dw

Lunch_Box
 Follow
 3 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Lunch_Box
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 1
 31032013 17:27
Last edited by Lunch_Box; 05062013 at 14:21. 
Revision help in partnership with Birmingham City University

claret_n_blue
 Follow
 0 followers
 16 badges
 Send a private message to claret_n_blue
Offline16ReputationRep: Follow
 2
 31032013 17:33
If your summation formula is in your formula book, I think this is fine. The examiner will know that you have just used the formula from your book and taken this legal short cut (as opposed to just stating it from memory).
What I would have a problem with is that you've not shown me that factorises to . It looks like you've just assumed it because the question says it, its not really an easy factorisation to notice lol. I would say you would need to show how you have factorised this, but using the formula to get to this stage is fine. 
Lunch_Box
 Follow
 3 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Lunch_Box
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 3
 31032013 17:34
(Original post by claret_n_blue)
What I would have a problem with is that you've not shown me that factorises to . I would say you would need to show how you have factorised this, but using the formula to get to this stage is fine. 
Indeterminate
 Follow
 162 followers
 3 badges
 Send a private message to Indeterminate
 Political Ambassador
Offline3ReputationRep:Political Ambassador Follow
 4
 31032013 17:35
(Original post by Lunch_Box)
I am asked to prove the following:
Am I simply allowed to do this step after using the summation formulae and conclude that it is true?
... or does the examiner expect me to include the intermediate steps?

 Follow
 5
 31032013 17:37
(Original post by claret_n_blue)
If your summation formula is in your formula book, I think this is fine. The examiner will know that you have just used the formula from your book and taken this legal short cut (as opposed to just stating it from memory).
What I would have a problem with is that you've not shown me that factorises to . It looks like you've just assumed it because the question says it, its not really an easy factorisation to notice lol. I would say you would need to show how you have factorised this, but using the formula to get to this stage is fine. 
Lunch_Box
 Follow
 3 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Lunch_Box
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 6
 31032013 17:38
(Original post by Indeterminate)
Since it's a proof, you should really include all the steps you take.

