Perhaps you lack IMAGINAtion(Original post by metaltron)
I prefer to keep it real .

 Follow
 1941
 22072013 15:30

 Follow
 1942
 22072013 15:32
(Original post by Hasufel)
Problem 276
(simple one, really)
if which choice of both and make as large as posilble?
Consider quadratic equation as the equation has two real roots. and so the maximum value of the product occurs when "" (i.e. when the quadratic has equal roots). This tells us that the maximum value occurs at .
(I have assumed that the roots u and v are real, of course).
Another alternate solution:
Using AMGM, we know that We know that equality holds when from the property of the AMGM inequality. Edit: We must also note that u, v are positive and real etc.. which can be deduced both by reasoning and assumption.Last edited by Jkn; 22072013 at 16:02. 
 Follow
 1943
 22072013 15:40
Let:
Last edited by joostan; 07082013 at 11:06. Reason: Adding title 
 Follow
 1944
 22072013 15:44
(Original post by Jkn)
x
There are several nice little theorems and properties which will enable the last part to be done in seconds 
Arcane1729
 Follow
 10 followers
 4 badges
 Send a private message to Arcane1729
Offline4ReputationRep: Follow
 1945
 22072013 16:02
this bit 
 Follow
 1946
 22072013 16:07
(Original post by joostan)
As I'm sure you intended, the last part of Problem 271 is giving me a headache
There are several nice little theorems and properties which will enable the last part to be done in seconds
I take it you are referring to digamma representations? Your task now is to find either a proof of one of such representations, the hardest part being to link it with directly from the definition.
(Original post by nahomyemane778)
What do you call this method btw? where you have used a dummy variable and then replace it with the x because it doesnt matter what variable you use.
this bit 
 Follow
 1947
 22072013 16:09
(Original post by Jkn)
Indeed I did!
I take it you are referring to digamma representations? Your task now is to find either a proof of one of such representations, the hardest part being to link it with directly from the definition.
(Original post by nahomyemane778)
What do you call this method btw? where you have used a dummy variable and then replace it with the x because it doesnt matter what variable you use.
this bit
In general:
On occasion this is a good way to solve integralsLast edited by joostan; 22072013 at 16:11. 
Arcane1729
 Follow
 10 followers
 4 badges
 Send a private message to Arcane1729
Offline4ReputationRep: Follow
 1948
 22072013 16:13
(Original post by Jkn)
Indeed I did!
I take it you are referring to digamma representations? Your task now is to find either a proof of one of such representations, the hardest part being to link it with directly from the definition.
I like to think of it as 'limitflipping'. Everyone seems to think it is hard to spot when to use it but, once you have it in your toolbox, it's just like another other standard technique. 
 Follow
 1949
 22072013 16:16
(Original post by joostan)
Yep. . . The rest of the problem's fairly straightforward, I also found a couple of really nice papers on the Gamma, digamma and polygamma functions and from several of the properties I can prove it, but I can't prove the properties
Don't forget that it can also be very useful with summations and products (as the above formula applies in those cases too).
I find that with 'problems of substance', it tends to be a great way to start. Any problem that is trivialised by such a technique is certainly only of Alevel standard (for someone who has seen the technique before).
(Original post by nahomyemane778)
Its a really smart trick is it something that you either have learnt or havent or am i just not so bright i would never have thought to substitute u as x and replace it as x again with definite integralsLast edited by Jkn; 22072013 at 16:18. 
 Follow
 1950
 22072013 16:19
(Original post by Jkn)
Don't you just love saying 'papers'..
Don't forget that it can also be very useful with summations and products (as the above formula applies in those cases too).
(Original post by Jkn)
I find that with 'problems of substance', it tends to be a great way to start. Any problem that is trivialised by such a technique is certainly only of Alevel standard (for someone who has seen the technique before). 
