Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home >< Maths

Trinity Admissions Test Solutions watch

1. is paper 3 getting done?

Posted from TSR Mobile
2. (Original post by physicsmaths)
is paper 3 getting done?

Posted from TSR Mobile
At some point. I'll start now in fact...

Paper 3, Q5

Hint
Spoiler:
Show

Consider parity (even/odd). What can we apply it to?

Solution
Spoiler:
Show

Initially, the sum of all the cards is 5050 (from arithmetic series formula), which is even.

Suppose the two cards you choose are even. Then their sum is even, and their difference is even. The sum of all cards thus remains even.

Suppose they are both odd. Then their sum is even, and their difference is even. The sum of all cards thus remains even.

Suppose one is even and one is odd. Then their sum is odd, and their difference is odd. The sum of all cards thus remains even.

Thus the sum of all cards will always remain even, which remains true when a single card remains. That card must hence be even.

Posted from TSR Mobile
3. Paper 3 Q3 Solution
Spoiler:
Show

These are the hyperbolic trig functions, and it is simple to show that

We will use this fact below.

4. (Original post by atsruser)
Some further thoughts (I don't have a complete solution):

Spoiler:
Show

1. I think that the no-motion condition should be

2. If we write down the equations of motion we get:

with corresponding solutions:

with

~ snip ~

So I don't know what to make of this at all. The solutions to the equations of motion don't seem to match what we "know" must be happening; the only explanation that I can see at the moment is that intuitively I'm wrong, and that over every half cycle we get SHM, but somehow we can make an argument the the "constants" A,B must change at the end of every half-cycle, or something like that.
You're pretty much there,

Spoiler:
Show
The part of your answer I've emphasized is exactly what's going on here. Basically when the particle is moving in the "+ve direction" it's performing SHM about the point x = -F/k, when it's moving in the -ve direction it's performing SHM about the point x = +F/k. At the points where it's still, you need to switch between the two, and so both "versions" of the motion need to agree when . Which means that the amplitude must decrease by 2F/k at each reversal of direction (until you get to where the block stops moving).
5. Paper 3 Question 1:
Spoiler:
Show
Proof by picture seems to be the best way to go, without any fancy expressions for the function.
A quick sketch should show that:
.
We can compute the integral:

Also from the sketch we see that:

Hence:

Observing that gives the result:

Paper 3 Question 2:
Spoiler:
Show

Let

Paper 3 Question 6:
Spoiler:
Show
False.
In decimal expansion, an digit number may be written as:

Let for some .
Then:
.
Certainly then, we have digits .
Hence if we have a square number with more than digits .
6. Test 3, Question 7:
Thanks to Krollo for this solution.

Hints:
Spoiler:
Show
Multiply by and ponder over the similarity of both sides of the inequality.
Solution:
Spoiler:
Show
By multiplying both sides by we get .

We are also given that , so labelling our inequality reduces to .

So what we really need to find is such that is increasing. This is easy, enough, we need only find such that , which is easy enough, we can divide through by again and re-write as which yields:

, so .

7. (Original post by DFranklin)
You're pretty much there,

Spoiler:
Show
The part of your answer I've emphasized is exactly what's going on here. Basically when the particle is moving in the "+ve direction" it's performing SHM about the point x = -F/k, when it's moving in the -ve direction it's performing SHM about the point x = +F/k. At the points where it's still, you need to switch between the two, and so both "versions" of the motion need to agree when . Which means that the amplitude must decrease by 2F/k at each reversal of direction (until you get to where the block stops moving).
Yes, thanks for this. I've gone through this in detail now, and I've got a complete solution, I think. This is a pretty interesting result, and I can see why I was baffled last night (I didn't take the equations seriously enough and tried to rely on my intuition - my intuition was wrong).

So, in full:

Spoiler:
Show

1. The no-motion condition is

2. The equations of motion are:

with corresponding solutions:

with . These solutions can be found by an easy CF+PI approach.

