HSC 2013 MX2 Marathon (archive) (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

 
Last edited:

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

This is my attempt:


























=============

I don't think my proof is absolutely correct though.
 
Last edited:

Rezen

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
62
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

This is my attempt:







I didn't read the rest but i can already tell your confused. Unsurprising since this question is definitely out of the scope of the hsc. (note that you said f'(a)=0, which is note true in general).

Here's a further hint:



EDIT: So I read the second step and the idea of adding and subtracting the same term was good and is a pretty standard technique in analysis. However, it still has some subtle errors. Firstly, while this is mostly a superficial error, in your assumption your said f is only k times differentiable, this condition is too strong and infact contradicts what your trying to prove. The assumption should be f is k times differentiable. Secondly, there is a more subtle error and I leave it as an exercise to find it. but note that as it stands, if your n=k+1 step was correct then this would imply that any function that is differentiable once would be differentiable to all orders. (While this is obviously wrong to me, I'm unsure if a HSC student would have run across a counter example since this tends to be true for most functions encountered at a hsc level.)
 
Last edited:

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

I didn't read the rest but i can already tell your confused. Unsurprising since this question is definitely out of the scope of the hsc. (note that you said f'(a)=0, which is note true in general).

Here's a further hint:



EDIT: So I read the second step and the idea of adding and subtracting the same term was good and is a pretty standard technique in analysis. However, it still has some subtle errors. Firstly, while this is mostly a superficial error, in your assumption your said f is only k times differentiable, this condition is too strong and infact contradicts what your trying to prove. The assumption should be f is k times differentiable. Secondly, there is a more subtle error and I leave it as an exercise to find it. but note that as it stands, if your n=k+1 step was correct then this would imply that any function that is differentiable once would be differentiable to all orders. (While this is obviously wrong to me, I'm unsure if a HSC student would have run across a counter example since this tends to be true for most functions encountered at a hsc level.)
Ah I see there, well you just posted the solution for Step 1, if I get rid of the strength of the assumption and loosen it up is it correct?

EDIT: And I am guessing that:


??
 
Last edited:

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon



==========

Is latex broken or something?
 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Ah I see there, well you just posted the solution for Step 1, if I get rid of the strength of the assumption and loosen it up is it correct?

EDIT: And I am guessing that:


??
Missing a factor of k!. Perhaps I should have given the form of the polynomial in my question but anyway, I think you should be able to prove the result if you know what the poly is.
 

Rezen

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
62
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Ah I see there, well you just posted the solution for Step 1, if I get rid of the strength of the assumption and loosen it up is it correct?

EDIT: And I am guessing that:


??
Google taylor polynomials.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Done it!

But solution too horrendous to type out in LaTeX.
Just the main points will do, and like a one sentence explanation between each 'major' line of working (i.e. skip the non important algebra)
 

deswa1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
2,256
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Just the main points will do, and like a one sentence explanation between each 'major' line of working (i.e. skip the non important algebra)
I haven't done it but iirc, this was a question in a Grammar paper a while ago and the easiest way to do it was to take logs of both sides and then differentiate implicitly.
 

Drongoski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,255
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Just the main points will do, and like a one sentence explanation between each 'major' line of working (i.e. skip the non important algebra)
Basically using implicit differentiation.

Steps:

1. - differentiate both sides wrt x

2. - expand as required & simplify

3. - express dy/dx as approp fraction

4. - multiply numerator and denominator of said fraction by: xy(x+y)

5. - replace (x+y)n with xmyn

6. - simplify, then factorise and simplify further

7. - voila


Using logs lots easier. See below.
 
Last edited:

Drongoski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,255
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon

Using logs, as suggested by deswa1, is heaps easier:

ln(LHS) = ln(RHS)

mlnx + nlny = (m+n)ln(x+y)

.: m/x + n/y . dy/dx = (m+n)/(x+y) .(1+dy/dx)

.: ((m+n)/(x+y) - n/y) . dy/dx = m/x - (m+n)/(x+y)

.: dy/dx = []/[] = [m(x+y)-(m+n)x]/[(m+n)y - n(x+y)] . y/x = y/x
 
Last edited:

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2013 4U Marathon




Note, replace the 1 with a. The image in the graph sets a=1

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)

Top