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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    There's only one uni and I'm not sure they even do maths :erm:
    (Original post by physicsmaths)
    Go to a local unis lectures or somehong. The lecturer must like maths a little bit 👀


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    http://www.uom.ac.mu/fos/index.php/mathematics
    The name of Jayrani CHEENEEBASH is almost as good as King's Herbert Huppert
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnglishMuon)
    A great book in my opinion is Mathematical Analysis by K.G. Binmore- Its an old one but contains some really interesting questions and answers to all of them. Covers a great amount of stuff too. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mathematical.../dp/0521288827
    (Its unbelievable how much some of these books cost, I just go for second hand nearly always now being the cheapo I am )
    (Original post by physicsmaths)
    A first course in Mathematical analysis. Pdf online aswell.
    (Original post by Zacken)
    Oh gosh, thank you so much!!
    what texts did you guys use to get such an understanding of STEP maths? or any of the above mathematical derivations you've blurted all out on TSR? aside from the 'mathematical analysis by burkill' one i need all texts you've used; cheers

    i'm interested in learning this stuff and doing an exam on it soon aha
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theDanIdentity)
    what texts did you guys use to get such an understanding of STEP maths? or any of the above mathematical derivations you've blurted all out on TSR? aside from the 'mathematical analysis by burkill' one i need all texts you've used; cheers

    i'm interested in learning this stuff and doing an exam on it soon aha
    Those textbooks won't help for STEP, at all. You just need to get really comfortable with the A-Level stuff.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theDanIdentity)
    what texts did you guys use to get such an understanding of STEP maths? or any of the above mathematical derivations you've blurted all out on TSR? aside from the 'mathematical analysis by burkill' one i need all texts you've used; cheers

    i'm interested in learning this stuff and doing an exam on it soon aha
    Yeah probably these specific ones wont help, unless they happen to ask a question on one of these 'obscurer topics' youve seen before, but for STEP, older textbooks seem to be the best, and cover some very STEP-like questions. For example, "A concise Introduction to Pure Mathematics" is very good, and the Pure Mathematics (and Applied) by Bostock and Chandler cover all the content very well.
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Concise-Int.../dp/1439835985
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pure-Mathem...er+mathematics
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pure-Mathem...F8S1D3BDSYMVRS
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    I wasn't helping, it was more of a joint effort thing.

    (I really liked this, I don't often get to do maths with others 'cause solo-teaching on an island and shiz) - I've got something by the way (I haven't gotten around to doing it myself yet)):

    A Ford circle is a circle tangent to the x-axis at a point \left(\frac{p}{q}, 0\right) for coprime integers p, q with radius \frac{1}{2q^2}. Show that, whilst some Ford circles touch, none of them intersect.
    This is an interesting question, have you got a solution? Im in the middle of trying to form a contradiction, but nothing conclusive yet.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnglishMuon)
    This is an interesting question, have you got a solution? Im in the middle of trying to form a contradiction, but nothing conclusive yet.
    I don't have one, haven't tried the problem out yet - but it's a fairly well known thing; even has its own Wiki page, so you should be able to look it up online if need be.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnglishMuon)
    This is an interesting question, have you got a solution? Im in the middle of trying to form a contradiction, but nothing conclusive yet.
    This was the configuration in this years Q1 BMO2


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsmaths)
    This was the configuration in this years Q1 BMO2


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    lol nice! Isnt that rule 34 of the internet? if there is a question online, there exists a BMO question related to it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Day 25-28 Summary
    One point that I seem to have overlooked (or at least not appreciated enough) a few times now is the constant of integration when integrating series.
    Consider the expansion of  (1-kx)^{-1/2}= 1+ \displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^ \infty \dfrac{(2n)!}{4^{n}(n!)^2} k^{n}x^{n} (which may be derived via binomial theorem).
    A common way of then finding new expressions for infinite series can come from integrating either side.
    So we end up with
     - \frac{2}{k}(1-kx)^{1/2} = x+ \displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^ \infty \dfrac{(2n)!}{4^{n}n!(n+1)!} k^{n}x^{n+1} +C where C is the constant of integration. However, you may ask (you as in me earlier today) why we dont get an identical +C on either side of the expansion which cancels? Well we can clearly see that the result would not make sense, e.g. without a +C, when subbing in x=0 we get an immediate contradiction. But we could claim they are identical expressions to begin with so why would the +C be different? I believe this is just due to the nature of being an indefinite integral (think about a differential equation in mechanics with t=0 when v=k, k is not 0) ( Zacken any nice way to explain this? or is it just trivially true?) .

