You are Here: Home >< Maths

The Proof is Trivial! Watch

1. (Original post by joostan)
Problem 530: */**
Let be arbitrary constants.
Find all possible values of:
Solution 530
Spoiler:
Show
We prove that .

Lemma: If then for some positive .
Proof: Multiply out.

We note that for each of the four terms in , the numerator is smaller than the denominator, so we can have
.

This is achieved as we let .

We now prove that .
By CS,

Then
.

This is achieved as we let

Thus

2. Problem 531: */**

Give a geometrical argument to show that, if , then

3. (Original post by Zacken)
Is the denominator of b/etc correct?
Nope
Will edit, thanks
Though someone seems to have corrected me to solve it.
4. Problem 532 */**

Define a sequence by , , for n = 3, 4, 5,...

Prove that the simultaneous equations

Have no unique solutions.

Comment on Problem 529

Nice joostan. In addition to "brute forcing" it there is a trick, which I wondered if anybody would get.
5. Solution 525

Spoiler:
Show

Observe that

So, by partial summation, we have

Now we introduce the subscript f to denote "fractional part of"

Thus we see that

since the final integral can be bounded as

Hence we get the final result with an error term of , which the second term also contributes to.

By the way, is the Euler-Mascheroni constant.

6. Solution 532

Without loss of generality, let .
The inequality is strict as they cannot be equal as that would mean two of the simultaneous equations are equivalent so we would have no unique solution.

We aim to show that a linear combination of the first simultaneous equation and the second gives you the third simultaneous equation, as if that is the case then we only have 2 equations and 3 variables so there would be no unique solution.

There is such a linear combination if there exists such that

as by adding those two equations you get

By using the idea of adding equations again, we can see by repeated addition of the equations

we get the condition for the linear combination.

and so we have shown the linear combination exists which in turn means there is no unique solution to the set of simultaneous equations.
7. (Original post by 16Characters....)
Problem 532 */**

Comment on Problem 529

Nice joostan. In addition to "brute forcing" it there is a trick, which I wondered if anybody would get.
Well the other way I saw you could do it is:

Hence:

But it didn't really seem worth it.
8. Problem 533 *

Consider a rectangle with sides of length (x, y, x, y). Find a quadratic equation satisfied by x and y and hence prove that

Where S and A are the semiperimeter and area of the rectangle respectively.
9. (Original post by 16Characters....)
Problem 533 *

Consider a rectangle with sides of length (x, y, x, y). Find a quadratic equation satisfied by x and y and hence prove that

Where S and A are the semiperimeter and area of the rectangle respectively.
Solution 533

Not really sure what the quadratic I want to find is, but we have

Then
by AM-GM so
10. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
Solution 533
I only included about finding a quadratic as a starting point since that provides a C1-level method without the need for AM-GM or anything fancy like that.
Spoiler:
Show

The quadratic in question is which is easily obtained by writing is a quadratic satisfied by x,y and expanding (or alternatively using properties of roots from FPx modules).

The discriminant then gives the desired inequality, once it is remembered S, A are both non-negative so
11. (Original post by 16Characters....)
I only included about finding a quadratic as a starting point since that provides a C1-level method without the need for AM-GM or anything fancy like that.
Spoiler:
Show

The quadratic in question is which is easily obtained by writing is a quadratic satisfied by x,y and expanding (or alternatively using properties of roots from FPx modules).

The discriminant then gives the desired inequality, once it is remembered S, A are both non-negative so
Ah, fair enough. I could have just said that but it's quicker to just say by AMGM.
12. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
Ah, fair enough. I could have just said that but it's quicker to just say by AMGM.
Yes I realised that also when reading your solution. I hadn't thought of that whilst writing the question :-)
13. Problem 534

Prove that, , if is odd, then is a strictly increasing function on
14. (Original post by Indeterminate)
Problem 534
Can I assume that f is continuous or will I have to prove that also?
15. (Original post by 16Characters....)
Can I assume that f is continuous or will I have to prove that also?
Yes, you may assume that f is continuous (that's a triviality imo).
16. Solution 534

Not an undergraduate so never formally studied any analysis-y stuff so please tell me if this is insufficient.
Spoiler:
Show

Since with n an odd natural number then . Since n is odd then n-1 is even so can be written as for some non-negative integer r. Hence

For real x, is real. The square of a positive real number is always postive hence with equality occuring only when . Hence for , is strictly increasing since f is continuous.

When , . For x infinitesimally larger then 0 so the function is still strictly increasing at this point.

Hence f is strictly increasing over the reals.
17. Problem 535

Find all positive integers n such that n divides (n-1)!

Posted from TSR Mobile
18. Problem 536

Can an irrational number to the power of an irrational number be rational?

Posted from TSR Mobile
19. Solution 536:

We want to find irrational and such that is rational. Consider , if that is rational, we are done with .

If not, take and , then and we are done.
20. (Original post by Krollo)
Problem 535

Find all positive integers n such that n divides (n-1)!

Posted from TSR Mobile
Solution 535

We find all integers n that do not divide (n-1)!
Suppose the highest power of a prime that divides is . Then there are at least multiples of that are less than .
Suppose that and then we claim that . This is clearly true for and the induction is trivial. If then we have for . If , then the only for which is not divisible by 4 and is . Thus, divides for .We will now assume that .
Thus if the power of any prime in the prime factorisation of is not 1, then is divisible by this power of the prime. We may now suppose that for .
Suppose , then there exist at least multiples of that are less than . Thus divides , and it follows that divides . If , then clearly does not divide , so our solutions are all the integers that are not prime or 4.

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: January 5, 2018
Today on TSR

Can it be done?

Give feedback to Cambridge here

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

Make your revision easier

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

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

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