You are Here: Home >< Maths

# The Proof is Trivial! Watch

1. Is applied mathematics allowed on here?
2. (Original post by rayquaza17)
Problem 494 ***

Evaluate:
for .

Sorry if it's been asked before.
Spoiler:
Show

The last bit of working is via two changes of variables; the first one on the second integral in the sum, via and the second change being on the second to last equality again, and then invoking Fourier Inversion, which is valid because both and are in .
3. (Original post by SParm)
Spoiler:
Show

The last bit of working is via two changes of variables; the first one on the second integral in the sum, via and the second change being on the second to last equality again, and then invoking Fourier Inversion, which is valid because both and are in .
Spoiler:
Show

I think your final answer is just missing a half at the end?
PS: Jeff Winger. <3

(Original post by Arieisit)
Is applied mathematics allowed on here?
Yeah. Maybe if it's some easy-ish applied maths I might be able to actually answer a question.
4. (Original post by rayquaza17)
Spoiler:
Show

I think your final answer is just missing a half at the end?
PS: Jeff Winger. <3

Yeah. Maybe if it's some easy-ish applied maths I might be able to actually answer a question.
Yeah sorry very possible I messed up by a factor of a half, won't be the first or last time.
5. Me looking through this thread
Attached Images

6. (Original post by ThatPerson)
From IMO 2013 Q1.

Problem 492**

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

After 15 hours, I have finally solved it... Finally...
Now I can do some revision haha
7. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
After 15 hours, I have finally solved it... Finally...
Now I can do some revision haha
Nice. Although I'm not sure if I should feel somewhat guilty for distracting you .
8. (Original post by ThatPerson)
Nice. Although I'm not sure if I should feel somewhat guilty for distracting you .
Haha, around 13 of those 15 hours were spent on the question a few weeks ago, so no worries.
9. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
After 15 hours, I have finally solved it... Finally...
Now I can do some revision haha
Proof or gtfo
10. (Original post by HeavisideDelts)
Proof or gtfo
Fine then (warning, slightly long and inelegant)

Spoiler:
Show

First note that we may write any in binary and also that:

Let denote the number of 1s when is written in binary, denote the number of 0s to the left of the furthest right 1 and denote the number of 0s to the right of the furthest right 1. Let us first take the case of .

We have:

has digits and let be the number of 0s after the second leftmost 1 in e.g. if and then and . Realise that

Let us first take the denominator of and the aim is to write a series of fractions that give where is an integer. This is achieved by the following algorithm:

Take all factors of 2 out of and call this number which is now odd. Let the first fraction on the RHS be and realise that is even. Repeat the algorithm for

From this, we see that the number of fractions needed until we reach is and

This is illustrated by use of an example:

After each fraction, the rightmost 0 becomes a 1 and then an extra fraction is needed to convert the last string of 1s into a power of 2 so fractions are needed (I hope this doesn't need too much justification). It should now be clear that the 'extra' powers of two generated by this series of fractions is equal to

We now deal with the numerator. Let and take out all factors of two resulting in which is odd. Now let the first fraction dealing with the numerator be

We now take all factors of two out of calling the new number which is odd and let the second fraction be

The number of fractions needed is simply the number of 1s in apart from the leftmost 1 (since that gives us a power of two) because each fraction gets rid of a 1 (from the on the denominator). The number of 1s in m (apart from the leftmost 1) is since we take off 1 from and the rightmost one in becomes a 0 and all 0s to the right of that become 1s. The 'extra' powers of two generated is simply the number of digits in m minus the leftmost one, but this time on the denominator so .

Putting the two together, we use fractions and get 'extra', but so we let the other fractions be getting rid of the .

We now look to the case of . We deal with the denominator first. Instead of getting to a power of two in the last fraction, we get to whichever digit we add to on the denominator (call this digit ) so that on the numerator, we have the correct digits to the left of . We now take the numerator and put it on the denominator of a new fraction, after multiplying by some power of 2 so that the end digit coincides with the next 1 to the right of (hard to explain, I'll provide an example below). We then carry on until we reach

E.g.

Let be the number of 1s to the right of in and be the number 0s to the right of but to the left of the rightmost 1 and let be the number of 0s to the right of the rightmost 1. We require fractions for the first stage (getting the denominator) and then for the second stage, we need fractions, i.e. a total of fractions. The powers of two generated from the two stages also cancel (from the first stage, we get and from the second, we get ) which completes the proof.

Bit of an inelegant solution, and also explained poorly at points.
11. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
Fine then (warning, slightly long and inelegant)

Spoiler:
Show

First note that we may write any in binary…

Niiiiice. Basically by induction on the binary expansion, I suppose, but you've gone and done a constructive proof.
12. (Original post by Smaug123)
Niiiiice. Basically by induction on the binary expansion, I suppose, but you've gone and done a constructive proof.
Yeah, induction would probably have made it easier, and less time consuming

There are hundreds of techniques when it comes to functional equations. It is annoying that there are no books on functional eqs; I could think of 1-2 really good for olympiad problems.

.
plz can you share them
the methods and techniques
im aweful
14. (Original post by demigawdz)
plz can you share them
the methods and techniques
im aweful
At and below BMO2 level, substitution is the main one. Sub in some values, see if you get any good relations, see if you can get any values for some f(x). At a higher level, check for injectivity and surjectivity (you may have to look on wikipedia if you don't know what these are). Functional equations also get more algebraic as they get harder, so then a set method doesn't really apply. Someone probably has better advice than this.
15. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
At and below BMO2 level, substitution is the main one. Sub in some values, see if you get any good relations, see if you can get any values for some f(x). At a higher level, check for injectivity and surjectivity (you may have to look on wikipedia if you don't know what these are). Functional equations also get more algebraic as they get harder, so then a set method doesn't really apply. Someone probably has better advice than this.
do you know whether for q 5 0 counts as being in the set of ''non negative integers'' as the positive integer sign means positive lol (which doesnt include 0)/
http://www.bmoc.maths.org/home/bmo1-2002.pdf
Thank you.
16. (Original post by demigawdz)
do you know whether for q 5 0 counts as being in the set of ''non negative integers'' as the positive integer sign means positive lol (which doesnt include 0)/
http://www.bmoc.maths.org/home/bmo1-2002.pdf
Thank you.
I would say 0 is in the set of non-negative integers.

But Wolfram Alpha disagrees with what they define as the non-negative integers: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NonnegativeInteger.html
17. (Original post by demigawdz)
do you know whether for q 5 0 counts as being in the set of ''non negative integers'' as the positive integer sign means positive lol (which doesnt include 0)/
http://www.bmoc.maths.org/home/bmo1-2002.pdf
Thank you.
0 is indeed in the set of non-negative integers, although I always thought that Z+ was the set of positive integers.
18. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
0 is indeed in the set of non-negative integers, although I always thought that Z+ was the set of positive integers.
precisely why i am confuzzled by this
19. (Original post by demigawdz)
precisely why i am confuzzled by this
In the question, I guess its the set of non-negative integers then.
20. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
In the question, I guess its the set of non-negative integers then.
im so aweful at maths i cannot even do this one.
lemme guess its probably an easy one

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

### Am I pregnant?

...or just paranoid?

### Have I ruined my eyebrows

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.