Ah true.. my instinct was to try and get rid of the logs before I start doing any potentially grizzly DUTIS (though I thought I better get typing before someone else steals it ).(Original post by henpen)
Pretty much. A more direct way would be to differentiate the answer to problem 22, which of course is implicitly what you did.
I can't think of any particularly useful/interesting generalisations tbh, can you? The substitution unzipped the problem very quickly so it is isn't really anything new... hmm..

 Follow
 2041
 29072013 23:21

 Follow
 2042
 30072013 09:21
Last edited by henpen; 30072013 at 09:28. 
 Follow
 2043
 30072013 12:02
Solution 294
Changing the order of the series, changing that bases WLOG, adding and then separating:

FireGarden
 Follow
 6 followers
 3 badges
 Send a private message to FireGarden
Offline3ReputationRep: Follow
 2044
 30072013 12:34
Problem 295***
Suppose we have a closed contour in the complex plane. Then it defines an enclosed area. We shall define
To be the signed area enclosed by
Show that S is real, and that it recovers for a circle, show both signs can occur, and explain the significance of the sign.Last edited by FireGarden; 30072013 at 12:36. 
 Follow
 2045
 30072013 13:06
(Original post by FireGarden)
Problem 295***
Suppose we have a closed contour in the complex plane. Then it defines an enclosed area. We shall define
To be the signed area enclosed by
Show that S is real, and that it recovers for a circle, show both signs can occur, and explain the significance of the sign.
Integrating in the anticlockwise direction:
Hence
Integration clockwise along this contour would return the value of .Last edited by Jkn; 30072013 at 14:45. 
FireGarden
 Follow
 6 followers
 3 badges
 Send a private message to FireGarden
Offline3ReputationRep: Follow
 2046
 30072013 14:08
(Original post by Jkn)
Solution 295
Consider the parametrization for which is a circle of radius r about the original. Using Cauchy's integral theorem, we know that this contour will give a general result for .
Integrating in the anticlockwise direction:
Hence
Integration clockwise along this contour would return the value of . 
 Follow
 2047
 30072013 14:44
(Original post by FireGarden)
You didn't show S was real..? (I did mean for any smooth gamma!) 
FireGarden
 Follow
 6 followers
 3 badges
 Send a private message to FireGarden
Offline3ReputationRep: Follow
 2048
 30072013 15:27
(Original post by Jkn)
CIT implies the contour we choose does not affect our result so long as the turning number is the same, is that right?
And an 'enclosed area' sort of implies either a simple smooth loop either clockwise or anticlockwise (real in both cases) .Last edited by FireGarden; 30072013 at 15:33. 
 Follow
 2049
 30072013 16:30
Solution 271
We have , so . Now, using the fact that . We get , which gives the result.
Solution 272
From the above result, we obtain . Again, if we let , we get .
We also have (follows directly from the definition), which gives . Letting , we have the fourth integral. Considering , we get the fifth representation.
Solution 273
.
Now, letting , we get .
Solution 275
Some complex analysis shows that . Hence, using , we get .
Let me propose a problem, which is very dear to my heart.
Problem 296***
Consider a smooth manifold with an open cover of sets , which are contractible. Assume also that , for all . Find an upper bound to the first Betti number of .
(Original post by Smaug123)
anyone can join this coven, but we insist that it remain finite…Last edited by Mladenov; 30072013 at 17:42. 
Smaug123
 Follow
 23 followers
 13 badges
 Send a private message to Smaug123
 PS Helper
 Study Helper
Offline13ReputationRep:PS HelperStudy Helper Follow
 2050
 30072013 17:07

