• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

HSC 2015 MX2 Marathon ADVANCED (archive) (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

I think we need some clarification.

Are allowed to be non-real complex numbers? Do you mean , or ? And is the root, or is it ? It is possible to have all roots have modulus less than 1 and have be unsatisfied, e.g. for some real such that is not real (clearly such exists). In this case, does not make sense since is not real.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

(taking the word degree to describe the number of lines that goes through a specific intersection point)

It is sufficient to prove that there is at least one intersection point of degree 2, because if there is, one can just remove a line that goes through there, which in turn removes that intersection point (since removing a line decreases the degree by 1, and no intersection point can have degree 1).

I have a strong intuition that it is indeed the case that there is always at least 1 point of degree 2, but I'm not sure yet how to prove this (if I was to guess it would be a clever invocation of the pidgeonhole principle)
I've tried for too long at this idea and I can't get to a proof of it

New question

 
Last edited:

shervos

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
39
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

I think we need some clarification.

Are allowed to be non-real complex numbers? Do you mean , or ? And is the root, or is it ? It is possible to have all roots have modulus less than 1 and have be unsatisfied, e.g. for some real such that is not real (clearly such exists). In this case, does not make sense since is not real.
the coefficients are all real. and sorry, the root is x_i, not |x_i| (I failed my latex here).....
 

shervos

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
39
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

I've tried for too long at this idea and I can't get to a proof of it

New question

which conjecture are you referring to? If you mean the one in which u quoted, I think it has already been proven
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

which conjecture are you referring to? If you mean the one in which u quoted, I think it has already been proven
the line wouldn't come up for some reason, edited
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

could use strong mathematical induction? (n>2)
I tried that but couldn't find a conclusive proof for it.

The proof is easy if one knows (a latter conjecture that I knew I had to prove but could not) that there cannot exist a line that goes through all intersection points of degree 2 and goes through every other line through an already established intersection point.
 

RealiseNothing

what is that?It is Cowpea
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
4,591
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Obviously, a proof by contradiction seems like the correct approach.

Choose a point in the plane, and label it as A_0. From the questions conditions, namely the fact that not all lines can intersect at a single point implies that there are in fact at least three distinct intersection points. Of all triangles whose vertices are such intersection points, consider those with minimal area; and of all these triangles, consider one whose centroid is farthest from A_0.

Suppose that this triangle has vertices P, Q, and R. Because these points are have three or more lines going through them, they must lie also on the sides of a bigger triangle. This new, larger triangle is separated into four triangles by the lines PQ, QR, and RP — namely, triangle PQR is surrounded by three outer triangles.
One can easily show that the PQR's area is >= the minimum of the areas of the other three triangles,
with equality if and only if triangle PQR is the medial triangle of the larger triangle whose sides P,Q, and R lie on. Indeed, equality must hold because of the minimal definition of triangle PQR. Hence, each of the outer triangles is formed by the given lines and has the same area as triangle PQR; but one of the four triangles have centroids further from A_0 than
the centroid of triangle PQR, a contradiction since we defined PQR to be the triangle whose triangle has minimal distance from A_0.
Your username is really subtle isnt it :p
 

glittergal96

Active Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
418
Gender
Female
HSC
2014
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

I've tried for too long at this idea and I can't get to a proof of it

New question

I already proved this on the previous page, in fact there are at least three such intersection points. Yang's proof above is a much more elegant way of proving existence though, which is all we require for induction.
 

glittergal96

Active Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
418
Gender
Female
HSC
2014
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

I've been reading your posts, and I have this gut feeling that I know you from somewhere....Have you attended any events/programs organised by the AMT such as NMSS or selection camp? Or am I completely wrong?
Nope, not quite good enough for selection camp.
 

dan964

what
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,479
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

the coefficients are all real. and sorry, the root is x_i, not |x_i| (I failed my latex here).....
shervos, further clarification. if that is the case is it supposed be just
(I am assuming you only need one root in that range.
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

shervos, further clarification. if that is the case is it supposed be just
(I am assuming you only need one root in that range.
It was that all roots had modulus less than 1 (the roots could be non-real).
 

dan964

what
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,479
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

thanks for that.
 
Last edited:

glittergal96

Active Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
418
Gender
Female
HSC
2014
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

For the cubic question:

Let A be the statement that the pair of inequalities in the question hold.

Let B be the statement that the polynomial has all roots in the open unit disk.

Let S(n) be the statement that the polynomial has n real roots.

It suffices to show:

(1.) A & S(1) <=> B & S(1)

and

(2.) A & S(3) <=> B & S(3).

I prove (1.) below. I have not proven (2.) yet, but hopefully it is not much harder. I will post it if/when I get it.
---

If p has roots ,

A & S(1) <=> S(1) & {all real roots of p lie in unit interval and all real roots of lie in unit interval.}

<=> S(1) & {p(1)>0 & p(-1) < 0 & q(1)>0}

<=> S(1) & {|b+d|<|1+c| & 1-d^2>c-bd.}

So it remains to show that the RHS implies S(1) & {|b+d|<|1+c| & 1-d^2 < bd-c}.


Since we have S(1), we can write the roots as

So .

This means that c+1=|c+1|, and we have |b+d|<1+c.

so bd+d^2 = d(b+d) < |b+d| < 1+c which implies that 1-d^2 < bd-c as required. So this completes the proof of (1.).

(If there is anything you would like me to clarify please ask, I am being brief in explanation because to do otherwise would be quite tedious.)
 
Last edited:

glittergal96

Active Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
418
Gender
Female
HSC
2014
Re: HSC 2015 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

(A almost identical argument establishes B & S(3) => A & S(3). p and q must have all roots in the unit interval so we get p(1) > 0, p(-1) < 0, q(1) > 0. Which gives us |b+d| < |1+c| = 1+c and 1-d^2 > c-bd. As with my previous post, the 1-d^2 > bd-c inequality comes from the |b+d| < 1+c one.)

So the problem is now 3/4 done. It remains to show A & S(3) => B & S(3).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top