    Upon subbing in a value within the criteria for convergence ( |x| \leq \frac{1}{k} ) we see  C= - \frac{2}{k} and we have come up with a new expression to use.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnglishMuon)
    ( Zacken any nice way to explain this? or is it just trivially true?) .
    I guess it's just the "family of solutions" thing all over again. Just because two things have the same derivative doesn't mean that when you integrate them they're still identical. Basically, integrating kind of removes the "equality' sign and to put it back in, you need to add the +c.

    I've been sitting here trying to think of an example where we could have a non-differential-equation example where

    f(x) = g(x) but int f(x) =/= int g(x).

    But I can't come up with anything interesting right now that motivates the use of the + c.

    A trivial one is: \frac{dy}{dx} = x, i.e: you're saying the gradient is identically equal to x, but integrating both sides gets you y = x + c and not y = x. This just feels a little tautological though, in this context. Let me know if you can come up with an interesting example! I've tried thinking about integrating the geometric series term by term and integrating both sides of that inequality, but no fruit (I think?) .
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How is STEP Prep going? I see you are getting them S grades, is that correct? When did you start preparing for STEP and how much time do you spend on STEP Prep?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnglishMuon)
    Day 25-28 Summary
    One point that I seem to have overlooked (or at least not appreciated enough) a few times now is the constant of integration when integrating series.
    Consider the expansion of  (1-kx)^{-1/2}= 1+ \displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^ \infty \dfrac{(2n)!}{4^{n}(n!)^2} k^{n}x^{n} (which may be derived via binomial theorem).
    A common way of then finding new expressions for infinite series can come from integrating either side.
    So we end up with
     - \frac{2}{k}(1-kx)^{1/2} = x+ \displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^ \infty \dfrac{(2n)!}{4^{n}n!(n+1)!} k^{n}x^{n+1} +C where C is the constant of integration. However, you may ask (you as in me earlier today) why we dont get an identical +C on either side of the expansion which cancels? Well we can clearly see that the result would not make sense, e.g. without a +C, when subbing in x=0 we get an immediate contradiction. But we could claim they are identical expressions to begin with so why would the +C be different? I believe this is just due to the nature of being an indefinite integral (think about a differential equation in mechanics with t=0 when v=k, k is not 0) ( Zacken any nice way to explain this? or is it just trivially true?) .

    Upon subbing in a value within the criteria for convergence ( |x| \leq \frac{1}{k} ) we see  C= - \frac{2}{k} and we have come up with a new expression to use.
    I loved doing that question. STEP III 2007, I think?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Insight314)
    I loved doing that question. STEP III 2007, I think?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    haha yep It was quite nice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Day 29 Summary
    I kept flicking by the formula for 'radius of curvature' in the formula book, but never really thought about what it was about. So after looking up the basic definition that it was "the radius of the circular arc which best approximates the curve at that point", I thought the best way to understand it is to true derive it myself! Here is my attempt below- it all seems to work out, but the last line where somehow  ( \dfrac{dx}{dt})^{3} \dfrac{d^{2}t}{dx^{2}} = -\dfrac{d^{2}x}{dt^{2}} if my workings actually hold...

