Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lucasium)
    A STEP teacher at my college mentioned a 'loop' technique, he didn't go into any detail because he said it's not needed for A level. Does anybody know what it is?
    What topic?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drandy76)
    What topic?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It was during FP3, it could have been to do with differentiation.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lucasium)
    It was during FP3, it could have been to do with differentiation.
    I can't say I've ever heard of a loop technique. There are loops in computing of course, as well as graph theory and an algebraic structure known as a loop, though I can't tell you much about them - I imagine wikipedia can.

    A function that starts and ends at the same space is often called a loop, for obvious reasons, which is part of a more general topological definition.
    The only thing I can think of that's even vaguely related to differentiation would be the directional derivative, but that's a stretch.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joostan)
    I can't say I've ever heard of a loop technique. There are loops in computing of course, as well as graph theory and an algebraic structure known as a loop, though I can't tell you much about them - I imagine wikipedia can.

    A function that starts and ends at the same space is often called a loop, for obvious reasons, which is part of a more general topological definition.
    The only thing I can think of that's even vaguely related to differentiation would be the directional derivative, but that's a stretch.
    Thanks anyway, I'll ask him later and if it's useful I'll post in here
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lucasium)
    Thanks anyway, I'll ask him later and if it's useful I'll post in here
    Oh I thought of something that's loop like, though not related to differentiation.
    If asked to show a chain of equivalences, i.e that A \iff B \iff C it suffices to show that A \implies B \implies C \implies A.
    Obviously this extends beyond 3 statements in the logical way.
    This is a neat trick often used in proofs of theorems with multiple parts to the statement, though possibly not directly relevant to this thread.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lucasium)
    Thanks anyway, I'll ask him later and if it's useful I'll post in here
    (Original post by joostan)
    Oh I thought of something that's loop like
    Loops with IBP, i.e: 2 IBP's and then solving to find I. It's not really a trick though... more like standard knowledge.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    Loops with IBP, i.e: 2 IBP's and then solving to find I. It's not really a trick though... more like standard knowledge.
    A good point, I hadn't considered that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    Loops with IBP, i.e: 2 IBP's and then solving to find I. It's not really a trick though... more like standard knowledge.
    It's also in the A-Level syllabus (for Edexcel at least) so wrong on all counts there
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joostan)
    Oh I thought of something that's loop like, though not related to differentiation.
    If asked to show a chain of equivalences, i.e that A \iff B \iff C it suffices to show that A \implies B \implies C \implies A.
    Obviously this extends beyond 3 statements in the logical way.
    This is a neat trick often used in proofs of theorems with multiple parts to the statement, though possibly not directly relevant to this thread.
    If any STEP question required that it would be much too difficult I think. It's a very neat trick though, useful for algebra courses at uni!
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joostan)
    Oh I thought of something that's loop like, though not related to differentiation.
    If asked to show a chain of equivalences, i.e that A \iff B \iff C it suffices to show that A \implies B \implies C \implies A.
    Obviously this extends beyond 3 statements in the logical way.
    This is a neat trick often used in proofs of theorems with multiple parts to the statement, though possibly not directly relevant to this thread.
    Wait, this is boggling me - how does this work? You get logical equivalence between a number of statements just by proving implications from one to another?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    Wait, this is boggling me - how does this work? You get logical equivalence between a number of statements just by proving implications from one to another?
    Yeah, basically.

    To prove C implies B, note C implies A and A implies B hence you're done. Because you already have B implies C, you've proved B iff C. Similarly for the other statements, and hence you've proved they're all equivalent.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joostan)
    Oh I thought of something that's loop like, though not related to differentiation.
    If asked to show a chain of equivalences, i.e that A \iff B \iff C it suffices to show that A \implies B \implies C \implies A.
    Obviously this extends beyond 3 statements in the logical way.
    This is a neat trick often used in proofs of theorems with multiple parts to the statement, though possibly not directly relevant to this thread.
    This is very strong. Damn


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamika)
    Yeah, basically.

    To prove C implies B, note C implies A and A implies B hence you're done. Because you already have B implies C, you've proved B iff C. Similarly for the other statements, and hence you've proved they're all equivalent.
    Oh, wow - yes! Thank you.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamika)
    Yeah, basically.

    To prove C implies B, note C implies A and A implies B hence you're done. Because you already have B implies C, you've proved B iff C. Similarly for the other statements, and hence you've proved they're all equivalent.
    (Original post by joostan)
    Oh I thought of something that's loop like, though not related to differentiation.
    If asked to show a chain of equivalences, i.e that A \iff B \iff C it suffices to show that A \implies B \implies C \implies A.
    Obviously this extends beyond 3 statements in the logical way.
    This is a neat trick often used in proofs of theorems with multiple parts to the statement, though possibly not directly relevant to this thread.
    That's pretty cool
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student403)
    That's pretty cool
    Engineers don't find this cool.
    Your a mathmo at heart.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsmaths)
    Engineers don't find this cool.
    Your a mathmo at heart.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Do mathmos love physics almost as much as, if not more than maths? ;p
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    Oh, wow - yes! Thank you.
    So a standard Cambridge move is to use a long loop of these implications in your lecture notes to prove the equivalence of a number of statements - perhaps a dozen.

    Then, on the example sheet, you are asked to prove the equivalence of number 2 and number 5 on the list. You soon realize that trailing through the sequence of implications is long and tedious and there must be a more direct proof. Your supervisor grins at you with an evil grin.

    Then on the tripos paper, you have to prove the equivalence of numbers 2 and 8 on the list...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student403)
    Do mathmos love physics almost as much as, if not more than maths? ;p
    A true mathmo loves physics more than maths.

    Proof:

    Isaac Newton was a true mathmo, and he loved physics more than maths. QED
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atsruser)
    A true mathmo loves physics more than maths.

    Proof:

    Isaac Newton was a true mathmo, and he loved physics more than maths. QED
    physicsmaths :proud:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gregorius)
    So a standard Cambridge move is to use a long loop of these implications in your lecture notes to prove the equivalence of a number of statements - perhaps a dozen.
    Is this "long loop" terminology standard? I've never heard of it before.

    The first time I saw it was in one of those god-awful linear algebra proofs about the equivalence of "Rank A = n" and "unique solutions of Ax=b" and about 1/2 a dozen other things. It struck me as too clever-clever at the time, and I'm not sure that I really believed the proof - it looked like stuff had been missed out.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.