MedVision ad

Inequalities (1 Viewer)

YannY

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
190
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
can someone explain to me how HSC 1997 Q6a iii) is done and the need of the condition it gives you.
 

Affinity

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Oslo
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
helps if you post the question.

You integrate the result from part 2 with limits 0 to y.

the condition >= 0 is to ensure the integral does not flip signs
andthe condition <= 1 is there to allow you to estimate the last bit.
 
Last edited:

YannY

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
190
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Ah, sorry i didn't post it - cause its quite tedious.

But i dont get why you need the estimate the second bit and not the first part with the >=1
 

Affinity

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Oslo
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
integral [0 to y] x^(4n+2) = 1/(4n+3) y^(4n+3)

assuming y <=1 allows you to conclude that it is less than 1/(4n+3)
 

conics2008

Active Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
1,228
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
question

The series 1-x^2+x^4-...........+x^4n has 2n+1 terms..

part i) just use the sum of geo series...

ii) i dont even know where to begin...

iii) integrate between y and 0 the whole equaion and you should come to the required position... ( basic look and give knowledge)

iv) it looks like u have to sub some shit in.. prolly a number on iii...

sorry i just have the questions no solutions...
 

heybashme

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
44
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Quick question is proof by contradiction for some inequalities a legitimate way of proving an inequality is true in an exam?
 

Affinity

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Oslo
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
heybashme said:
Quick question is proof by contradiction for some inequalities a legitimate way of proving an inequality is true in an exam?
Done correctly -> yes.

In particular, with inequalities.. they usually want you to prove that

LHS < RHS

where LHS and RHS depends on some parameter(s) say x.

so the statement they want you to prove is
for all x, LHS(x) < RHS(x)


to prove it by contradiction, you would first assume that

there exist a particular x, such that

LHS(x) >= RHS(x)

and derive a contradiction from there.. problem is usually this will be quite hard/ more tedious.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top