You are Here: Home >< Maths

# A Summer of Maths (ASoM) 2016 Watch

Announcements
1. (Original post by drandy76)
Natural numbers are the counting numbers, ( the non negative and non-zero integers ) whole numbers are just integers AFAIK

Posted from TSR Mobile
The natural numbers are the positive integers. Some people include 0, others don't. Whole numbers are the same thing. I don't think you can include negatives in the whole numbers so that's where the whole numbers differ from the integers.
2. (Original post by krishdesai7)
Or are both conventions followed by different people?
This. Some people think that whole numbers are numbers without a fractional part, hence making them equivalent to the integers. Others think they are non-negative integers. Others think they are positive integers. Mathematicians tend not to use the word "whole numbers" for that very precise reason, and instead use phrases like "non-negative integers", "non-positive integers", "integers", "positive integers", etc...

Some of the notation/terminology in maths just makes me shake my head, like the whole domain/co-domain/range thing and the whole being the pre-image, but using inverse notation. Fun tymes.
3. I propose that mathmos must carry a pen and pad everywhere, so that any verbally ambiguous/ awkward terms can be expressed using notation( thereby abandoning, whole/natural numbers etc)

Posted from TSR Mobile
4. (Original post by Zacken)

Some of the notation/terminology in maths just makes me shake my head, like the whole domain/co-domain/range thing and the whole being the pre-image, but using inverse notation. Fun tymes.
Yeah lol. I spend so much time trying to figure out what exactly the difference between co-domain and range is before I finally gave up.
5. What's the expected method for Q8 pg 29 in the beardon book? : " Show that for some integer m, in . Deduce that 7 divides ".

I just checked a couple of m values and pretty easy to see it works for m=6. So then I said (mod 7) so . Is there a more general way without having to specifically work out m?
6. (Original post by krishdesai7)
Yeah lol. I spend so much time trying to figure out what exactly the difference between co-domain and range is before I finally gave up.
Ooooh, get used to it, there's a lot of that coming your way Got to have coimages and kernels and cokernels yet!
7. (Original post by EnglishMuon)
What's the expected method for Q8 pg 29 in the beardon book? : " Show that for some integer m, in . Deduce that 7 divides ".

I just checked a couple of m values and pretty easy to see it works for m=6. So then I said (mod 7) so . Is there a more general way without having to specifically work out m?
Just FLT.

Posted from TSR Mobile
8. (Original post by physicsmaths)
Just FLT.

Posted from TSR Mobile
oh yea lol for the first bit
9. (Original post by EnglishMuon)
What's the expected method for Q8 pg 29 in the beardon book? : " Show that for some integer m, in . Deduce that 7 divides ".

I just checked a couple of m values and pretty easy to see it works for m=6. So then I said (mod 7) so . Is there a more general way without having to specifically work out m?
I don't see this as being too different from any expected method tbh

Posted from TSR Mobile
10. (Original post by drandy76)
I don't see this as being too different from any expected method tbh

Posted from TSR Mobile
kk, thanks. Sometimes I just have no idea if im being really dumb as its feels strange not to check every solution you do against some ms
11. (Original post by EnglishMuon)
kk, thanks. Sometimes I just have no idea if im being really dumb as its feels strange not to check every solution you do against some ms
I've started to implement a mental checklist, if at every stage I can feasibly follow my working without any undue assumptions, I can be reasonably convinced that my solution is correct

Posted from TSR Mobile
12. Is that a typo on q6 page 41 of Beardon? In mine it says az+ (b bar) z but i think its meant to say az + b (z bar)
13. (Original post by Gregorius)
Ooooh, get used to it, there's a lot of that coming your way Got to have coimages and kernels and cokernels yet!
Oh god no. Why you do this to me. This is downright torture. Aren't kernels bad enough that one must throw cokernals at me too.
14. Aren't kernels the popcorn thing.
One thing i learnt from edexcel physics. Qed.

Posted from TSR Mobile
15. (Original post by physicsmaths)
Aren't kernels the popcorn thing.
One thing i learnt from edexcel physics. Qed.

Posted from TSR Mobile
nah m8, ur thinking of potato batteries. kernels are wat k is for in kfc.
16. (Original post by physicsmaths)
Aren't kernels the popcorn thing.
One thing i learnt from edexcel physics. Qed.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Yeah kernels are the popcorn thing. But they're the nice kernels. (Don't judge me but I actually like eating them from the bottom of the popcorn bowl) But no; the kernals I've been talking about are the members of the input (domain?) that map to zero under a given transformation. At least that's what I've understood. It's also very plausible that I'm really stupid and Dr Cowley was in fact talking about the popcorn thing
17. (Original post by EnglishMuon)
nah m8, ur thinking of potato batteries. kernels are wat k is for in kfc.
Close but not quite, Kernel is the guy who started Kfc, the K stands for Kool

Posted from TSR Mobile
18. Um guys, could I have a bit of help with this question?

Beardon book page 11, EX 1.3, Q5
Suppose that the permutation ρ of {1,...,n} satisfies . Show that ρ is a product of 3-cycles, and deduce that if n is not divisible by 3 then ρ fixes some k in {1,...,n}
19. (Original post by krishdesai7)
Um guys, could I have a bit of help with this question?

Beardon book page 11, EX 1.3, Q5
Suppose that the permutation ρ of {1,...,n} satisfies . Show that ρ is a product of 3-cycles, and deduce that if n is not divisible by 3 then ρ fixes some k in {1,...,n}
Think about the orbit decomposition of any permutation, e.g. why can't we have 2 cycles or 4+ cycles in this case? Also remember that 1-cycles fix elements so by definition any power of one cycles is the identity so they don't effect anything.

Further hint:
Spoiler:
Show
Recall that an n-cycle, , to the power of n is the identity
20. (Original post by EnglishMuon)
Think about the orbit decomposition of any permutation, e.g. why can't we have 2 cycles or 4+ cycles in this case? Also remember that 1-cycles fix elements so by definition any power of one cycles is the identity so they don't effect anything.

Further hint:
Spoiler:
Show
Recall that an n-cycle, , to the power of n is the identity
Thanks I wasn't thinkijg of it in terms of orbit decompositions, so that's where I got stuck

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: September 28, 2016
Today on TSR

### What does it take to get into Oxbridge?

These personal statements cracked the code.

### Have I wasted my time at uni?

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.