claret_n_blue
 Follow
 0 followers
 16 badges
 Send a private message to claret_n_blue
Offline16ReputationRep: Follow
 7
 31032013 17:40
(Original post by Lunch_Box)
Yeah that's what I was worried about. I'm not too confident when trying to factorise cubics, so would expanding out the step I am trying to get to and comparing with my unfactorised bracket suffice?
Seeing as your doing FP1, I assume you know how to factorise cubics yeah? 
claret_n_blue
 Follow
 0 followers
 16 badges
 Send a private message to claret_n_blue
Offline16ReputationRep: Follow
 8
 31032013 17:41
(Original post by UKBrah)
Would it be fine to look at the given expression, looking for linear factors, dividing getting the quadratic and then factor that from there? 
Lunch_Box
 Follow
 3 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Lunch_Box
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 9
 31032013 17:42
(Original post by claret_n_blue)
Seeing as your doing FP1, I assume you know how to factorise cubics yeah? 
Indeterminate
 Follow
 162 followers
 3 badges
 Send a private message to Indeterminate
 Political Ambassador
Offline3ReputationRep:Political Ambassador Follow
 10
 31032013 17:45
(Original post by UKBrah)
Would it be fine to look at the given expression, looking for linear factors, dividing getting the quadratic and then factor that from there?
In FP1 proofs by induction, you often need to simplify complex expressions, but all of this can easily be done without use of the factor theorem/long division. 
NiceToMeetYou
 Follow
 2 followers
 1 badge
 Send a private message to NiceToMeetYou
Offline1ReputationRep: Follow
 11
 31032013 17:45
(Original post by Lunch_Box)
Nope. Not part of my course (Edexcel) I don't believe. I'll learn how to now then.
If not you'll certainly come across it in C3 
 Follow
 12
 31032013 17:45
(Original post by claret_n_blue)
To factorise? Yeah, thats fine. You've shown that you've not just guessed what the answer is, but how to get to the answer.
While im at it, if you get a question on the sum from r = 1 to 2n like would it simply be the sum to r = 1 to n but with 2n instead of n? If so why? 
Lunch_Box
 Follow
 3 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Lunch_Box
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 13
 31032013 17:47
(Original post by UKBrah)
Thanks.
While im at it, if you get a question on the sum from r = 1 to 2n like would it simply be the sum to r = 1 to n but with 2n instead of n? If so why?
(Original post by NiceToMeetYou)
Is factor theorem not in C2?
If not you'll certainly come across it in C3
And in C1 cubics show up but you can always take a factor of x outside. 
 Follow
 14
 31032013 17:47
(Original post by Indeterminate)
That would all be a bit unnecessary, but you could do it like that.
In FP1 proofs by induction, you often need to simplify complex expressions, but all of this can easily be done without use of the factor theorem/long division. 
NiceToMeetYou
 Follow
 2 followers
 1 badge
 Send a private message to NiceToMeetYou
Offline1ReputationRep: Follow
 15
 31032013 17:49
(Original post by Lunch_Box)
Use the formulae in the data booklet and replace n with 2n
Yes factor theorem is in C2, but at a very basic level where they always give you a solution, unlike in this.
And in C1 cubics show up but you can always take a factor of x outside. 
claret_n_blue
 Follow
 0 followers
 16 badges
 Send a private message to claret_n_blue
Offline16ReputationRep: Follow
 16
 31032013 17:51
(Original post by Lunch_Box)
Nope. Not part of my course (Edexcel) I don't believe. I'll learn how to now then.
1) By trial and error, you find a solution such that your function is 0. So let's say you have some function, f(x). You want to find a value for x, such that f(x) = 0.
This is normally just done by guessing, but they tend to make the numbers easy for this. So you would really just try like x = ±1, ±2, ±3 and so on. You wouldn't need to go too far until you find your solution.
2) Let's say that at some point 'a', you get f(a) = 0. What this means is that x = a is solution to your function (i.e a point where it crosses the 'x' axis) and so we can say that (x  a) = 0 is a root. With your example, notice how n = 2 is a solution and so n + 2 = 0 is a root.
3) Now you have two options. You can either use the long division way and divide f(x) by (x  a) and this will give you a quadratic. Either that or you can compare coefficients but i don't use this method so don't know how to explain it. You can then factorise this quadratic in the normal way.
If you tried dividing your cubic by n + 2, you should get n² + 7. This can't be factorised any more so your final answer is what you got.
Another way to do it is the way Indeterminate has done it.
You have a cubic which is
.
What we see here is that 3 terms contain an 'n' and two terms contain a '2'. So lets take the two terms containing a '2' and then take the other two terms left that have an 'n' and so we can rewrite and factorise to get
.
Now clearly, we have one common factor here and so we can factorise this out and get
.Last edited by claret_n_blue; 31032013 at 17:58. 
 Follow
 17
 31032013 17:57
(Original post by claret_n_blue)
Easiest way I do it is:
1) By trial and error, you find a solution such that your function is 0. So let's say you have some function, f(x). You want to find a value for x, such that f(x) = 0.
This is normally just done by guessing, but they tend to make the numbers easy for this. So you would really just try like x = ±1, ±2, ±3 and so on. You wouldn't need to go too far until you find your solution.
2) Let's say that at some point 'a', you get f(a) = 0. What this means is that x = a is solution to your function (i.e a point where it crosses the 'x' axis) and so we can say that (x  a) = 0 is a root. With your example, notice how n = 2 is a solution and so n + 2 = 0 is a root.
3) Now you have two options. You can either use the long division way and divide f(x) by (x  a) and this will give you a quadratic. Either that or you can compare coefficients but i don't use this method so don't know how to explain it. You can then factorise this quadratic in the normal way.
If you tried dividing your cubic by n + 2, you should get n² + 7. This can't be factorised any more so your final answer is what you got.
Another way to do it is the way Indeterminate has done it.
You have a cubic which is
.
What we see here is that 3 terms contain an 'n' and two terms contain a '2'. So lets take the two terms containing a '2' and then take the other two terms left that have an 'n' and so we can rewrite and factorise to get
.
Now clearly, we have one common factor here and so we can factorise this out and get
.
Appriciate it claret/indeterminate. 
 Follow
 18
 31032013 17:59
In edexcel fp1 when proving summation formula, it is proved by mathematical induction? Show that LHS = RHS is true for n=1 then assumption n = k followed by n = k + 1
Im pretty sure there's no such shortcut to proofs in fp1? Have you learnt this?
I think other replies in the thread may have done a different exam boardLast edited by .raiden.; 31032013 at 18:01. 
Mr M
 Follow
 777 followers
 20 badges
 Send a private message to Mr M
 Community Assistant
Offline20ReputationRep:Community Assistant Follow
 19
 31032013 18:16
(Original post by raiden95)
In edexcel fp1 when proving summation formula, it is proved by mathematical induction? Show that LHS = RHS is true for n=1 then assumption n = k followed by n = k + 1
Im pretty sure there's no such shortcut to proofs in fp1? Have you learnt this?
I think other replies in the thread may have done a different exam boardLast edited by Mr M; 31032013 at 18:17. 
 Follow
 20
 31032013 18:20
(Original post by Mr M)
This could be an induction question or it could be a proof using standard results. The question will clearly state if induction is required.Last edited by .raiden.; 31032013 at 18:21.
 1
 2
Related discussions
 FP1 induction proof question
 Proof by Induction (AQA FP1)  How to write a conclusion
 Fp1 mei ocr proof by induction
 Proof By Induction, FP1
 FP1 Roots of Polynomials Proof
 Proof by induction [Maths FP1]
 Proof by induction question fp1.
 Proof by Induction FP1 basic question on method
 Proof by Induction  FP1 Edexcel
 Proof by induction (FP1)
Related university courses

Mathematics
University of Birmingham

Financial Mathematics
University of Hertfordshire

Mathematics and Physics
University of Dundee

Mathematics for Finance and Management
University of Portsmouth

Mathematics
University of Winchester

Mathematics
University of Oxford

Mathematics (Including Year Abroad)
University of Essex

Mathematics and Statistics (including placement year)
University of Essex

Mathematics with Foundation
Durham University

Pure Mathematics (Fast Track)
University of St Andrews
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.
 SherlockHolmes
 Notnek
 charco
 Mr M
 Changing Skies
 F1's Finest
 rayquaza17
 RDKGames
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 TeeEff
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 TheAnxiousSloth
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Labrador99
 EmilySarah00
 thekidwhogames
 entertainmyfaith
 Eimmanuel