Felix Felicis
 Follow
 31 followers
 13 badges
 Send a private message to Felix Felicis
Offline13ReputationRep: Follow
 1951
 22072013 16:27
Btw dude for problem 271 are we allowed to use the infinite product definition? I think I can see a solution with that
(Original post by Jkn)
Ikr! You're going to absolutely destroy at uni next year. Are you applying (or should I saying going) to Cambridge and, if so, which college?
Thanks man! I've got into the habit of extending everything now, it's so satisfying! I've fallen in love with Euler's reflection formula btw! I was messing about with the problem as I was trying to work through Mladenov's contour integration method, and then I though I would ass that to the mix. I then thought that I probably looked like a bit of a **** as I was bringing nothing new to the table and then realised that, whist repeated differentiation tends to be tedious, the Taylor's series was an awesome shortcut! We don't use Taylor's (or Laurent) series enough on this thread, perhaps you could dig up some fun questions?
Cheers but I felt like a bit of an idiot right after I finished as I realised that it was entirely unnecessary given the fact that all I had to do was use a trigonometric substitution to trivially evaluate the appropriate value of the Beta function (though I left it there as the digamma method of evaluating that integral was interesting in itself ). Incidentally, it was that precise integral that was the entirety of STEP II Q2 2013 (which makes it really satisfying that I found it of my own accord)
I'm looking forward to being taught how to evaluate the Gaussian next year I'll stroll up like "yeah I found like 10 ways to do this ever the summer "
Lol, at the rate you guys are going on the ASOM thread, I assume that's going to happen on a lot of classes
I hope we are not being too narrow by being obsessed with integration and special functions..
Oh, btw, if you liked some of those posts you might like the one I wrote about the EM constant (etc..) a few pages back on ASOM
I'll have a look around but I haven't been really keeping up to date with that thread :P 
 Follow
 1952
 22072013 16:44
(Original post by joostan)
Usually you can just look at a problem and tell whether or not it's useful. But I agree.
(Original post by Felix Felicis)
Btw dude for problem 271 are we allowed to use the infinite product definition? I think I can see a solution with that
Nah, I'm applying to Ox....joking
Of course I'm not 100% sure on which college yet but I've got a shortlist of: Pembroke, Clare, Kings and Emma.
I've still yet to get properly acquainted with Euler's reflection formula Maybe because I haven't done that many integrals involving the Beta/ Gamma functions yet Haha, I see! I'll try and have a look around for some Taylor series problems then Feel like a bit of a **** not having posted that many problems in a while
Ha, it's still a nice method and it doesn't involve all that polar coordinate jazz Yeah, I saw that on the STEP paper! Was nice seeing the Beta function pop up and it made for a sweet question
Certainly! I wrote a little note to the examiner about the wide applicability of what we had proven!
Lol, at the rate you guys are going on the ASOM thread, I assume that's going to happen on a lot of classes
I sometimes feel like I'm neglecting other areas of maths by spending too much time on integrals Then I remember how awesome they are Nah, seriously there are other areas of maths I wanna look and improve at over this summer (mainly to try and get to BMO2 next year)
I'll have a look around but I haven't been really keeping up to date with that thread :P
Good luck, if you don't get through, pay to go in! You're going to love it when you find itLast edited by Jkn; 22072013 at 16:48. 
 Follow
 1953
 22072013 16:50
(Original post by Jkn)
I disagree. There are also ones where you need to map and there was even one problem where I had to map to take it from [0,1] to [0,] which I thought was really hard to spot (though perhaps that's a slightly different thing as I am generalising to all problems that are susceptible to 'limits tricks'). I also remember another that invalid integrating or something like that over some limits that was easy to spot but didn't, at first, seem all that useful. 
Smaug123
 Follow
 23 followers
 13 badges
 Send a private message to Smaug123
 PS Helper
 Study Helper
Offline13ReputationRep:PS HelperStudy Helper Follow
 1954
 22072013 17:04
(Original post by Hasufel)
Problem 276
(simple one, really)
if which choice of both and make as large as posilble?
Spoiler:ShowWe wish to maximise subject to .
We construct .
Then represents the constraint, and we wish to maximise without constraints. (Then at a maximum of F, we have that the coefficient is 0, because is 0 at a maximum.)
