Interesting, thanks for the insight! Yeah I was thinking there must be ways to generalise this to a continued fraction based off of a sequence with period n, but I imagine it could get a bit fiddly. Will need to look into it more sometime(Original post by joostan)
It is indeed possible to write any real number as a continued fraction.
Sadly however there's not always a nice recurrence. Even in seemingly simple cases.
For example, has 14 recurring integers rather than just the two in the example I gave.
There is an algorithm for computing the continued fraction of a given number, any rational's continued fraction will necessarily terminate. For a general real number you can compute the values of the integers known as partial quotients, the corresponding fraction formed by the partial quotients will tend to the real value you're computing from.
This gives a way to find rational approximations to real values, such as . Where many of the well known approximations to arise from this technique.
There are more general cases without requirements of integers and so forth, but simple continued fractions are easier to deal with.

EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 61
 01042016 19:15

EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 62
 03042016 11:25
Day 7 Summary
From completing many STEP mocks, I see that my mark in the paper correlates directly with my mentality at the time If I end up thinking "I have 1 hour left to complete another question and a half at least fully", I normally end up rushing and making silly mistakes. This then leads to general frustration and most probably not completing what I wanted to! However if I think "Oh this is interesting" and I 'do it for the maths', I end up completing questions more consistently so I will have to practice getting into this frame of mind in future!.
I looked over a BMO2 question yesterday I completed a while ago now, and it was interesting in exploring another potential solution.
"Suppose that p is a prime number and that there are different positiveintegers and such that is the mean of and .
Prove that is a square or twice a square."
Originally I was recommended to consider which immediately gave something which looked like a partial solution, but I was also interested in looking at it interms of diaphantine equation . The following article was very useful in this approach http://www.math.uconn.edu/~kconrad/b...thagtriple.pdf 
 Follow
 63
 03042016 14:05
(Original post by EnglishMuon)
Day 7 Summary
From completing many STEP mocks, I see that my mark in the paper correlates directly with my mentality at the time If I end up thinking "I have 1 hour left to complete another question and a half at least fully", I normally end up rushing and making silly mistakes. This then leads to general frustration and most probably not completing what I wanted to! However if I think "Oh this is interesting" and I 'do it for the maths', I end up completing questions more consistently so I will have to practice getting into this frame of mind in future!. 
EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 64
 03042016 14:16
(Original post by Zacken)
I agree very much with this, only problem is that in June when we're going in to sit an exam that will determine whether we get into the university we want or not, it's hard to get into that mindset. 
EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 65
 03042016 20:36
Day 8 Summary
Today I finally got some time to read up on Group Theory, in particular revision of permutations (and they seem to come up in the old STEP papers so will be useful in that sense).
This reminded me of the nice proof of "Fermat's Little Theorem" that uses little more than Lagrange's theorem and the ideas of cyclic subgroups.
Let's define a group with group operation * as multiplication. Let such that where p is a prime. By Lagrange's Theorem, , but hence .
Therefore .
So For any prime , 
 Follow
 66
 03042016 20:46
(Original post by EnglishMuon)
... 
EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 67
 03042016 20:51