Now let so that the particle is travelling to the left, and let at

So

(and a similar argument will give us that later on)

So we have and

So for , we have

At the end of the first half-cycle:

so the negative excursion is less than the original amplitude,

When the velocity instantaneously becomes +ve at , we have , and by continuity of , we have:

so for the second half-cycle, where , we have

When ,

so in the 2nd half-cycle, the positive excursion is less than the previous negative excursion, and by setting a new , we can see that this pattern over the two half-cycles will repeat.

3. Discussion

a) Since , the frequency of the motion is the same as that of the SHM that would arise without the frictional force.

b) The total motion differs from that of damped SHM (with friction proportional to velocity) in that the amplitudes decrease by a constant amount on every half-cycle, as opposed to exponentially. However, the motion over each half-cycle is SHM, which we can see for the first half-cycle by setting , which gives us:

with . This is SHM with amplitude about the point as measured on the x-axis. Note that the loss of energy due to friction manifests itself as a reduction in the amplitude as compared to the SHM without friction (which would be a constant ), but does not affect the frequency of the motion.

c) At some point, the initial displacement at the end of movement to the left or right will fall below , and the motion will cease.

8. (Original post by atsruser)
Yes, thanks for this. I've gone through this in detail now, and I've got a complete solution, I think. This is a pretty interesting result, and I can see why I was baffled last night (I didn't take the equations seriously enough and tried to rely on my intuition - my intuition was wrong).

So, in full:

Spoiler:
Show

1. The no-motion condition is

2. The equations of motion are:

with corresponding solutions:

with . These solutions can be found by an easy CF+PI approach.

Now let so that the particle is travelling to the left, and let at

So

(and a similar argument will give us that )

So we have and

So for , we have

At the end of the first half-cycle:

so the negative excursion is less than the original amplitude,

When the velocity instantaneously becomes +ve at , we have , and by continuity of , we have:

so for the second half-cycle, where , we have

When ,

so in the 2nd half-cycle, the positive excursion is less than the previous negative excursion, and by setting a new , we can see that this pattern over the two half-cycles will repeat.

3. Discussion

a) Since , the frequency of the motion is the same as that of the SHM that would arise without the frictional force.

b) The total motion differs from that of damped SHM (with friction proportional to velocity) in that the amplitudes decrease by a constant amount on every half-cycle, as opposed to exponentially. However, the motion over each half-cycle is SHM, which we can see for the first half-cycle by setting , which gives us:

with . This is SHM with amplitude about the point as measured on the x-axis. Note that the loss of energy due to friction manifests itself as a reduction in the amplitude as compared to the SHM without friction (which would be a constant ), but does not affect the frequency of the motion.

c) At some point, the initial displacement at the end of movement to the left or right will fall below , and the motion will cease.

Yes all looks good.

One thing I'll add:

If you're doing mechanics and have something like:

, if you write u = x-A/k, you find

.

That is, looking at u immediately shows we have SHM about u = 0.

I don't know that it's objectively "better" than solving via CF+PI, but to me it shows more clearly what's going on.
9. (Original post by DFranklin)
Yes all looks good.

One thing I'll add:

If you're doing mechanics and have something like:

, if you write u = x-A/k, you find

.

That is, looking at u immediately shows we have SHM about u = 0.

I don't know that it's objectively "better" than solving via CF+PI, but to me it shows more clearly what's going on.
Yes, I think that tends to crop up in questions where you have a weight hung from an spring vertically and you extend the system from its equilibrium point. It's objectively *quicker* than CF+PI, for sure, but it didn't occur to me immediately last night when I first wrote it up - still, it's just as well to demonstrate a variety of approaches, I guess.
10. Paper 3, Question 10

Hint
Spoiler:
Show

Momentum is conserved, but energy isn't.

Solution
Spoiler:
Show

Suppose we model the dust cloud as a number of stationary particles, each of mass m.

Initially the ship has speed U and mass M. Over its journey, its total momentum remains at MU by conservation of momentum.

So as it hits the nth dust particle, the momentum conservation equation is

MU = (M+nm)V.

So when the speed of the ship is halved, V = U/2. It follows that nm = M.

So the total mass of the dust that the ship collides with is M, and hence M=p*d*A where d is the distance travelled.

So d = M/pa.

