You are Here: Home >< Maths

# The Proof is Trivial! Watch

1. (Original post by james22)
You haven't actually given such an f that works yet, but you did the hard bit.
such that when is rational and when is irrational works right?
2. (Original post by 0x2a)
such that when is rational and when is irrational works right?
No, but it does if you replace rational and irrational by the sets you defined.
3. (Original post by james22)
No, but it does if you replace rational and irrational by the sets you defined.
Oh woops, apparently I don't understand periodicity.

I'll just set when is algebraic, and create some bijection between and , and if , then .

I guess this one doesn't even work, periodicity can't be defined for some right?
4. (Original post by 0x2a)
Oh woops, apparently I don't understand periodicity.

I'll just set when is algebraic, and create some bijection between and , and if , then .

I guess this one doesn't even work, periodicity can't be defined for some right?
Looking over your proof again, it isn't obvious how it leads to a function with uncountably many periods. You haven't got any additive properties in there which are essential.
5. Problem 490**

6. (Original post by ThatPerson)
Problem 490**

By IBP, letting , we arrive at:

But since is symmetric .

Then the integral evaluates to . Which is absolutely beautiful.
7. (Original post by Zacken)

By IBP, letting , we arrive at:

But since is symmetric .

Then the integral evaluates to . Which is absolutely beautiful.
Nice method
8. (Original post by ThatPerson)
Nice method
Thanks!

I think you can use the substitution as well to evaluate the integral.

Also, we could have used to evaluate the integral. We were asked to prove this in a past STEP paper, if I remember correctly.
9. (Original post by Zacken)
Thanks!

I think you can use the substitution as well to evaluate the integral.

Also, we could have used to evaluate the integral. We were asked to prove this in a past STEP paper, if I remember correctly.
Yeah that's the approach I took.
10. Problem 491:**

The enthusiasts amongst you may recognize this:
Let: be a sequence of positive real numbers such that:
converges.
Show that:
is convergent. And the converse?
11. (Original post by joostan)
Problem 491:**

The enthusiasts amongst you may recognize this:
Let: be a sequence of positive real numbers such that:
converges.
Show that:
is convergent. And the converse?
Can you use the ratio test to show that the ratio must be less than or equal to 1 for the first part?
12. (Original post by 0x2a)
Can you use the ratio test to show that the ratio must be less than or equal to 1 for the first part?
What if the ratio test is inconclusive?
13. (Original post by james22)
What if the ratio test is inconclusive?
Can that be covered by the = 1 part? My logic was that if the ratio was bigger than 1 then it must diverge, so it must be less than or equal to 1?

Ah of course, it can fail to exist right?
14. (Original post by 0x2a)
Can that be covered by the = 1 part? My logic was that if the ratio was bigger than 1 then it must diverge, so it must be less than or equal to 1?

Ah of course, it can fail to exist right?
It can fail to exist, but also if the limit of is 1, we can only say that the limit of x_(n+1)/x_n is 1 (if it exists), and if the ratio test gives an answer of 1 you cannot say anything about convergence or divergence.
15. (Original post by 0x2a)
Can you use the ratio test to show that the ratio must be less than or equal to 1 for the first part?
Perhaps, it is however not absolutely necessary.
16. (Original post by james22)
It can fail to exist, but also if the limit of is 1, we can only say that the limit of x_(n+1)/x_n is 1 (if it exists), and if the ratio test gives an answer of 1 you cannot say anything about convergence or divergence.
So something like and so doesn't work since the limits of and are the same?
17. (Original post by 0x2a)
So something like and so doesn't work since the limits of and are the same?
Limits don't have to respect strong inequalities, so those can become after taking the limit.
18. From IMO 2013 Q1.

Problem 492**

Prove that for any pair of positive integers and , there exist positive integers (not necessarily different) such that

19. Problem 493***

Let denote the Riemann-Zeta function in the usual way, for complex

Prove that, for ,

20. Problem 494 ***

Evaluate:
for .

Sorry if it's been asked before.

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.