Hi,
I'm attempting to solve this problem
http://imgur.com/yjpxUgp
I have tried to solve it but can't prove the result: http://imgur.com/Kk2VplG
Any help would be much appreciated
Many thanks

Radio10
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to Radio10
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 1
 08012017 18:38

Revision help in partnership with Birmingham City University

DFranklin
 Follow
 61 followers
 18 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline18ReputationRep: Follow
 2
 08012017 18:44
(Original post by Radio10)
Hi,
I'm attempting to solve this problem
http://imgur.com/yjpxUgp
I have tried to solve it but can't prove the result: http://imgur.com/Kk2VplG
Any help would be much appreciated
Many thanks
Split this into 2 sums (one with k/2^k and one with 1/2^k). You can sum the latter, and manipulate the former to look like the summation you are trying to get to. 
Radio10
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to Radio10
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 3
 08012017 20:35
(Original post by DFranklin)
Hint: From , write k = n1 to get
Split this into 2 sums (one with k/2^k and one with 1/2^k). You can sum the latter, and manipulate the former to look like the summation you are trying to get to.
I have managed to solve the latter part with your help: http://imgur.com/a/PdQAf
For the former part, do I say when k=0, n=1 and change it to look like the result given?
Many thanks for your help 
DFranklin
 Follow
 61 followers
 18 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline18ReputationRep: Follow
 4
 09012017 10:42
(Original post by Radio10)
Thank you very much for your quick response.
I have managed to solve the latter part with your help: http://imgur.com/a/PdQAf
For the former part, do I say when k=0, n=1 and change it to look like the result given?
So is exactly the same thing as .
So relabel k to n, you then have something very like what you want  the only issue is the sum goes from 0 instead of 1. But what you're summing is 0 when n (or k) = 0, so you can simply remove that term. 
Radio10
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to Radio10
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 5
 09012017 16:02
(Original post by DFranklin)
You can "relabel" a sum (that is, change the variable you're summing over) without changing it.
So is exactly the same thing as .
So relabel k to n, you then have something very like what you want  the only issue is the sum goes from 0 instead of 1. But what you're summing is 0 when n (or k) = 0, so you can simply remove that term.
I apologise for posting my previous workings as attachments. I hadn't thought about the hassle of switching between tabs when responding to posts. Sorry about that. Will try to post in plain text/LaTeX next time.
If I'm not troubling you could you give a hint on how to solve part b. I'm not quite sure on it. 
DFranklin
 Follow
 61 followers
 18 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline18ReputationRep: Follow
 6
 09012017 16:19
(Original post by Radio10)
I apologise for posting my previous workings as attachments. I hadn't thought about the hassle of switching between tabs when responding to posts. Sorry about that. Will try to post in plain text/LaTeX next time.
If I'm not troubling you could you give a hint on how to solve part b. I'm not quite sure on it. 
Radio10
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to Radio10
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 7
 09012017 20:59
(Original post by DFranklin)
Please don't take it personally  despite the tone of the thread, we all recognize that many people don't know LaTeX. Although I think you probably should learn it (over time) if you're doing a maths degree, as long as you are doing the other things that make your posts worth replying to (like making effort of your own, posting working, etc., all of which you are doing), I'm not going to have a problem with it.
All they've done is divide S_N by 2 and separate out the last term (when n = N) from the sum.
Oh I see, I was overcomplicating it
Please could you have a look at my attempt for part c. I can't seem to find where I am going wrong. 
DFranklin
 Follow
 61 followers
 18 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline18ReputationRep: Follow
 8
 09012017 21:18
(Original post by Radio10)
It's fine, I understand the point you make
Oh I see, I was overcomplicating it
Please could you have a look at my attempt for part c. I can't seem to find where I am going wrong.