(As mentioned earlier in the thread, we can also approach this as a single collision with a dust cloud of mass m, which I believe gives the same answer. I have no idea which, if either, is more correct...)

Latex to come soon, as always.

Posted from TSR Mobile
11. Why aren't people touching the probability ones? What about paper 4 (from Krollo's interview prep thread?)
12. (Original post by shamika)
Why aren't people touching the probability ones? What about paper 4 (from Krollo's interview prep thread?)

I can't do any of them unfortunately and I think some people, especially those who can do them easily, have no need to come to this thread so they just aren't being done. If you have any you would like to do please go ahead it would be a big help

I'll add Paper 4 now.
13. (Original post by Jordan\)

I can't do any of them unfortunately and I think some people, especially those who can do them easily, have no need to come to this thread so they just aren't being done. If you have any you would like to do please go ahead it would be a big help

I'll add Paper 4 now.
Shotgun all the non probability ones

Posted from TSR Mobile
14. (Original post by Krollo)
Shotgun all the non probability ones

Posted from TSR Mobile
Go ahead mate If I could do any of the others I would have them done already
15. Test 4 question 1

Hint
Spoiler:
Show

When you need to approximate a probability p think about how you might approximate firstly lnp. Can you work back from there?

Solution
Spoiler:
Show

If the probability of one bond winning is 1/14000, then the probability of it not winning is 13999/14000. So the probability of at least one winning is 1-(13999/14000)^14000, evidently not 1.

We need to approximate (13999/14000)^14000. Take natural log of it, giving 14000ln(1-1/14000) req 14000 * -1/14000 req -1 by the taylor expansion.

So the probability required is about 1 - e^-1 req 0.63.

Posted from TSR Mobile
16. I've got Question 2 if you haven't done it already actually
17. (Original post by Jordan\)
I've got Question 2 if you haven't done it already actually
Go for it :-)

Posted from TSR Mobile
18. Test 4 Question 2

@Jordan\ Whoops sorry I had not seen your above post as I was typing this.

Hint:
Spoiler:
Show

I do not know how to hint this without giving it away, other than by saying that the Cayley-Hamilton will come in handy, and to follow the hint in the question.

Solution:
Spoiler:
Show

The characteristic equation for this matrix is and hence by the Cayley-Hamilton Theorem:
(*) where I is the 2x2 identity matrix.

Playing around with a few small numerical values of k suggests the relationship:
which can be seen to be true for k = 2 in (*).

Assuming true for k = r we get that .
Multiplying by A:

So if it is true for k = r it is true for k = r+1. Hence it is true for all by induction.

Therefore

19. (Original post by 16Characters....)
Test 4 Question 2

Jordan Whoops sorry I had not seen your above post as I was typing this.

Hint:

Spoiler:
Show

I do not know how to hint this without giving it away, other than by saying that the Cayley-Hamilton will come in handy, and to follow the hint in the question.

Solution:
Spoiler:
Show

The characteristic equation for this matrix is and hence by the Cayley-Hamilton Theorem:
(*) where I is the 2x2 identity matrix.

Playing around with a few small numerical values of k suggests the relationship:
which can be seen to be true for k = 2 in (*).

Assuming true for k = r we get that . Multiplying by A:
so if it is true for k = r it is true for k = r+1. Hence it is true for all by induction.

Therefore

(Original post by Jordan\)
Paper 4 Question 2

Hint
Spoiler:
Show
Do the first few powers of A and notice a pattern.

Solution
Spoiler:
Show

Hence

Two pleasingly different solutions. What maths is all about, perhaps

Posted from TSR Mobile
20. (Original post by Krollo)
Two pleasingly different solutions. What maths is all about, perhaps

Posted from TSR Mobile
I agree.

Definitely keep both solutions anyway, it will be good to have some alternatives.

Turn on thread page Beta
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: November 18, 2017
Today on TSR

Are you living on a tight budget at uni?

From budgets to cutbacks...

University open days

1. University of Cambridge
Wed, 26 Sep '18
2. Norwich University of the Arts
Fri, 28 Sep '18
3. Edge Hill University
Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
Sat, 29 Sep '18
Poll
Useful resources

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