x Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home >< Maths

Edexcel A2 C4 Mathematics June 2016 - Official Thread watch

1. (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
Find
Quite possibly one of the best STEP questions ever written
2. (Original post by Zacken)
Fam... , where'd you get from?

Edit to add: Remember that when you integrate, you need to put in modulus terms for logarithms, so even if you managed a logarithmic term, you'd have (which isn't bad maths at all, there's a justification for us placing moduli on logarithm arguments, btw, if you're interested)
I figured I'd flex my Integration by Parts muscles (Positive there's a mistake somewhere as I did it on CodeCogs straight out of my head)... Suffice to say this isn't my brightest hour

,

,
3. (Original post by Euclidean)
I figured I'd flex my Integration by Parts muscles (Positive there's a mistake somewhere as I did it on CodeCogs straight out of my head)... Suffice to say this isn't my brightest hour
The point of this was that you're meant to get and then if you were paying attention, you'd ask yourself why a positive everywhere function was returning a negative area.

You can integrate over asymptotes if the function is nicely behaved, by the way, it's not just because of the asymptote that the integral doesn't converge. :-)
4. (Original post by Zacken)
The point of this was that you're meant to get and then if you were paying attention, you'd ask yourself why a positive everywhere function was returning a negative area.

You can integrate over asymptotes if the function is nicely behaved, by the way, it's not just because of the asymptote that the integral doesn't converge. :-)
I failed. But the important thing is, I'm asking the question now

So you can evaluate some integrals over asymptotes and return with finite values? Seems ludicrous, I'm imagining the Riemann sum over an asymptote and questioning exactly how that works

edit: Is this to do with the fact that the function isn't defined for x=0? Though I can't see how that would result in a negative result..
5. (Original post by Zacken)
Guess maybe I've been doing too much STEP! Cool proof for anybody (else, obviously not you ) reading this:

6. (Original post by Euclidean)
I failed. But the important thing is, I'm asking the question now

So you can evaluate some integrals over asymptotes and return with finite values? Seems ludicrous, I'm imagining the Riemann sum over an asymptote and questioning exactly how that works

edit: Is this to do with the fact that the function isn't defined for x=0? Though I can't see how that would result in a negative result..
Try integrating .
7. (Original post by Serine Soul)
Short and sweet, my favourite kind!
8. (Original post by Zacken)
Try integrating .

Interesting, the graph tends to as x tends to 0 from both directions, so how does that integral of a curve which spans in an infinite direction return a finite value...

And also, why does not
9. (Original post by Euclidean)

Interesting, the graph tends to as x tends to 0 from both directions, so how does that integral of a curve which spans in an infinite direction return a finite value...
Yep, that function is "nicely behaved" enough.
10. (Original post by Zacken)
Yep, that function is "nicely behaved" enough.
Oh the ambiguity
11. (Original post by Euclidean)
Oh the ambiguity
Read this for the moment. It's three in the morning right now, but if you remind me some other time, I'll see if I can type up some of my waffling on the matter.
12. (Original post by Zacken)
Read this for the moment. It's three in the morning right now, but if you remind me some other time, I'll see if I can type up some of my waffling on the matter.
I gave it a read, I don't understand much of what is going on. The examples clarified the three points though, I'll remind you in the morning as I am very interested to hear more about this
13. (Original post by Euclidean)
I failed. But the important thing is, I'm asking the question now

So you can evaluate some integrals over asymptotes and return with finite values? Seems ludicrous, I'm imagining the Riemann sum over an asymptote and questioning exactly how that works

edit: Is this to do with the fact that the function isn't defined for x=0? Though I can't see how that would result in a negative result..
Riemann sums actually don't converge if the function is unbounded on the interval. In order to define the integral, you have to split the interval up and take limits at every asymptote, like here http://www.sosmath.com/calculus/impr...tro/intro.html
I was thinking a little about this yesterday, the reason the Riemann sum fails seems to be because the Riemann sum allows for overestimation of the area, or more exactly, no matter how small the partition, we can choose a value of the function in the unbounded section as large as we want, making the area as large as we want. But not all this area lies under the curve.
14. (Original post by EricPiphany)
Riemann sums actually don't converge if the function is unbounded on the interval.
I think that depends on the measure of the set of discontinuities. I recall seeing quite a few Lebesgue integrable functions whose set of discontinuities had measure zero having their Riemann sums converge to certain integrals.
15. (Original post by Euclidean)
Quite possibly one of the best STEP questions ever written
Just a suggestion, I personally don't have an issue with it but you might want to move this conversation. Since this is the C4 thread, some people might not realise that these are questions that are well beyond the level of c4 at times and cause them to worry that they aren't able to answer them. Just something to consider, nice questions though I enjoyed them.
16. (Original post by Zacken)
I think that depends on the measure of the set of discontinuities. I recall seeing quite a few Lebesgue integrable functions whose set of discontinuities had measure zero having their Riemann sums converge to certain integrals.
I don't know anything about Lebesgue. I believe unbounded functions aren't Riemann integrable.
17. (Original post by samb1234)
Just a suggestion, I personally don't have an issue with it but you might want to move this conversation. Since this is the C4 thread, some people might not realise that these are questions that are well beyond the level of c4 at times and cause them to worry that they aren't able to answer them. Just something to consider, nice questions though I enjoyed them.
All questions here (if not most of them) are accessible with C4 knowledge, by no means are they easy or questions that you'll find in an Edexcel exam, but its good for people to try them. Though I definitely understand where you're coming from
18. (Original post by samb1234)
Just a suggestion, I personally don't have an issue with it but you might want to move this conversation. Since this is the C4 thread, some people might not realise that these are questions that are well beyond the level of c4 at times and cause them to worry that they aren't able to answer them. Just something to consider, nice questions though I enjoyed them.
I think it'd be best to add a little disclaimer to each of those questions to specify that it's definitely extension material, best of both worlds. :-)
19. (Original post by Zacken)
I think it'd be best to add a little disclaimer to each of those questions to specify that it's definitely extension material, best of both worlds. :-)
Yeah that works as well, as I say there's nothing wrong with it just need to be careful that we don't cause people to panic that they can't do them
20. (Original post by samb1234)
Yeah that works as well, as I say there's nothing wrong with it just need to be careful that we don't cause people to panic that they can't do them
I defo agree.

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: June 22, 2017
Today on TSR

Negatives of studying at Oxbridge

What are the downsides?

Grade 9 in GCSE English - AMA

Poll
Useful resources

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