Yes but the existence and uniqueness of a MINIMAL polynomial is not immediately clear and must be proven. And thanks .Nice work, it can also be done by considering the geometric series:
Substituting cis theta, equating real parts for a series in cosine. Then integrating with bounds alpha and pi yields the LHS and the RHS plus a limit to infinity of an integral which one must prove converges to zero.
Ah alright, is that not a definition of an algebraic number? To be a root of a rational polynomial?
Also your method is very clever.
Nice work but I don't know how we can prove that the limit goes to 0. There is a more rigorous method to prove this, will post it sometime next week.Using the result from the previous question:
Integrating both sides from pi to 2, and using the double angle rule, the result from the Basel problem and so on, we arrive at:
Then noticing that
We can notice that the LHS of what I have right now, is the LHS of the question - 1 (since at k=0 the function approaches 1). This then cancels out the term on the RHS, therefore leaving it with:
I know that it should evaluate to zero, however the same problem from when I encountered trying the Basel problem comes up where I cannot justify interchanging the theta integral and the limit to infinity as the alpha integral converges to zero due to by parts. However I cannot justify putting it in there unfortunately :/
Working on this.
It becomes:
What ifIt becomes:
And I don't know how to do that :/
Telescoping, pairing, binomial theorem don't seem to work
Possibly a combinatoric proof?
I suck at those but yeah
EDIT:
Considering the cards of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, ... , m, .... , n on the table.
We must pick k cards from the n on the table.
The probability that we pick these k cards from the first m is
So summing these probabilities will give us the LHS.
Now is there a nice way of doing this probability a different way to yield the RHS?
Well yeah if m > n then we arrive at negative factorials so it should be discounted.What if
Although I think the question should state that otherwise it won't work.
The RHS is equal to (n+1)P(m) / (n)P(m) (idk how to do permutations in latex)Well yeah if m > n then we arrive at negative factorials so it should be discounted.
Nice observation.The RHS is equal to (n+1)P(m) / (n)P(m) (idk how to do permutations in latex)
maybe you can choose the cards in this way some how.
Which is equal to:
1) [(1/a)-(1/b)]^2 + [(1/a)-(1/c)]^2 + [(1/b)-(1/c)]^2 >=0 (equality occurs iff a=b=c)
http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php Use this website, then simply copy and paste the code generated and wrap it around [ tex ] "CODE" [ / tex ] (without the spaces).1) [(1/a)-(1/b)]^2 + [(1/a)-(1/c)]^2 + [(1/b)-(1/c)]^2 >=0 (equality occurs iff a=b=c)
2/a^2 + 2/b^2 + 2/c^2 -2[(1/ab)+(1/bc)+(1/ac)] >=0
=> (1/a)^2 + (1/b)^2 + (1/c)^2 >= 1/bc + 1/ac + 1/ab for all real a,b,c=/=0 (*)
Hence, bc/a + ac/b + ab/c = abc[(1/a^2)+(1/b^2) +(1/c^2)]>=abc[(1/ab)+(1/bc)+(1/ac)]=a+b+c as req.
2) Refer back to (*), replace a with sqrt(a), b with sqrt(b) and c with sqrt(c) and the second inequality immediately falls out for a,b,c>0
Sorry if it's hard to read, still haven't learnt latex.
Did it. ^ That happened.http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php Use this website, then simply copy and paste the code generated and wrap it around [ tex ] "CODE" [ / tex ] (without the spaces).