You are Here: Home >< Maths

# The Proof is Trivial! Watch

1. (Original post by atsruser)
Would you like to expand on that a bit? Not sure I see where the partial fractions and geometric series will arise. (Though if you can end up with a series in that will be very useful)
Sorry for the late reply! I've seen the method used in a similar problem before, I'll look it up and link it. :-)

http://math.stackexchange.com/questi...osnx5-4-cosxdx
2. (Original post by Zacken)
Sorry for the late reply! I've seen the method used in a similar problem before, I'll look it up and link it. :-)

http://math.stackexchange.com/questi...osnx5-4-cosxdx
That's a pretty nice approach. In fact, it relies on a similar technique to that I used in Problem 540. I'll put up a solution to that tonight.
3. (Original post by atsruser)
That's a pretty nice approach. In fact, it relies on a similar technique to that I used in Problem 540. I'll put up a solution to that tonight.
Yeah, I thought it was nice - personally find it better than complex residues method (especially because I haven't learnt those yet and they're out of my reach for the moment. )
4. (Original post by Zacken)
Sorry for the late reply! I've seen the method used in a similar problem before, I'll look it up and link it. :-)

http://math.stackexchange.com/questi...osnx5-4-cosxdx
Damn, that's the method that I personally used to do it, though I now know that it's a special case of a more general result.

For this the "traditional method" is messy and life's too short. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, I'll post that solution as an alternative once atsruser has done the honours
5. (Original post by Indeterminate)
Damn, that's the method that I personally used to do it, though I now know that it's a special case of a more general result.

For this the "traditional method" is messy and life's too short. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, I'll post that solution as an alternative once atsruser has done the honours
I guess by doing the honours you mean post my solution to problem 544? If so, I'm happy to do that, but in fact I meant that I was going to post a solution to my problem 540, which seems to have stumped everyone. I'll do yours first though.
6. (Original post by atsruser)
I guess by doing the honours you mean post my solution to problem 544? If so, I'm happy to do that, but in fact I meant that I was going to post a solution to my problem 540, which seems to have stumped everyone. I'll do yours first though.

By all means do 540 first. Meanwhile I'll get the ugly solution to 544 of the way. You can do the neat one when you have time
7. (Original post by Indeterminate)

By all means do 540 first. Meanwhile I'll get the ugly solution to 544 of the way. You can do the neat one when you have time
Err, which is the ugly solution? The contour integral? If so, I've already started typing it up, but if you're going to do so, I'll save the effort.
8. (Original post by atsruser)
Err, which is the ugly solution? The contour integral? If so, I've already started typing it up, but if you're going to do so, I'll save the effort.
Yeah that one. I wouldn't want to impose it on anyone other than myself
9. (Original post by Indeterminate)
Problem 544***

Show that

Solution:
Spoiler:
Show

Let and let

Then

and

So on the unit circle (i.e. when ), we can write

This says that on the unit circle, the expression on the RHS is purely real, with values as given by the LHS. Since traverses the unit circle, we can write:

where is the unit circle.

By the Residue Theorem, .

Now and writing we see that has a pole of order 3 at and a pole of order 1 at , with the other pole being outside the unit circle, so irrelevant here.

We have:

as can easily be shown if you can be bothered with the tedium. I plugged the second one into Wolfram. (Sue me)

Hence

QED.

10. This will either be trivial or reasonably tricky.

Problem 545***

Take . Show that for some the set of reals mapped to has cardinality of the continuum.
11. (Original post by Lord of the Flies)
This will either be trivial or reasonably tricky.

Problem 545***

Take . Show that for some the set of reals mapped to has cardinality of the continuum.
Here's an attempt.

Spoiler:
Show

Assume that for all , the preimage is countable. Then the domain of is the union of all preimages of its range, which is a countable union of countable sets, so countable. Hence the cardinality of is not the cardinality of , and we have a contradiction. Hence for some , has the cardinality of .
12. (Original post by atsruser)
Here's an attempt.
Spoiler:
Show

Assume that for all , the preimage is countable. Then the domain of is the union of all preimages of its range, which is a countable union of countable sets, so countable. Hence the cardinality of is not the cardinality of , and we have a contradiction. Hence for some , has the cardinality of .
I think you're assuming the continuum hypothesis there you should replace "countable" with "of cardinality less than the continuum" throughout (except in "countable union of", which remains true).
13. (Original post by atsruser)
...
As above. Getting around this apparent issue is the point of the question.
14. (Original post by atsruser)
Problem 540 (**/***)

a) Show that:

stating any conditions that must hold for this to be valid.

b) Find the value of

(Hints available if necessary)
Spoiler:
Show

a) First note that we can factorise the denominator of the integrand:

which we can solve to find:

So

with

so that

Now for we have:

Hence (1)

But since

then on multiplying both sides of (1) by , we have:

for

I stole this approach from an example in "Visual Complex Analysis".

b) The obvious choice here is , but the integral is only defined for . However, take and we see that:

15. (Original post by Smaug123)
I think you're assuming the continuum hypothesis there you should replace "countable" with "of cardinality less than the continuum" throughout (except in "countable union of", which remains true).
That's a good point. Do you think that argument works with that change? I haven't done this kind of stuff in so many years that I'm unable to tell if something subtle will go wrong.
16. (Original post by atsruser)
Solution:
Spoiler:
Show

Let and let

Then

and

So on the unit circle (i.e. when ), we can write

This says that on the unit circle, the expression on the RHS is purely real, with values as given by the LHS. Since traverses the unit circle, we can write:

where is the unit circle.

By the Residue Theorem, .

Now and writing we see that has a pole of order 3 at and a pole of order 1 at , with the other pole being outside the unit circle, so irrelevant here.

We have:

as can easily be shown if you can be bothered with the tedium. I plugged the second one into Wolfram. (Sue me)

Hence

QED.

Nicely done, and I don't blame you for that second residue

Besides finding the second derivative, another way of calculating it would involve considering a small circle around the origin. The residue would then be the coefficient of in the expansion of

but that's hardly mess-free
17. Problem 546 (*/**)

Evaluate
18. (Original post by atsruser)
Problem 546 (*/**)

Evaluate
A level methods possible or no? I don't want to be wasting time doing a uni question hehe.

Posted from TSR Mobile
19. (Original post by physicsmaths)
A level methods possible or no? I don't want to be wasting time doing a uni question hehe.
Yes. None of that fancy college kid integral stuff here - just good ol' plain home integration, just like Mama used to do.

It's an easyish STEP level question, I would guess.
20. (Original post by atsruser)
Yes. None of that fancy college kid integral stuff here - just good ol' plain home integration, just like Mama used to do.

It's an easyish STEP level question, I would guess.
Kl, I'm guessing a reduction formula then maybe evaluate it all the way to. I_0, do I really have to use latex can't I just post a pic of a solution?

Posted from TSR Mobile

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.