HSC 2012 MX2 Marathon (archive) (2 Viewers)

cutemouse

Account Closed
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,250
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

Everyone else wrote that it equals zero (odd function etc.) but I thought that you can only integrate something if it is defined in the domain so I wrote that it diverges as x can't equal 1 or -1. Is that right?
Indeed the integral doesn't converge absolutely.

What everyone else wrote is the Cauchy Principal Value. This assigns a value to such integrals. But of course that was not asked here.
 

lolcakes52

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
286
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2012
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

Couldn't you just use the taylor series of e^x?
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

Well that is how e^x is defined in higher mathematics, but at the school level that knowledge is not assumed. You can deduce the inequality pretty easily using properties of the exponential from the 3 unit course.
 

lolcakes52

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
286
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2012
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

I don't want to make a thread about this as i could just ask it here. How can a complex function that converges for Re(z)>s where s is a real number have a zero for Re(z)<s. I don't understand the logic and was wondering if the initial statement of convergence must be wrong as a imaginary part of high enough value might change the nature of the limit to infinity. I basically stumbled across this while reading about Reimanns zeta function which converges for Re(S)>1 but has zeroes at Re(s)=1/2 which seems like a contradiction.
 

Carrotsticks

Retired
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
9,494
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

I don't want to make a thread about this as i could just ask it here. How can a complex function that converges for Re(z)>s where s is a real number have a zero for Re(z)<s. I don't understand the logic and was wondering if the initial statement of convergence must be wrong as a imaginary part of high enough value might change the nature of the limit to infinity. I basically stumbled across this while reading about Reimanns zeta function which converges for Re(S)>1 but has zeroes at Re(s)=1/2 which seems like a contradiction.
BOS is stuffing up a bit. I quoted your statement to point out something which didn't make sense, then once it appeared in the quote tags, some text appeared *which made the sentence complete*, which was not originally there. I'm betting that if I were to reply, the quote would come off missing parts as well.

You said the Riemann Zeta Function has zeros for Re(s) = 0.5, but this is actually one of the greatest unsolved problems in Mathematics, which you may have heard of.

It is called the Riemann Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis

It essentially says that all non-trivial zeros for this function have real component 0.5, but is yet to be proved.
 

Carrotsticks

Retired
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
9,494
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

Here is a very nice question. If you have done many geometrical applications of Complex Numbers questions, then this shouldn't be too difficult for you, as it draws from a very well known condition. If you don't know this condition... the question may be quite difficult.

Consider the cubic non-zero polynomial with complex coefficients:



Show that the 3 roots form an equilateral triangle if and only if:

 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

I don't want to make a thread about this as i could just ask it here. How can a complex function that converges for Re(z)>s where s is a real number have a zero for Re(z)<s. I don't understand the logic and was wondering if the initial statement of convergence must be wrong as a imaginary part of high enough value might change the nature of the limit to infinity. I basically stumbled across this while reading about Reimanns zeta function which converges for Re(S)>1 but has zeroes at Re(s)=1/2 which seems like a contradiction.
Okay, I see what you are asking. This is a common misconception. The Riemann Zeta function is defined by the series:



ONLY for s with real part larger than one. It turns out there is only one "nice" function that is defined on the whole complex plane (excluding s=1) that agrees with this infinite series wherever the latter converges. THIS is the function that is conjectured to have all nontrivial zeros on the line Re(s)=1/2.
 

lolcakes52

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
286
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2012
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

So what your saying is that it only definitely converges for Re(s)>1 but can converge for values less than or equal to one depending on the imaginary part? In this case it can converge but only for specific values of Im(s)<1 ?
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

No, the series I wrote down converges if and ONLY if Re(s)>1. It diverges everywhere else. However, this fragment of a function can be extended to the whole complex plane in a very natural way. (Excluding the point s=1). This process is called analytic continuation and is a recurring theme in complex analysis.
 

cutemouse

Account Closed
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,250
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

This process is called analytic continuation and is a recurring theme in complex analysis.
Prove analytic continuation.

It actually is a VERY difficult theorem to prove.
 

AAEldar

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
2,246
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

Come on guys, keep this stuff within the realms of MX2.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

Prove analytic continuation.

It actually is a VERY difficult theorem to prove.
Which theorem are you referring to? The Monodromy theorem? It isn't too difficult to find the analytic continuation of the zeta function in particular...
 

deswa1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
2,256
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

Going off Carrot's question, this is to prove the first result (from Cambridge):

<img src="http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?\textup{Consider the area under }y=\frac{1}{x}\textup{ between x=n and x=n+1}\\ a) \textup{ Show that }\frac{1}{n+1}< \int_{n}^{n+1}\frac{1}{x}dx< \frac{1}{n}\\ b)\textup{ Hence show that }\frac{n}{n+1}< ln(1+\frac{1}{n})^n< 1\\ c)\textup{ Take the limit of this last result as n tends to infinity to}\\ \textup{show that }\lim_{n \to \infty }(1+\frac{1}{n})^n=e" title="\textup{Consider the area under }y=\frac{1}{x}\textup{ between x=n and x=n+1}\\ a) \textup{ Show that }\frac{1}{n+1}< \int_{n}^{n+1}\frac{1}{x}dx< \frac{1}{n}\\ b)\textup{ Hence show that }\frac{n}{n+1}< ln(1+\frac{1}{n})^n< 1\\ c)\textup{ Take the limit of this last result as n tends to infinity to}\\ \textup{show that }\lim_{n \to \infty }(1+\frac{1}{n})^n=e" />
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

Given that:



Show that:

Don't know what you are expecting us to assume, as arbitrary real powers are not defined in the HSC. But we can make sense of the question using the integral definition of the logarithm, and the log laws/differentiation laws that follow.

 
Last edited:

Cyberbully

Where do you live?
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
122
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2012
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

How would you approach this algebraically (or any general explanation for that matter):

<img src="http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?\textup{find the locus of } arg(z(z-(\sqrt{3} + i))) = \frac{\pi}{6}" title="\textup{find the locus of } arg(z(z-(\sqrt{3} + i))) = \frac{\pi}{6}" />
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top