 Follow
 2051
 30072013 19:54
None of these verbal statements are sufficient for mathematical proof.
Looks right, but you're going to need to include some more details.. I mean, who in their right mind could follow that without pen and paper?
The integral actually began as a conjecture in 2004 (though it was immediately solved since it's not that hard) but the mathematician who came up with it was unable to prove it!
Also, it is not true for all complex z so either you have made a mistake or that's another crucial point you have left out.
Some Galois Representations shows that ... you're going to either need to show your working or give the name of the theorem you are using. All you are essentially doing is telling us you can do it?
Sorry to sound like such a **** man, but if anyone besides you posted those solutions, people would probably think they didn't actually do it given the lack of detail.. also the satisfaction is reading someone's solution is in understanding something, or seeing how someone else did something. 
 Follow
 2052
 30072013 20:48
(Original post by Jkn)
Oh how I love waking up to random problems like this! I'm wondering if you found the same nice 'trick' that I did (the method is reminiscent of Fubini's Theorem for integrals).
Solution 294
Changing the order of the series, changing that bases WLOG, adding and then separating:
I'm not familiar with the content of Fubini's theorem or its discrete analogue. Why were you able to swap summation order? It makes sense intuitively but I'd like to formalise it.Last edited by henpen; 30072013 at 20:50. 
 Follow
 2053
 30072013 20:54
(Original post by Jkn)
This is incomplete. The point of this question is to prove (or not assume) any non*/** theorems. 'Felix Felicis' produced a similar proof but deleted it when he realized that he had to prove the theorems.
To this end, we note that is monotonically increasing and by the mean value theorem, we have ; the conclusion follows.
(Original post by Jkn)
None of these verbal statements are sufficient for mathematical proof.
(Original post by Jkn)
Looks right, but you're going to need to include some more details.. I mean, who in their right mind could follow that without pen and paper?
The integral actually began as a conjecture in 2004 (though it was immediately solved since it's not that hard) but the mathematician who came up with it was unable to prove it!
Also, it is not true for all complex z so either you have made a mistake or that's another crucial point you have left out.
Yes, the result is true for ; that's why we need to take the limit, and not evaluate the integral directly, though there is a way of doing it. I used a standard result from the theory of the Riemann zeta function to evaluate the limit.
And, just by the way, if you think that you will always be able to read mathematical text without a pen and paper, then, I dare say, you are completely wrong. Moreover, when the author omits the details, that one who benefits is the reader.
(Original post by Jkn)
Some Galois Representations shows that ... you're going to either need to show your working or give the name of the theorem you are using. All you are essentially doing is telling us you can do it?
Sorry to sound like such a **** man, but if anyone besides you posted those solutions, people would probably think they didn't actually do it given the lack of detail.. also the satisfaction is reading someone's solution is in understanding something, or seeing how someone else did something.
I am going the have a dinner, and then I shall type the solution, which uses nothing more than some theory of Markov functions (The Theory of Analytic Functions by Markushevich is one of the best books on complex analysis).
Apropos, the book I am currently reading goes like this: Theorem 4.6 Proof: Exercise 6; and so on. The author leaves even the crucial theorems as exercises.. 
Smaug123
 Follow
 23 followers
 13 badges
 Send a private message to Smaug123
 PS Helper
 Study Helper
Offline13ReputationRep:PS HelperStudy Helper Follow
 2054
 30072013 21:18
(Original post by Jkn)
Sorry to sound like such a **** man, but if anyone besides you posted those solutions, people would probably think they didn't actually do it given the lack of detail.. also the satisfaction is reading someone's solution is in understanding something, or seeing how someone else did something.(Original post by Mladenov)
And, just by the way, if you think that you will always be able to read mathematical text without a pen and paper, then, I dare say, you are completely wrong. Moreover, when the author omits the details, that one who benefits is the reader. 
 Follow
 2055
 30072013 21:41

