Well, the last question posted by Mladenov could be attemped by an Alevel student.. (Though establishing the inequality between the 2nd and 3rd terms has got me in a bind at the moment! 1 < 2 and 1 < 3 were actually very easy (and im hoping the one im stuck on doesnt have an obvious solution im not missing though I don't think so, due to the three stars). Everyone could give the two subquestion inequalities i just outlined a go!(Original post by DJMayes)
I find it telling how the OP hasn't submitted a solution since about question 50, and we're now past question 120. This thread stopped being interesting (Or even accessible) for the vast majority of people quite a long time ago and now it seems very much to just be a battle of wits between Mladenov and Lord of the Flies.
(If this comes across as jealous, then that's probably because it is  I'd love to be able to even attempt the questions that are being thrown around lately! Unfortunately, the questions that are being thrown out are aimed at a very small audience indeed and just looking at the list in the OP it's very easy to see. It reminds me very strongly of what the STEP thread was like before Christmas.)

FireGarden
 Follow
 6 followers
 3 badges
 Send a private message to FireGarden
Offline3ReputationRep: Follow
 841
 05052013 19:32

ukdragon37
 Follow
 25 followers
 12 badges
 Send a private message to ukdragon37
Offline12ReputationRep: Follow
 842
 05052013 19:43
(Original post by shamika)
LOL! At least you could stick my curve into Wolfram Alpha easily (which is what I was intending )
What is it? 
 Follow
 843
 05052013 20:07
(Original post by FireGarden)
Well, the last question posted by Mladenov could be attemped by an Alevel student.. (Though establishing the inequality between the 2nd and 3rd terms has got me in a bind at the moment! 1 < 2 and 1 < 3 were actually very easy (and im hoping the one im stuck on doesnt have an obvious solution im not missing though I don't think so, due to the three stars). Everyone could give the two subquestion inequalities i just outlined a go! 
 Follow
 844
 05052013 20:23

Dirac Spinor
 Follow
 2 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to Dirac Spinor
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 845
 05052013 22:10

jack.hadamard
 Follow
 0 followers
 1 badge
 Send a private message to jack.hadamard
Offline1ReputationRep: Follow
 846
 05052013 22:27
Problem 127 *
Two cards are chosen (randomly, without replacement) from a standard deck (52). Find the probability that
i) both cards are aces given that at least one ace is chosen
ii) both cards are aces given that the ace of spades is chosen
and comment on your answers. 
jack.hadamard
 Follow
 0 followers
 1 badge
 Send a private message to jack.hadamard
Offline1ReputationRep: Follow
 847
 05052013 22:41
(Original post by Mladenov)
Problem 44***
Let be a polynomial with coefficients in . Suppose that , where is a prime number. Suppose also that is irreducible over . Then there exists a prime number such that does not divide for any integer .

 Follow
 848
 05052013 22:41
(Original post by DJMayes)
However, the questions on here for the most part stopped being accessible a long time ago. 
natninja
 Follow
 38 followers
 20 badges
 Send a private message to natninja
 Community Assistant
Offline20ReputationRep:Community Assistant Follow
 849
 05052013 22:50
Problem 127**/***
Undergrads, you should be able to do this easily so give Alevel people a go :P
Prove analytically that the area under the curve E^(x^2)=sqrt(pi) 
 Follow
 850
 05052013 23:12
Solution 127
The probability that both cards are aces is . The probability that at least one card is an ace is .
Bayes gives .
For ii) we have three possibilities such that one of the aces is spade. Hence the probability that two cards are aces and one is the ace of spades is . The probability that one of the cards is the ace of spades and the oder is random is .
Again we use Bayes formula to obtain .
(Original post by jack.hadamard)
Assume for all primes there exists such that . Hence is reducible in for all primes . By Chebotarev's density theorem (and a fair bit of kung fu), this implies that is reducible in ; thus a contradiction.
By the way, I found this result, when I was trying to prove a special case of it, and after annoying attempts to solve my problem using cyclotomic polynomials, I decided to employ Chebotarev's theorem.
Edit: For the sake of completeness, I would like to add that we can use Chebotarev's density theorem to show that there are many primes which satisfy the condition. In other words, we look for those primes for which the degree of the splitting field of over is .
What do you think about the case when , where .
(Original post by bensmith)
Problem 126
Last edited by Mladenov; 06052013 at 01:35. 
bananarama2
 Follow
 12 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to bananarama2
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 851
 05052013 23:13
(Original post by natninja)
Problem 127**/***
Undergrads, you should be able to do this easily so give Alevel people a go :P
Prove analytically that the area under the curve E^(x^2)=sqrt(pi)
Polar.
and the result follows.Last edited by bananarama2; 05052013 at 23:16. 
natninja
 Follow
 38 followers
 20 badges
 Send a private message to natninja
 Community Assistant
Offline20ReputationRep:Community Assistant Follow
 852
 05052013 23:32
(Original post by bananarama2)
Solution 127
Problem 129 **
Show that:
y1=(1/k)*integral [0,x] f(x')sinh{k(xx')} dx'
Is a particular solution to the second order differential equation:
y''(k^2)y=f(x) 
 Follow
 853
 05052013 23:50
Nice proof btw, did you come up with it yourself? (As opposed to having seen it derived before) 
bananarama2
 Follow
 12 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to bananarama2
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 854
 05052013 23:55
(Original post by Jkn)
How did you do this step? Where did the theta go? And where do the new limits keep coming from?
Nice proof btw, did you come up with it yourself? (As opposed to having seen it derived before)
Unfortunately not, well sort of. It was hinted at in a question I did once. (Kinda like a STEP questions I suppose) 
 Follow
 855
 06052013 00:07
(Original post by bananarama2)
I just integrated respects to theta. The new limits are because the range of r in polar coords is from 0 to infinity and the range of theta is 0 to 2pi. I just integrating over .
Unfortunately not, well sort of. It was hinted at in a question I did once. (Kinda like a STEP questions I suppose)
But why is it valid to say the total range of values in polar coordinates is exactly equivalent to the range in cartesian coordinates? You need some sort of formal derivation of these limits or a rigorous reason as to why this is a valid deduction.
Haha fair enough Were you originally going to apply to do maths then?
I've been trying to come up with a solution of my own. I got as far as using repeated applications of integration by parts to equate it to multiplied by an infinite polynomial with coefficients in a welldefined (but complicated!) pattern. Now it gets a bit trickier. The Maclaurin's expansion doesn't seem to help. The only thing that seems promising is to consider the possible convergence of terms in the form which is pretty tricky!
Any ideas?Last edited by Jkn; 06052013 at 00:09. 
 Follow
 856
 06052013 00:14