Hence we find such that , etc. Hence ; ; and .
First two constraints give that ; substituting into the third constraint gives .

 Follow
 1955
 22072013 18:23
(Original post by Felix Felicis)
x
Pedantry: for the final limit you are correct but you seem unsure. To justify it, simplify appreciate that you can subtract the (n+1)th harmonic number without changing the sum.
The question asks that you link together 4 things. You have linked together 3. Whilst I accept that you may want to define the Gamma function differently, I can imagine that the way you would have evaluated the first integral (which I'm assuming seemed too trivial for you to need to type) would be from using the integral definition of the Gamma function.
You logically can chose whichever definition you want so long as, in any piece of mathematics, you adhere you only one definition. You, hence, must show that the product definition of the Gamma function is equivalent to the integral definition, or find a way to link the first integral using your new definition.
Have fun 
Felix Felicis
 Follow
 31 followers
 13 badges
 Send a private message to Felix Felicis
Offline13ReputationRep: Follow
 1956
 22072013 18:31
(Original post by Jkn)
Impressive stuff man, well done. Unofruntely for you, you are not quite finished.
Pedantry: for the final limit you are correct but you seem unsure. To justify it, simplify appreciate that you can subtract the (n+1)th harmonic number without changing the sum.
The question asks that you link together 4 things. You have linked together 3. Whilst I accept that you may want to define the Gamma function differently, I can imagine that the way you would have evaluated the first integral (which I'm assuming seemed too trivial for you to need to type) would be from using the integral definition of the Gamma function.
You logically can chose whichever definition you want so long as, in any piece of mathematics, you adhere you only one definition. You, hence, must show that the product definition of the Gamma function is equivalent to the integral definition, or find a way to link the first integral using your new definition.
Have fun 
 Follow
 1957
 22072013 19:06
(Original post by Felix Felicis)
Crap I'd been spending so much time trying to show I completely forgot about the original problem and there was an integral in it. Oh dear Hang on...
Omg, read this!
I starts off: "The Gamma function of Euler often is thought as the only function which interpolates the factorial numbers n! = 1,2,6,24,... This is far from being true".
Ohhhhh ****. 
 Follow
 1958
 23072013 02:04
PROBLEM 277
Derive (pardon the pun) a series representation, excluding the constant of integration, for:
(Hint: one way is to incorporate derivatives into your answer)Last edited by Hasufel; 23072013 at 02:33. 
bogstandardname
 Follow
 2 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to bogstandardname
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 1959
 23072013 13:43
(Original post by Hasufel)
PROBLEM 277
Derive (pardon the pun) a series representation, excluding the constant of integration, for:
(Hint: one way is to incorporate derivatives into your answer) 
 Follow
 1960
 23072013 14:00
Problem 278***
Evaluate for .
Comment also on what happens when and .
Problem 279*/**
Evalute
Problem 280*
Prove that for .
(Original post by peter12345)
x
Problem 281*
Find an infinite series representation for and involving nontrancendental numbers (ignoring, of course, the possible transcendence of x). A transcendental number is a number that cannot be expressed as the root of a polynomial equation with integer coefficients.
Problem 282**
Prove or disprove the statement that is convergent. If the integral is convergent, what value does it converge to?
Problem 283***
Prove that , where denotes a 'Ramanujan Summation' (a technique used by Srinivasa Ramanujan to assign meaningful values to divergent series).
Hence, or otherwise, comment humorously upon the reaction of English professors that he sent letters to that included such series (without specification that they were 'Ramanujan Summations', as they are now known).
Problem 284*/**/***
Evaluate
Problem 285**/***
Find, with proof, , where we define the half derivative to be the unique operator such that where denotes the differential operator.
Verify also, by applying this operation twice, that your relation is consistent with .
Problem 286***
Evaluate
Can the result be easily generalised in any interesting way? If so, provide proof of your assertions.Last edited by Jkn; 23072013 at 14:33. Reason: Adding problems
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