You are Here: Home >< Maths

# The Proof is Trivial! Watch

1. (Original post by james22)
How can you evaluate that integral though?
Doesn't seem impossible, right? It's e^z around the unit semicircle. Currently practically asleep, though, so I might be talking nonsense.
2. (Original post by james22)
How can you evaluate that integral though?
Spoiler:
Show

DUTIS
Spoiler:
Show

3. (Original post by Smaug123)
Doesn't seem impossible, right? It's e^z around the unit semicircle. Currently practically asleep, though, so I might be talking nonsense.
Surely then the integral would be 0 (no poles), which is not correct?

(I haven't done contour integrals in over a year btw.)
4. (Original post by james22)
Surely then the integral would be 0 (no poles), which is not correct?

(I haven't done contour integrals in over a year btw.)
It's e^z around the unit semicircle, which isn't a closed loop. We just need to evaluate the integral along the x-axis to complete the semicircular closed contour: . OK, I've definitely got something horribly wrong :P
5. (Original post by Noble.)
I can't be bothered to dig out some of my notes, so this may not be rigorous:
Nice, I also got it into exponential form but didn't think writing it as a sum would lead anywhere
6. (Original post by Smaug123)
It's e^z around the unit semicircle, which isn't a closed loop. We just need to evaluate the integral along the x-axis to complete the semicircular closed contour: . OK, I've definitely got something horribly wrong :P
The answer is not real, and that integral is real, so something has gone very wrong. I cannot see waht though which is really worrying because I should be pretty good at complex analysis.
7. Solution 483

This is an elementary solution to the problem (here meaning not using complex analysis). For full disclosure, I used ThatPerson's hint.

Spoiler:
Show

As in the previous problem (482) it is good to use symmetry; in this case the limits suggestion a substitution of the form . Applying this and multiplying out denominators, we obtain:

Re-labelling the variable and adding these two expressions together cancels out a lot of horrible stuff, yielding:

The integrand is even, and so we reduce to:

Using De Moivre's theorem twice, we can rewrite this as:

We solve this new integral as follows. Let:

Solving this differential equation and applying the easy boundary condition , we obtain:

Where ] is an imaginary function we are not interested in (though an explicit form can be found via DUTIS if we so desire).

And so our final answer is .

8. (Original post by DJMayes)
Solution 483

This is an elementary solution to the problem (here meaning not using complex analysis). For full disclosure, I used ThatPerson's hint.

Spoiler:
Show

As in the previous problem (482) it is good to use symmetry; in this case the limits suggestion a substitution of the form . Applying this and multiplying out denominators, we obtain:

Re-labelling the variable and adding these two expressions together cancels out a lot of horrible stuff, yielding:

The integrand is even, and so we reduce to:

Using De Moivre's theorem twice, we can rewrite this as:

We solve this new integral as follows. Let:

Solving this differential equation and applying the easy boundary condition , we obtain:

And so our final answer is .

I'm not sure that
Spoiler:
Show
. I got a different answer for that part, though it doesn't affect the end since we're only interested in the real part.

Also, apparently this was set in a Cambridge exam over a hundred years ago:

Problem 484**

9. (Original post by ThatPerson)
I'm not sure that
Spoiler:
Show
. I got a different answer for that part, though it doesn't affect the end since we're only interested in the real part.

Also, apparently this was set in a Cambridge exam over a hundred years ago:

Problem 484**

Good call; I was being very careless with my constants. Will fix that.
10. (Original post by Flauta)
Is it
Spoiler:
Show
?

I'll type up my "solution" tomorrow if I'm right, I've only done a little probability though so the chances are I'm far off.
Indeed it is
11. (Original post by ThatPerson)
I'm not sure that
Spoiler:
Show
. I got a different answer for that part, though it doesn't affect the end since we're only interested in the real part.

Also, apparently this was set in a Cambridge exam over a hundred years ago:

Problem 484**

Spoiler:
Show
0. This answer looks slightly dubious, however I cannot see any error with my method. My 0 arises from
12. (Original post by newblood)

Spoiler:
Show
0. This answer looks slightly dubious, however I cannot see any error with my method. My 0 arises from
Spoiler:
Show
13. (Original post by ThatPerson)
Spoiler:
Show
In which case, that's a neat little integral
14. (Original post by newblood)
Problem 480 ** (not much probability theory in A-Level)

Let be i.i.d r.v's with uniform distribution on .

Determine a unique value, , such that iff [latex] a< \Delta
Solution 480

There's another method involving how the arithmetic and geometric means are related
Attached Images

15. (Original post by jjpneed1)
Pretty average tbh

Problem 471
Determine all sets of non-negative integers and that satisfy .

Problem 472
Evaluate

Last ones for a while now while I sit some tasty exams, gl on that integral, good job if someone gets it out before exams finish
Just was looking back a few pages and saw 472. Does that integral have a nice answer? I plugged it into Mathematica and the indefinite integral is horrific.

Edit: Surprisingly, I'm making some progress

Spoiler:
Show

Edit #2 The answer actually seems to be . I made a mistake earlier when simplifying.
16. Problem 485**

Prove that every open set on the real line is the union of a finite or countable system of pairwise disjoint open intervals, where we regard as open intervals.
17. (Original post by ThatPerson)
Just was looking back a few pages and saw 472. Does that integral have a nice answer? I plugged it into Mathematica and the indefinite integral is horrific.

Edit: Surprisingly, I'm making some progress

Spoiler:
Show

I've hit a dead-end for now. Though I believe the answer is , which makes me suspect series or the zeta function is involved as that expression is equal to .
Honesty I can't remember the answer, I think it's something like that though.
18. (Original post by 0x2a)
Problem 485**

Prove that every open set on the real line is the union of a finite or countable system of pairwise disjoint open intervals, where we regard as open intervals.
Solution 485

Spoiler:
Show

Let . Then by definition such that . Given this, we can easily construct a (possibly uncountable) set of open intervals, the union of which is G:

Now, we take this set and construct a new one by the following method: If two intervals are not disjoint, then their union is an interval; take this union in all possible cases. The result is a set of pairwise disjoint open intervals equal to our set. It remains to prove that this set is countable; to do this we note that our set of intervals injects into the rationals and we are done.

This questions feels very simple if you know the expected content but due to that I am wary I may have made a mistake here somewhere.

19. (Original post by 0x2a)
Problem 485**

Prove that every open set on the real line is the union of a finite or countable system of pairwise disjoint open intervals, where we regard as open intervals.
For each , but a rational in the same path connected component as (existance is obvious from the definition of openness). For each let be such that but (existance comes from being open). We then have countable many open intervals, and they clearly cover all of
20. (Original post by DJMayes)
Solution 485

Spoiler:
Show

Let . Then by definition such that . Given this, we can easily construct a (possibly uncountable) set of open intervals, the union of which is G:

Now, we take this set and construct a new one by the following method: If two intervals are not disjoint, then their union is an interval; take this union in all possible cases. The result is a set of pairwise disjoint open intervals equal to our set. It remains to prove that this set is countable; to do this we note that our set of intervals injects into the rationals and we are done.

This questions feels very simple if you know the expected content but due to that I am wary I may have made a mistake here somewhere.

I'm not sure about this, since you seem to be trying to perform uncountably many operations. I think it needs more justification to be correct.

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:
Updated: December 11, 2017
Today on TSR

### Falling in love with him

But we haven't even met!

### Top study tips for over the Christmas holidays

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.