bananarama2
 Follow
 12 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to bananarama2
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 857
 06052013 00:17
(Original post by natninja)
Very good, it's a rather neat trick imo :P
Problem 129 **
Show that:
y1=(1/k)*integral [0,x] f(x')sinh{k(xx')} dx'
Is a particular solution to the second order differential equation:
y''(k^2)y=f(x)
SO

bananarama2
 Follow
 12 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to bananarama2
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 858
 06052013 00:23
(Original post by Jkn)
Ohhhh I see I thought you had integrated with respect to the one on the left
But why is it valid to say the total range of values in polar coordinates is exactly equivalent to the range in cartesian coordinates? You need some sort of formal derivation of these limits or a rigorous reason as to why this is a valid deduction.
Haha fair enough Were you originally going to apply to do maths then?
I've been trying to come up with a solution of my own. I got as far as using repeated applications of integration by parts to equate it to multiplied by an infinite polynomial with coefficients in a welldefined (but complicated!) pattern. Now it gets a bit trickier. The Maclaurin's expansion doesn't seem to help. The only thing that seems promising is to consider the possible convergence of terms in the form which is pretty tricky!
Any ideas?
I don't at the minute, give me a few minutes.Last edited by bananarama2; 06052013 at 00:30. 
 Follow
 859
 06052013 00:39
(Original post by bananarama2)
Rigorous? I'm a Natsci Well I don't see the need for it here. I'm just evaluating the integral over all possible coords in the xy plane. I don't think I understand you problem?
Well why is it that the cartesian domain translates exactly to and in each parameter of the polar plane respectively? You must derive them using the standard techniques for variablechanging substitutions. You've plucked the limits out of nowhere without thought as to the size of each numerical set. For example: when substituting , in order to ensure you don't have , which is nonsense, you would have to split the limit exactly into two halves. This means you now have a "2" and the fact this cancels out is merely fortunate as per the elegance of the final result, rather than being an immediate deduction (though there might be an obvious way to deduce it that I'm missing ...)
I don't at the minute, give me a few minutes.
Edit: wait.... "integrating over R squared"?! How/why have you learnt this already? ;o Why have you been doing STEP then? And how good are you at the questions?Last edited by Jkn; 06052013 at 00:58. 
 Follow
 860
 06052013 00:43
As you want another proof for problem 128, try to prove the following result:
Problem 130*
.
Then note that is even.Last edited by Mladenov; 06052013 at 09:39.
Reply
Submit reply
Related discussions:
 The Proof is 'notso' Trivial  Physics Edition
 Matrices: detA=0 > there exists a nontrivial solution to Ax=0 ...
 Stuck on a proof!
 Slight ambiguity in STEP question
 Maths Breakthroughs
 Is there a bottom line to what should be proven?
 Recursive unprovability
 Preparing for proofbased mathematics at university
 Progressing on to university proofbased mathematics
 Convergent sequence meromorphic function proof periods ...
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:
 SherlockHolmes
 Notnek
 charco
 Mr M
 TSR Moderator
 Nirgilis
 usycool1
 Changing Skies
 James A
 rayquaza17
 RDKGames
 randdom
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 The Financier
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 Reality Check
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 LeCroissant
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Moltenmo
Updated: December 11, 2017
Share this discussion:
Tweet