You are Here: Home >< Maths

# The Proof is Trivial! Watch

1. (Original post by Smaug123)
Because the is just a dummy variable - you'll get exactly the same result whether you integrate or .
original question says
[/tex] or

Then after some substitution

But because you said variable irrelevant with definite

You can add.. left with integral of 1/x^2 +1 wich gives result of pi/2

But if you sub in u=-x though should get

if you replace the u you get

How can you add this now- the substitution has got you nowhere( from this perspective) I know I am wrong but i just dont get this
2. (Original post by nahomyemane778)
original question says
[/tex] or

Then after some substitution

But because you said variable irrelevant with definite

You can add.. left with integral of 1/x^2 +1 wich gives result of pi/2

But if you sub in u=-x though should get

if you replace the u you get

How can you add this now- the substitution has got you nowhere( from this perspective) I know I am wrong but i just dont get this
The original I has a 1+stuff on the top, the equivalent, but rearanged I, has a 1-stuff on the top. When you add these together the stuff cancels out and you are left with 1/something.
3. (Original post by james22)
The original I has a 1+stuff on the top, the equivalent, but rearanged I, has a 1-stuff on the top. When you add these together the stuff cancels out and you are left with 1/something.
but when you substitute you dont get 1-stuff you get stuff-1 on top
because you did u=-x so du/dx=-1 so you must multiply by -1 and you
get stuff-1 not 1-stuff so when you add the numerator does not simplify
4. (Original post by nahomyemane778)
but when you substitute you dont get 1-stuff you get stuff-1 on top
because you did u=-x so du/dx=-1 so you must multiply by -1 and you
get stuff-1 not 1-stuff so when you add the numerator does not simplify
You have forgotten that during the course of the substitution, you also changed the limits of integration from {-1,1} to {1,-1}. It takes an extra minus sign to flip them back round.
EDIT: Oh, sorry, that makes three minus signs - I confess that I misunderstood your question when you asked (I thought it was just asking why you could relabel u as x), so I didn't check the integral. It is true that the integral of from -1 to 1 is , while the integral of from -1 to 1 is .
5. (Original post by Smaug123)
You have forgotten that during the course of the substitution, you also changed the limits of integration from {-1,1} to {1,-1}. It takes an extra minus sign to flip them back round.
Oh my goodness me. I finally understand thank you! .
What a genius trick then- how do people think of this kind of stuff?
6. (Original post by nahomyemane778)
Oh my goodness me. I finally understand thank you! .
What a genius trick then- how do people think of this kind of stuff?
Practice, and by noticing that almost none of the function cares about whether x is negative or positive. Also divine inspiration, I think… but it's a fairly common pattern: "make a substitution to get the negative of the original", it happens in a variety of trig contexts.
7. (Original post by james22)
Assume, for a contradiction, that is a prime. Using the inequality we can immediately deduce that

Therefore (otherwise we have found 2 factors, contradicting the fact that is prime).

The equation then reduces to

which we can rearange then make use of the inequalities given to show that

which is a contradiction as required.
Omg, sorry dude, it turns out there was a typo, no idea how I misread it over and over again!

I was driving myself mad trying to find an error
8. (Original post by Jkn)
Omg, sorry dude, it turns out there was a typo, no idea how I misread it over and over again!

I was driving myself mad trying to find an error
No problem, I thought it was a bit easy.
9. (Original post by james22)
No problem, I thought it was a bit easy.
Mm, what happened is that I misread it, solved it quickly (like you did) but then got really confused considering how absolutely insane this question is supposed to be. Kind of annoyed I looked at the solution though, would have been nice to see if I would have known where to start
10. Problem 264**

Find all
11. Solution 264

Where n is an integer.
12. Let's see who can think of some nice shortcuts.

Problem 265**

Is the following matrix singular?

13. (Original post by FireGarden)
Let's see who can think of some nice shortcuts.

Problem 265**

Is the following matrix singular?

Spoiler:
Show

No, it's not. Take the matrix mod 2, and find the determinant of that - it turns out to be -1, as can easily be seen by expanding around the first row and then the last row. Therefore, the determinant of the matrix is odd.
14. (Original post by FireGarden)
Let's see who can think of some nice shortcuts.

Problem 265**

Is the following matrix singular?

No, as it has determinent
15. (Original post by james22)
No, as it has determinent
*Engineers solution
16. (Original post by bananarama2)
*Engineers solution
I disagree, I tihnk a sign of a true mathematician is one who can reduce a problem to one that he knows he can solve. In this case I reduced the problem to finding the determinent with the assistance of a computer. Why make things more difficult than needed?
17. Solution 265

If you divide every row in the matrix by the leading number in the corresponding row, (1st row divided by leading number in the first row, etc) then, every number in the first column is 1 (EDIT)

This is relatively easy to put into row echelon form. (in reduced row-echelon form, it`s the 4x4 identity matrix!)

Take the trace of the resulting upper diagonal matrix, which is non-zero, so the matrix is non-singular.

(OR: perform row operations until the first column is (1,0,0,0) then use co-factor expansion along the first column)
18. (Original post by Smaug123)
Spoiler:
Show

No, it's not. Take the matrix mod 2, and find the determinant of that - it turns out to be -1, as can easily be seen by expanding around the first row and then the last row. Therefore, the determinant of the matrix is odd.
The very solution i had in mind
19. Now I'm going to be a **** head and post something I think not even LotF will evaluate without a lot of head scratching. The solution I have is only using knowledge from A level.. but I doubt it'll be used. It has a nice answer, too.

Problem 266***

Evaluate
20. (Original post by FireGarden)
Now I'm going to be a **** head and post something I think not even LotF will evaluate without a lot of head scratching. The solution I have is only using knowledge from A level.. but I doubt it'll be used. It has a nice answer, too.

Problem 266***

Evaluate
This only needs A level knowledge to do it?

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

### 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