physicsmaths
 Follow
 143 followers
 18 badges
 Send a private message to physicsmaths
Offline18ReputationRep: Follow
 68
 04042016 00:11
(Original post by EnglishMuon)
Day 8 Summary
Today I finally got some time to read up on Group Theory, in particular revision of permutations (and they seem to come up in the old STEP papers so will be useful in that sense).
This reminded me of the nice proof of "Fermat's Little Theorem" that uses little more than Lagrange's theorem and the ideas of cyclic subgroups.
Let's define a group with group operation * as multiplication. Let such that where p is a prime. By Lagrange's Theorem, , but hence .
Therefore .
So For any prime ,
Posted from TSR Mobile 
EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 69
 04042016 21:34
(Original post by physicsmaths)
You should look at the results called FermatEuler, Chinese remainder, Eulers criterion if FLT interests you
Posted from TSR Mobile 
EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 70
 05042016 12:20
Day 9 Summary
Recently Ive seen some interesting/useful differential equation techniques that reduce the generic problem into something simpler to solve!
For example, consider the situation where we drop a ball of unit mass and throw a similar ball upwards from a height d above the first ball.The only forces acting on the particles are weight and a resistance of . If we want to find the distance between them at a time t, we could then formulate two 2nd order diff. equations and solve but slightly nicer is to define a new variable:
Let be displacement of ball A (dropped ball) and be displacement of ball B (thrown ball). Define .
By resolving upwards we can see
So .
But by the chain rule
so .
We now have a first order which can solve easily to find in terms of X and then integrate w.r.t. X. 
 Follow
 71
 05042016 23:36
(Original post by EnglishMuon)
Day 9 Summary
Recently Ive seen some interesting/useful differential equation techniques that reduce the generic problem into something simpler to solve!
For example, consider the situation where we drop a ball of unit mass and throw a similar ball upwards from a height d above the first ball.The only forces acting on the particles are weight and a resistance of . If we want to find the distance between them at a time t, we could then formulate two 2nd order diff. equations and solve but slightly nicer is to define a new variable:
Let be displacement of ball A (dropped ball) and be displacement of ball B (thrown ball). Define .
By resolving upwards we can see
So .
But by the chain rule
so .
We now have a first order which can solve easily to find in terms of X and then integrate w.r.t. X. 
EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 72
 06042016 00:13
(Original post by Marxist)
Nice, you're mad good at mechanics. 
EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 73
 06042016 15:12
Day 10 Summary
Conditions for recurrence relations to form different sequences:
I think every STEP Q ive seen that focuses solely on recurrence relations has involved this at some point these are small conditions that you might overlook if you were rushing, but could cost you plenty of marks!
In particular, consider the sequence defined by
From this, we can deduce that
We can then look at neccessary and sufficient conditions to make our sequence have certain characteristics:
If our sequence is geometric, there needs to be a constant common ratio between any two consecutive terms implying .
If we want our sequence to have a particular period (i.e. a period of means every k terms the terms repeat/are the same), we can make
.
But beware! In doing this, we will form a polynomial of degree k (with k roots). But notice how if we want the k+1th term to equal the first, this occurs for a sequence of period 1 and other integer devisers of k so they will also be roots. We therefore pick the roots that havent yet been used in other periods.
This pdf seems to cover everything needed on recurrence relations for STEP http://db.math.ust.hk/notes_download...ebra/ae_A8.pdfLast edited by EnglishMuon; 06042016 at 15:25. 
 Follow
 74
 06042016 16:05
(Original post by EnglishMuon)
... 
EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 75
 06042016 16:55
(Original post by Zacken)
One very useful cheat/tip is since they usually do "find condition for period 1, period 3, period etc..." then when you get your polynomial for period etc... you should use your answers to previous parts to help factor that polynomial. You'll know that one root will be the root for period 1 and you can factor it out, then etc... very useful! 
EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 76
 06042016 22:41
STEP Questions on FP1 style topics (conics and roots of polynomials)
http://www.mathshelper.co.uk/STEP%20III%202003.pdf Question 5
http://www.mathshelper.co.uk/STEP%20III%202005.pdf Question 3
http://www.mathshelper.co.uk/STEP%20III%202008.pdf Question 3Tagged: 
 Follow
 77
 06042016 22:49
(Original post by EnglishMuon)
STEP Questions on FP1 style topics (conics and roots of polynomials)
http://www.mathshelper.co.uk/STEP%20III%202003.pdf Question 5
http://www.mathshelper.co.uk/STEP%20III%202005.pdf Question 3
http://www.mathshelper.co.uk/STEP%20III%202008.pdf Question 3 
EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 78
 07042016 12:17
Day 11 Summary
Save time by using limits! This is something that comes up across nearly all integration using topics in A level and STEP, in both pure maths and applied. Basically back in the day (last year) when I was stupid, I used to spend aaages coming up with solutions to routine problems that now take only a couple of minutes at most. The only difference is that I avoid having to manually work out constants of integration at all costs, even though mark schemes normally do the long winded way.
Consider the following differential equation,
and at .
If we want to find the value of x when t=2, we could manually integrate, find our initial expression with a '+c', substitute in the initial conditions, find c, substitute t=2 in. However consider the following:
Rearranging, we have
.
Since we know the initial conditions, we can just form a definite integral between time t=0 and t=2, or between x=0 and x='D' where D is a constant representing the distance moved we want to find. And this works for all initial conditions, not just both equal at 0.
This may be very useful in STEP I 2010 Question 5 (http://www.mathshelper.co.uk/STEP%20I%202010.pdf) .... (Dont worry this doesnt spoil how to solve the question ) 
EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 79
 08042016 14:15
Day 12 Summary
Factorising techniques: Here are some useful things to look out for whenever factorising any expression!
Difference of two powers to the :
. (This is easily proven by considering the expansion .
Inspection
Consider the horrible looking expression
Notice how the term cant cancel with anything, suggesting a "let y=..." may be useful. In this case, the term will have to cancel with the term, so it makes sense to let y=2. Upon trying this, all terms can be seen to cancel so is a factor.
Symmetry
Consider question B, MAT 2002:
http://www.mathshelper.co.uk/Oxford%...est%202002.pdf
Notice only (iii) and (i) (RHS) has the property of symmetry between x,y,z that is if we replace all the xs,ys, zs with each other, we should get the same expression. By comparing to the left hand side, we can check to see if these properties still hold...
Other Hints from the Question
If the question does not make the technique required obvious, refer to earlier (and perhaps independent looking parts of the question) and repeat anything that has been used there usually this is the solution.Tagged: 
EnglishMuon
 Follow
 19 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to EnglishMuon
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 80
 10042016 17:13
Day 1315 Summary
After attending the Warwick STEP day, here are a few interesting points I picked up on:
One of the opening plenarys demonstrated a simple way of showing some of the logarithms properties using only basic integration techniques (which we shall assume true for this example ).
Consider the definition of the natural log of x, .
Then
.
By performing the substitution on , we have
hence
Also, by noting that (via the sub. )
The previous result implies
Similar techniques can be used to show the other common properties too.
Perhaps one of the only things I managed to extract from the hundreds of brackets in the vector session (yet still interesting) is contradictions using linearly independent vectors:
If we have the vector equation (where lambda, mu are scalars), we can only say this equation implies iff a and b are linearly independent (i.e. ) as otherwise a could be expressed in terms of b and vice versa. This can be used in proof by contradictions e.g. showing some expression=0 iff a and b satisfy these properties.
Example:
Suppose we have a triangle with vertices A,B,C represented by position vectors respectively. If we were to find the intersections of the perpendiculars from each vertex the midpoints of the opposite side using vector equations of lines, we would see get an expression of the form above, implying that either or b and a are not linearly independent. Of course as we know it is a triangle, a cant equal b so the other case must hold. ( Zacken Sorry I cant give a more concrete example, the ones Ive come up with end up effectively saying the same thing but require lots or preliminary working, so I hope the basic idea is clear!)Last edited by EnglishMuon; 10042016 at 20:37.
Reply
Submit reply
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:
 TSR Moderator
 usycool1
 Changing Skies
 James A
 rayquaza17
 randdom
 davros
 charco
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 The Financier
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 Notnek
 Mr M
 nisha.sri
 Reality Check
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 LeCroissant
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Moltenmo
 Labrador99
Updated: June 3, 2016
Share this discussion:
Tweet