    Name:  ImageUploadedByStudent Room1462100269.169224.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  132.4 KB
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by EnglishMuon)
    Day 29 Summary
    I kept flicking by the formula for 'radius of curvature' in the formula book, but never really thought about what it was about. So after looking up the basic definition that it was "the radius of the circular arc which best approximates the curve at that point", I thought the best way to understand it is to true derive it myself! Here is my attempt below- it all seems to work out, but the last line where somehow  ( \dfrac{dx}{dt})^{3} \dfrac{d^{2}t}{dx^{2}} = -\dfrac{d^{2}x}{dt^{2}} if my workings actually hold...

    Name:  ImageUploadedByStudent Room1462100269.169224.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  132.4 KB
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    :yep:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnglishMuon)
    Day 29 Summary
    I kept flicking by the formula for 'radius of curvature' in the formula book, but never really thought about what it was about. So after looking up the basic definition that it was "the radius of the circular arc which best approximates the curve at that point", I thought the best way to understand it is to true derive it myself! Here is my attempt below- it all seems to work out, but the last line where somehow  ( \dfrac{dx}{dt})^{3} \dfrac{d^{2}t}{dx^{2}} = -\dfrac{d^{2}x}{dt^{2}} if my workings actually hold...

    Name:  ImageUploadedByStudent Room1462100269.169224.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  132.4 KB
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    III 2007 Q4 this pops up on 'I think' not 100% sure.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsmaths)
    III 2007 Q4 this pops up on 'I think' not 100% sure.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    oh nice. I did this paper the other day but skipped over that q. It doesnt look like you need to know what its about in the q though but nice to see it used anyway!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnglishMuon)
    oh nice. I did this paper the other day but skipped over that q. It doesnt look like you need to know what its about in the q though but nice to see it used anyway!
    Na you don't. It is just nice haha.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Day 30 Summary
    Although Im coming up with mostly full solutions to most STEP qs now, I still make the odd mistake and can look in to the interesting topics further!
    Firstly, one very important and standard fact that I almost missed earlier:
    Suppose we have two lines in the complex plane. From our knowledge of De Moivre's theorem, we know multiplying by a complex number can be seen by a rotation by addition of arguments (as well as a 'stretch' ) hence the transformation of one line to its perpendicular can be done by multiplying by  i . So if we have 4 complex numbers  a,b,c,d and the line segment  \vec{AB} = b-a is perpendicular to  \vec{CD} = d-c , we can say  b-a= \lambda i (d-c) ( lambda is a real scalar).
    Furthermore, we know complex conjugates have the following properties:
     \bar{z+w}= \bar{z} + \bar{w} and  \bar{zw} = \bar{z} \bar{w} so  b-a= \lambda i (d-c) \Rightarrow \bar{b}- \bar{a} = -\lambda i ( \bar{d}- \bar{c}).

    Here are also some interesting features of Fibonacci numbers that I have looked into:
    From Pascal's triangle, it can be seen the sums of the  nth 'slanted' diagonals equals the  nth Fibonacci number, i.e.
     \displaystyle\sum_{r=0}^{ \left[ \frac{n-1}{2} \right] } ^{n-r-1}\mathrm{C}_r  = F_{n}

    Also,  F_{n} = \dfrac{ \phi ^{n} - \psi ^{n}}{ \sqrt{5}} where  \phi is the golden ratio, and  \psi = \dfrac{1- \sqrt{5}}{2} so  \displaystyle\lim_{x \to \infty} \dfrac{F_{n+1}}{F_{n}} = \phi
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Insight314 Would you be able help with a probable silly slip on an M4 q? On June 2011 q2, when applying Newton's Law of restitution to the wall I got  - \frac{3}{4} u \sin \theta = v \sin \phi (where  \theta , \phi are the angles between the wall and initial velocity and wall and final velocity respectively, but I shouldnt have a -ve there apparently. Why is this the case?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful revision links

    Articles

    Writing revision notes

    Our top revision articles

    Tips and advice on making the most of your study time.

    Boomarked book

    Superpowered study

    Take the hard work out of revising with our masterplan.

    Rosette

    Essay expert

    Learn to write like a pro with our ultimate essay guide.

    Can you help? Study Help unanswered threadsStudy Help rules and posting guidelines

    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

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.