I can tell you that at this point, you shouldn't be doing any more manipulation of the sums at all.
If we write A for S_n, and B for , then (a) and (b) can be rewritten as:
(a) A = B + C, (where C = 2(1 1/2^N))
(b) B = A/2 + D (where D = N / 2^N).
Treat these as simultaneous equations in A and B, and solve to find A in terms of C and D.Last edited by DFranklin; 09012017 at 21:20. 
Radio10
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to Radio10
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 9
 09012017 22:05
(Original post by DFranklin)
Sorry, but I really can't work out what you're trying to do here. You've written a bunch of stuff, but nothing seems to connect one line to anoher, or even indicate what you're actually trying to evaluate. (I think this is something Alevel doesn't teach well, but you need to do it at university level. It's a bit like doing English comprehension  once you get to a certain level, you need to start writing in full (mathematical) sentences),
I can tell you that at this point, you shouldn't be doing any more manipulation of the sums at all.
If we write A for S_n, and B for , then (a) and (b) can be rewritten as:
(a) A = B + C, (where C = 2(1 1/2^N))
(b) B = A/2 + D (where D = N / 2^N).
Treat these as simultaneous equations in A and B, and solve to find A in terms of C and D.
Thank you so much for the above. I was able to finally prove the result. I will type it up in a bit.
I have one last question (part d) please
S_N= 4  (N+2)/ 2^(N1)
Would it be sufficient to write
(N+2)/ 2^(N1)= N/2^ (N1) + 2/2^(N1)
=2N/2^N + 4/2^N
For the latter part, as N tends to infinity, 4/2^N tends to zero.
For the former, this converges to 0, because as n gets bigger, the function will get closer and closer to 0 
DFranklin
 Follow
 61 followers
 18 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline18ReputationRep: Follow
 10
 09012017 22:15
(Original post by Radio10)
I really appreciate your quick response. I'm sorry that my previous post didn't make sense, I was trying to substitute the RHS of part b into the RHS of part a and simplify but it seems that wouldn't have been useful.
Would it be sufficient to write
(N+2)/ 2^(N1)= N/2^ (N1) + 2/2^(N1)
=2N/2^N + 4/2^N
For the latter part, as N tends to infinity, 4/2^N tends to zero.
For the former, this converges to 0, because as n gets bigger, the function will get closer and closer to 0
The question explicitly tells you that "you will need to say something about the convergence of as ". Moreover, it gives you a hint (and so you can't simply say "I considered it and it tends to 0".
[Also, I'll note that 1+(1/x) "gets closer and closer to 0" as x goes to infinity, but it sure as heck doesn't tend to 0...]
On the other hand, I can't say I find their hint terribly useful.
If I wanted to prove I would go (there are details in the following you'll need to fill and, as well as all the bits where I've just written "..." rather than give the game away):
Let . Then . So if n > ... then . Then by comparison with the geometric series AR^n (with A = ..., R = ...), a_n tends to 0.
As I say, I really don't get the hint. (I can think of ways to use it, but they feel inappropriate given the rest of the Q).Last edited by DFranklin; 09012017 at 22:24. 
Radio10
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to Radio10
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 11
 09012017 23:12
(Original post by DFranklin)
I'm not sure how much it would have helped here (because I think some other things went wrong at the same time!), but in general the kind of explanation you've just given makes things *so* much easier for your helpers to follow...
This isn't sufficient. In particular your treatment of "the former part" is insufficient.
The question explicitly tells you that "you will need to say something about the convergence of as ". Moreover, it gives you a hint (and so you can't simply say "I considered it and it tends to 0".
[Also, I'll note that 1+(1/x) "gets closer and closer to 0" as x goes to infinity, but it sure as heck doesn't tend to 0...]
On the other hand, I can't say I find their hint terribly useful.
If I wanted to prove I would go (there are details in the following you'll need to fill and, as well as all the bits where I've just written "..." rather than give the game away):
Let . Then . So if n > ... then . Then by comparison with the geometric series AR^n (with A = ..., R = ...), a_n tends to 0.
As I say, I really don't get the hint. (I can think of ways to use it, but they feel inappropriate given the rest of the Q).