 Follow
 2056
 30072013 23:07
Don't want to clog up the thread:
Spoiler:Show(Original post by FireGarden)
CIT requires the contour to be within a domain where the function is holomorphic (ie, differentiable). is only differentiable at the origin! Though CIT isn't really even applicable here, anyway. It would only tell us (if the function were holomorphic) that its integral would simply be zero. With the ideas of poles within the region bound by the contours, we would then look to the residue theorem; somewhat of a generalisation of Cauchy's integral theorem.
The curve may be as pathological and windy as desired, as the only requirement is that the contour is smooth. Of course, the interpretation of "area" you get from such a curve isn't as straightforward as a simple curve, but then, the idea of "negative area" isn't new really  the same issue occurs for real integrals.
(Original post by henpen)
My solution was much more clunky, it involved doing the first summation (via the infinite series for cot), then the second after a closed form for the first as a function of m is reached.
I'm not familiar with the content of Fubini's theorem or its discrete analogue. Why were you able to swap summation order? It makes sense intuitively but I'd like to formalise it.
(Original post by Mladenov)
Well, we actually do not need this representation; I just came up with something else  integration by parts shows that , and so, . It remains to be shown that .
To this end, we note that is monotonically increasing and by the mean value theorem, we have ; the conclusion follows.
Ah but now you have to prove that theorem too..
I missed those steps, in which we change the order of integration, since they are easily justifiable. Also, to make it more clear, we can use a substitution in order to show the last line.
Yes, the result is true for ; that's why we need to take the limit, and not evaluate the integral directly, though there is a way of doing it. I used a standard result from the theory of the Riemann zeta function to evaluate the limit.
And, just by the way, if you think that you will always be able to read mathematical text without a pen and paper, then, I dare say, you are completely wrong. Moreover, when the author omits the details, that one who benefits is the reader.
Don't be that strict; I just thought, I could eschew some typing.
I am going the have a dinner, and then I shall type the solution, which uses nothing more than some theory of Markov functions (The Theory of Analytic Functions by Markushevich is one of the best books on complex analysis).
Apropos, the book I am currently reading goes like this: Theorem 4.6 Proof: Exercise 6; and so on. The author leaves even the crucial theorems as exercises..
Sounds pretty hardcore! You can only really do things like that once you've 'broken in' to a topic though. For me, I have found group/rings/fields resources that do that rather annoying as I am fairly new to it! Thankfully I have found some resource that have some worked examples which are helping me to start thinking about easing my way towards some nontrivial problems!
(Original post by Smaug123)
This is true for a textbook, or a paper, but not for a forum devoted to this kind of exercise, for which people would like to see working in order to follow a solution more easily. Especially since the ability and level of mathematical exposure varies wildly across the users of TSR.
Pretty much sums up why I made ASOM  for a more 'supportive'/'learningdirected' side to these community threads!
(Original post by MW24595)
Hot stuff, man.
Oh and thanks for those group theory resources you posted (somewhere?) a while ago! (I refer to them above^) Really need to update my resource library... 
Smaug123
 Follow
 23 followers
 13 badges
 Send a private message to Smaug123
 PS Helper
 Study Helper
Offline13ReputationRep:PS HelperStudy Helper Follow
 2057
 30072013 23:20
(Original post by Jkn)
Don't want to clog up the thread: 
 Follow
 2058
 30072013 23:33
Pretty much agree with what Smaug has said, I can't follow some of the solutions on here and I would say I have more maths experience (but not talent!) than most on TSR...

 Follow
 2059
 30072013 23:34
(Original post by Smaug123)
Hmm, a page with comments is actually a really bad design for a forum. It should be a directed graph  usually it would be a tree, although you could draw branches together in a single reply. You'd then be able to reply to a comment by creating a child node to it, and quote people by making the original post a parent. Then a single conversation could be tracked really easily  just follow the arrows, the firstcreated arrow first (that is, weight the arcs by when they were formed). 
Smaug123
 Follow
 23 followers
 13 badges
 Send a private message to Smaug123
 PS Helper
 Study Helper
Offline13ReputationRep:PS HelperStudy Helper Follow
 2060
 30072013 23:39
(Original post by Slumpy)
It sounds a lot like you want reddit
Reply
Submit reply
Related discussions:
 The Proof is 'notso' Trivial  Physics Edition
 Matrices: detA=0 > there exists a nontrivial solution to Ax=0 ...
 Slight ambiguity in STEP question
 Stuck on a proof!
 Maths Breakthroughs
 Is there a bottom line to what should be proven?
 Recursive unprovability
 Preparing for proofbased mathematics at university
 Progressing on to university proofbased mathematics
 Convergent sequence meromorphic function proof periods ...
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
 SherlockHolmes
 Notnek
 charco
 Mr M
 TSR Moderator
 Nirgilis
 usycool1
 Changing Skies
 James A
 rayquaza17
 RDKGames
 randdom
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 The Financier
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 Reality Check
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 LeCroissant
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Moltenmo
Updated: December 11, 2017
Share this discussion:
Tweet