Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now

Analysis (Tripos Question) Help Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad.../PaperIA_1.pdf

    Hi, I need help on 9F) iii) and the last part of 11E)

    For 9F) iii) I tried the ratio test, I can't think of any other test which would work and I think I for the last part of 11 E) I need an auxiliary function, I tried f(x) = g(x + 1/n ) - g(x) , it doesn't quite give me the result.

    Thanks for any help in advance.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    For 9F (iii): You should be able to see the terms behave like \dfrac{1}{n} for large n. So you're expecting it to diverge. Since you're expecting it to diverge, the way forwards is to show that for large n the numerator is > kn^3 for some constant k, and the denominator is < Kn^4 for some other constant N. Then it diverges by the comparison test.

    For 11F, that function should work. Show (by contradiction), that there must be an integer k with 0 <= k < n and f(k/n)f((k+1)/n) < 0.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Alternatively for 11F, consider  \sum_{r=0}^{n-1} f(\frac{r}{n}) . Directly you can then see that f(r/n)=0 for each r or at least one is positive and at least one is negative.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalNumber)
    Alternatively for 11F, consider  \sum_{r=0}^{n-1} f(\frac{r}{n}) . Directly you can then see that f(r/n)=0 for each r or at least one is positive and at least one is negative.
    Yeah, that's what I meant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    Yeah, that's what I meant.
    Sorry, to be honest, I couldn't see how to use your hint (it looks like a product).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    For 9F (iii): You should be able to see the terms behave like \dfrac{1}{n} for large n. So you're expecting it to diverge. Since you're expecting it to diverge, the way forwards is to show that for large n the numerator is > kn^3 for some constant k, and the denominator is < Kn^4 for some other constant N. Then it diverges by the comparison test.

    For 11F, that function should work. Show (by contradiction), that there must be an integer k with 0 <= k < n and f(k/n)f((k+1)/n) < 0.

    (Original post by IrrationalNumber)
    Alternatively for 11F, consider  \sum_{r=0}^{n-1} f(\frac{r}{n}) . Directly you can then see that f(r/n)=0 for each r or at least one is positive and at least one is negative.
    Thanks that worked.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalNumber)
    Sorry, to be honest, I couldn't see how to use your hint (it looks like a product).
    f(a)f(b)<0 is just a "lazy" way of writing "one of f(a), f(b) is negative and one positive". I should have considered the equality case though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalNumber)
    Alternatively for 11F, consider  \sum_{r=0}^{n-1} f(\frac{r}{n}) . Directly you can then see that f(r/n)=0 for each r or at least one is positive and at least one is negative.

    Very cute solution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    f(a)f(b)<0 is just a "lazy" way of writing "one of f(a), f(b) is negative and one positive". I should have considered the equality case though.
    For the first part of the question is one supposed to prove the Intermediate Value Theorem? Question 12 starts with "Prove Rolle's Theorem" which is clear but I am not sure what to do here.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by worriedParnt)
    For the first part of the question is one supposed to prove the Intermediate Value Theorem? Question 12 starts with "Prove Rolle's Theorem" which is clear but I am not sure what to do here.
    The first part of Q11 is essentially saying "prove the intermediate value theorem", except it's the special case where the intermediate value is 0 (which simplifies notation). So if you really want to then you could prove the full IVT, but it's not necessary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nuodai)
    The first part of Q11 is essentially saying "prove the intermediate value theorem", except it's the special case where the intermediate value is 0 (which simplifies notation). So if you really want to then you could prove the full IVT, but it's not necessary.
    Thanks very much
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about Results Day?
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.