Please let me know if the following is correct or which areas I need to amend.
Let . Then . So if n > 0 then . Then by comparison with the geometric series AR^n (with A = 1, R = 3/4), a_n tends to 0.
I feel I have made a mistake (which I probably have).Last edited by Radio10; 09012017 at 23:17. 
DFranklin
 Follow
 61 followers
 18 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline18ReputationRep: Follow
 12
 09012017 23:20
(Original post by Radio10)
..
There's a LaTeX "issue" in what I wrote that I think may be confusing you (the LaTeX I wrote is "correct", but the LaTeX output isn't as clear as I'd hoped).
When I wrote , I meant (i.e. the ratio of the nth and n+1th terms of a_n). I think you may have interpreted it as .
Anyhow, a_{n+1} has a factor (n+1), while a_n has a factor n. So you'd better have something looking like (n+1)/n as part of your ratio. .
Also, I'm not sure where your A came from, or if it's right. To give a slightly different example (so I'm not giving you a full solution): suppose we'd shown that
a_{n+1} < (3/4) a_n for n = 7.
I would write something like: since a_{n+1} < (3/4) a_n for n = 7, we can deduce for n = 7. So by comparison with the GP AR^n with A = a_7 (4/3)^7, we can deduce...
To be fair, you don't really need to know what A is, as long as R < 1, you're fine.Last edited by DFranklin; 09012017 at 23:26. 
Radio10
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to Radio10
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 13
 09012017 23:37
(Original post by DFranklin)
Your ratio isn't correct.
There's a LaTeX "issue" in what I wrote that I think may be confusing you (the LaTeX I wrote is "correct", but the LaTeX output isn't as clear as I'd hoped).
When I wrote , I meant (i.e. the ratio of the nth and n+1th terms of a_n). I think you may have interpreted it as .
Anyhow, a_{n+1} has a factor (n+1), while a_n has a factor n. So you'd better have something looking like (n+1)/n as part of your ratio. .
Also, I'm not sure where your A came from, or if it's right. To give a slightly different example (so I'm not giving you a full solution): suppose we'd shown that
a_{n+1} < (3/4) a_n for n = 7.
I would write something like: since a_{n+1} < (3/4) a_n for n = 7, we can deduce for n = 7. So by comparison with the GP AR^n with A = a_7 (4/3)^7, we can deduce...
To be fair, you don't really need to know what A is, as long as R < 1, you're fine.
Oh ok. I will work on finding the correct value of A 
DFranklin
 Follow
 61 followers
 18 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline18ReputationRep: Follow
 14
 09012017 23:41
(Original post by Radio10)
Sorry I did misinterpret it. Is the correct ratio n+1/2n with n>2?
Oh ok. I will work on finding the correct value of A 
Radio10
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to Radio10
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 15
 09012017 23:57
(Original post by DFranklin)
Assuming you mean and not then yes!
As I say, the exact value doesn't really matter, but you should probably do it once correctly so you know you're not doing anything wrong.
Will do. Thank you so much for your help throughout this question. I really appreciate it!!!!
Many thanks
Related discussions
 Help on a series proof question
 series proof q
 summing series proof
 C1 Edexcel 2017 Predictions
 FP1 Worksheets & Practice Papers for A Level Students
 AS C1 over Summer
 Shocking teacher's error's
 Edexcel FP1  May 14th, 2015 [Exam discussion thread]
 Edexcel C1, C2 June 2013
 Edexcel FP1 Thread  20th May, 2016
Related university courses

Mathematics with Statistics
University of Surrey

Economics, Statistics and Mathematics
Queen Mary University of London

Accounting, Finance and Mathematics
Lancaster University

Applied Mathematics
University of Aberdeen

Mathematics
University of Aberdeen

Mathematics
University of Winchester

Mathematics with Computing
Middlesex University

Mathematics and Statistics
University of Oxford

Mathematics and Statistics
University of Oxford

Mathematics for Finance (with a year abroad)
Swansea University
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.
 SherlockHolmes
 Notnek
 charco
 Mr M
 Changing Skies
 F1's Finest
 rayquaza17
 RDKGames
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 TeeEff
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 TheAnxiousSloth
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Labrador99
 EmilySarah00
 thekidwhogames
 entertainmyfaith
 Eimmanuel