* below the chord, at the end of the region in question. Hence, there can be no point in the region where it was below the chord i.e. the chord is always below f(x)f(x). QED.


Thanks for elaborating for me, I maintain that your solution is nicer though, I think the confusing stemmed from the Xo and your comment at the start


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest