# STEP II/III 2014 solutions

Watch
Announcements

Papers found here. (Credit to Tarquin Digby for those [and Charles98 for his photos])

1: Solution by mikelbird

2: Solution by LightBlueSoldier

3: Solution by Stray

4: Solution by Khallil

5: Solution by Blazy

6: Solution by DFranklin

7: Solution by cliverlong

8: Solution by LightBlueSoldier, Solution by Stray

9: Solution by Brammer

10: Solution by JosephML

11: Solution by Brammer

12: Solution by shamika

13: Solution by DJMayes

1: Solution by jtSketchy

2: Solution by Brammer

3: Solution by edrraa, Solution by mikelbird

4: Solution by Farhan.Hanif93

5: Solution by metaltron

6: Solution by ctrls

7: Solution by Farhan.Hanif93

8: Solution by DFranklin

9: Solution by JosephML

10: Solution by JosephML

11: Solution by Brammer

12: Solution by DJMayes

13: Solution by DJMayes

**STEP II:**1: Solution by mikelbird

2: Solution by LightBlueSoldier

3: Solution by Stray

4: Solution by Khallil

5: Solution by Blazy

6: Solution by DFranklin

7: Solution by cliverlong

8: Solution by LightBlueSoldier, Solution by Stray

9: Solution by Brammer

10: Solution by JosephML

11: Solution by Brammer

12: Solution by shamika

13: Solution by DJMayes

**STEP III:**1: Solution by jtSketchy

2: Solution by Brammer

3: Solution by edrraa, Solution by mikelbird

4: Solution by Farhan.Hanif93

5: Solution by metaltron

6: Solution by ctrls

7: Solution by Farhan.Hanif93

8: Solution by DFranklin

9: Solution by JosephML

10: Solution by JosephML

11: Solution by Brammer

12: Solution by DJMayes

13: Solution by DJMayes

0

reply

Report

#2

II/10:

Spoiler:

For the first part, get the two equations for and and combine them:

and , giving:

Now we wish to maximize for a given value of so we take what is known as the partial derivative of with respect to i.e. ignore and differentiate wrt to :

.

To get the max, we solve which gives . Putting this back into will give us :

.

The sketch of this is fairly straight forward with the set of points which can be reached being those with and .

Finally the maximum possible distance reached by the particle is when which gives us .

Show

For the first part, get the two equations for and and combine them:

and , giving:

Now we wish to maximize for a given value of so we take what is known as the partial derivative of with respect to i.e. ignore and differentiate wrt to :

.

To get the max, we solve which gives . Putting this back into will give us :

.

The sketch of this is fairly straight forward with the set of points which can be reached being those with and .

Finally the maximum possible distance reached by the particle is when which gives us .

0

reply

Report

#3

II/12:

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(i)

Spoiler:

Show

(ii)

(iii)

Spoiler:

Show

(iv)

Spoiler:

Show

We prove each implication separately. If , then , where x is just a dummy variable. This gives . Subbing this into the formula of h(t), we get h(t) = k, a constant.

On the other hand, if h(t) = k, then if we solve , which (after separating the variables and integrating to find F(t)), gives , which differentiates to the required form of f(t).

On the other hand, if h(t) = k, then if we solve , which (after separating the variables and integrating to find F(t)), gives , which differentiates to the required form of f(t).

(v)

Spoiler:

Similar to (iii) and (iv), solve , to give . Finally, differentiating, we get

Note: this is the Weibull distribution, which is an important distribution in actuarial science to model very extreme losses. Of course, there was no reason you needed to know that to complere the question. The concept of the hazard function is also a fundamental theoretical actuarial tool, but I've never used it in practice.

Show

Similar to (iii) and (iv), solve , to give . Finally, differentiating, we get

Note: this is the Weibull distribution, which is an important distribution in actuarial science to model very extreme losses. Of course, there was no reason you needed to know that to complere the question. The concept of the hazard function is also a fundamental theoretical actuarial tool, but I've never used it in practice.

0

reply

Report

#5

III/9

Spoiler:

We have

,

so differentiating gives us:

and again:

.

For the initial conditions just put in .

Now we must show that this fits with :

And so we indeed have .

Now letting and and subbing into we get:

For we must have the component of to be zero. Hence giving:

.

Similarly writing in terms of and we have:

which then gives

which simplifies to the required result. Combining the two results gives us:

We are given that . So from the definition of we have:

And so we get the required . Finally since and are both acute we must have

Show

We have

,

so differentiating gives us:

and again:

.

For the initial conditions just put in .

Now we must show that this fits with :

And so we indeed have .

Now letting and and subbing into we get:

For we must have the component of to be zero. Hence giving:

.

Similarly writing in terms of and we have:

which then gives

which simplifies to the required result. Combining the two results gives us:

We are given that . So from the definition of we have:

And so we get the required . Finally since and are both acute we must have

0

reply

Report

#7

0

reply

Report

#8

(Original post by

III/9

**JosephML**)III/9

0

reply

Report

#9

III/6

Spoiler:

By letting with the given inequality and noting that the inequality holds for where , you get,

Since Repeating the process by setting gives the required inequality.

(i) Choosing , if we can prove that for all , then the result follows. To do this, we differentiate it twice, so

Noting that for and so it follows that for this range of Since the conditions for the inequality in the original question is met and we can deduce for the given range of and the result follows.

(ii) Here you can prove each bound separately. Since for you can show that , and , we can multiply over the denominators without worrying about flipping the inequality. This gives,

So we set and prove it is positive in the given domain using the inequality again. Differentiating twice gives,

Noting again the the two functions are positive in the domain and that the result follows.

Finally for the upper bound, rearranging the inequality as,

And setting , again it is sufficient to show that for the given domain to establish the inequality. Differentiating twice,

Note that this gives the same inequality from part (i), so we can quickly deduce that for the given domain. Since we can deduce that and the result follows.

Note: Most of this is just tedious manipulation to show the initial inequalities are met, so I've omitted some of the details of showing certain functions are positive and that f(0) and f'(0) are equal to zero in the various cases. If there's an faster way to do this question that I've missed, I would be interested to hear about it.

Show

By letting with the given inequality and noting that the inequality holds for where , you get,

Since Repeating the process by setting gives the required inequality.

(i) Choosing , if we can prove that for all , then the result follows. To do this, we differentiate it twice, so

Noting that for and so it follows that for this range of Since the conditions for the inequality in the original question is met and we can deduce for the given range of and the result follows.

(ii) Here you can prove each bound separately. Since for you can show that , and , we can multiply over the denominators without worrying about flipping the inequality. This gives,

So we set and prove it is positive in the given domain using the inequality again. Differentiating twice gives,

Noting again the the two functions are positive in the domain and that the result follows.

Finally for the upper bound, rearranging the inequality as,

And setting , again it is sufficient to show that for the given domain to establish the inequality. Differentiating twice,

Note that this gives the same inequality from part (i), so we can quickly deduce that for the given domain. Since we can deduce that and the result follows.

Note: Most of this is just tedious manipulation to show the initial inequalities are met, so I've omitted some of the details of showing certain functions are positive and that f(0) and f'(0) are equal to zero in the various cases. If there's an faster way to do this question that I've missed, I would be interested to hear about it.

1

reply

Report

#10

(Original post by

I know it's trivial but didn't you also have to show that when t=0, v=u (initial conditions)?

**Kasel**)I know it's trivial but didn't you also have to show that when t=0, v=u (initial conditions)?

(Original post by

I only got up as far as the result involving uksin - how many marks do you think I'd have got?

**CD315**)I only got up as far as the result involving uksin - how many marks do you think I'd have got?

0

reply

Report

#11

(Original post by

II/4

**Khallil**)II/4

There are a few short proofs but I forgot to include any in my solution.

0

reply

**STEP III, Q4**

It's worth pointing out that a very similar question appeared in a IB tripos exam for the variational principles course.

1

reply

Report

#13

(Original post by

...

**Kasel**)...

0

reply

Report

#14

(Original post by

...

**Khallil**)...

and

cot(y)=(1/x)=tan(pi/2 - y)

which gives arctan(x)+arctan(1/x)= y+pi/2-y=pi/2

0

reply

Report

#16

__STEP III - Q12__
Spoiler:

i)

ii)

iii)

iv):

Show

i)

ii)

Spoiler:

Show

iii)

Spoiler:

Show

iv):

Spoiler:

Show

0

reply

Report

#17

**STEP II - Q8**(LaTeX)

Spoiler:

If is a maximum, it must be and

Taking first, :

Divide both sides by the common factor

Giving

This is almost the LHS of what we are required to show, just needs a little fiddling

Now repeat the process for :

Divide both sides by the common factor

Giving

Which combines with (**) to give the required solution

Considering the possible values of

Either and are both integers, or and are non-integer values either side of an integer, so if is an integer, it is either and (2 values) or it lies between them (1 value).

For the next parts, we are asked to find either the value of where there is 1 value, or the larger value if there are 2. This means we can consider the function to produce the

i)

ii)

iii)

If we fix and , the only part of that can alter is the denominator containing , so for large we want small , so is when . (Zero is not a positive integer).

iv)

For fixed and (unknown) fixed , the part of the function varying is:

For positive integer values of

So

giving

LightBlueSoldier points out below that my original is wrong... of course the constraint isn't nearly as harsh as that, regardless of whether infinity is acceptable...

Show

If is a maximum, it must be and

Taking first, :

Divide both sides by the common factor

Giving

This is almost the LHS of what we are required to show, just needs a little fiddling

Now repeat the process for :

Divide both sides by the common factor

Giving

Which combines with (**) to give the required solution

Considering the possible values of

Either and are both integers, or and are non-integer values either side of an integer, so if is an integer, it is either and (2 values) or it lies between them (1 value).

For the next parts, we are asked to find either the value of where there is 1 value, or the larger value if there are 2. This means we can consider the function to produce the

*Floor*of the upper limit - so if the upper limit evaluates to 8.9 then the value is 8, but if it is 9.0 it is 9, etc. The Floor symbol is .

i)

ii)

iii)

If we fix and , the only part of that can alter is the denominator containing , so for large we want small , so is when . (Zero is not a positive integer).

iv)

For fixed and (unknown) fixed , the part of the function varying is:

For positive integer values of

So

giving

LightBlueSoldier points out below that my original is wrong... of course the constraint isn't nearly as harsh as that, regardless of whether infinity is acceptable...

This was a nice question once you get into it, but I can see that the layout of the question might make it look more complex than it actually was.

0

reply

Report

#18

(Original post by

If is a maximum, it must be and

Taking first, :

Divide both sides by the common factor

Giving

This is almost the LHS of what we are required to show, just needs a little fiddling

Now repeat the process for :

Divide both sides by the common factor

Giving

Which combines with (**) to give the required solution

Considering the possible values of

Either and are both integers, or and are non-integer values either side of an integer, so if is an integer, it is either and (2 values) or it lies between them (1 value).

For the next parts, we are asked to find either the value of where there is 1 value, or the larger value if there are 2. This means we can consider the function to produce the

i)

ii)

iii)

If we fix and , the only part of that can alter is the denominator containing , so for large we want small , so is when . (Zero is not a positive integer).

iv)

For fixed and (unknown) fixed , the part of the function varying is:

This tends to 1 as b tends to infinity, but will never actually reach 1, so tends towards but never reaches so for fixed

---

This was a nice question once you get into it, but I can see that the layout of the question might make it look more complex than it actually was.

**Stray**)**STEP II - Q8**(LaTeX)If is a maximum, it must be and

Taking first, :

Divide both sides by the common factor

Giving

This is almost the LHS of what we are required to show, just needs a little fiddling

Now repeat the process for :

Divide both sides by the common factor

Giving

Which combines with (**) to give the required solution

Considering the possible values of

Either and are both integers, or and are non-integer values either side of an integer, so if is an integer, it is either and (2 values) or it lies between them (1 value).

For the next parts, we are asked to find either the value of where there is 1 value, or the larger value if there are 2. This means we can consider the function to produce the

*Floor*of the upper limit - so if the upper limit evaluates to 8.9 then the value is 8, but if it is 9.0 it is 9, etc. The Floor symbol is .i)

ii)

iii)

If we fix and , the only part of that can alter is the denominator containing , so for large we want small , so is when . (Zero is not a positive integer).

iv)

For fixed and (unknown) fixed , the part of the function varying is:

This tends to 1 as b tends to infinity, but will never actually reach 1, so tends towards but never reaches so for fixed

---

This was a nice question once you get into it, but I can see that the layout of the question might make it look more complex than it actually was.

Posted from TSR Mobile

1

reply

Report

#19

STEP II, Q5: (somebody quickly check through this please though I think it should be fine)

The only real difficulty here was spotting how to get rid of the -4 and -3.

The only real difficulty here was spotting how to get rid of the -4 and -3.

3

reply

Report

#20

**STEP III Q5**

Beginning

Spoiler:

Show

Part i)

Spoiler:

Show

Part ii)

Spoiler:

By symmetry:

So

So so diagonals of quadrilateral are perpendicular.

So XYZT is a square if and only if .

That is .

Looking at the co-efficient of i (which is complex itself) which is always true.

Equating the other parts .

So XYZT is a square if and only if which is the condition for PQRS to be a parallelogram.

Show

By symmetry:

So

So so diagonals of quadrilateral are perpendicular.

So XYZT is a square if and only if .

That is .

Looking at the co-efficient of i (which is complex itself) which is always true.

Equating the other parts .

So XYZT is a square if and only if which is the condition for PQRS to be a parallelogram.

0

reply

X

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top