MedVision ad

HSC 2012 MX2 Marathon (archive) (1 Viewer)

Godmode

Activated
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
41
Location
9th Circle of Hell
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

Ok so you know how multiplication can be considered repeated addition of a number (eg 5x = x + x + x + x + x), and exponentiation can be considered repeated multiplication(eg x^5 = x * x * x * x * x)? Well repeated exponentiation (eg x^x^x^x^x^....^x is called tetration, and is denoted by

Using the fact that the derivative of is which is equal to ,
Find the derivative of:

i.
ii.
iii. I am trying to find some sort of general pattern for the derivative of . If you keep deriving higher and higher tetrations of x, you may see a pattern emerge. Try and help me piece this pattern together in order to find the derivative of .

btw, I use ^{n}\textrm{x} for tetration notation, just doing ^{n}x doesn't seem to work for me.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
2,225
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2012
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

Oh ic, even easier lols...
 

cutemouse

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

but this is NOT a proof.
Uhh, it is.

I get what people are saying about creativity etc. But my point is that sometimes the easiest way is to work backwards using iff arguments. Also if you square both sides of an inequality (or equation) then iff doesn't hold.
 

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,391
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

x2 + y2 > 2xy

iff x2 - 2xy + y2 > 0

iff (x-y)2 > 0, which is true for all real x,y ...

Nothing wrong with that I don't think...
Whilst there is nothing wrong with the iff arguments in a logical sense, I don't think they constitute a well presented 'proof' of the statement (though if there are pure mathematicians amongst us specially those who've studied logic and foundations, please offer your insights). A proof is a way to demonstrate the truth of statement using a set of axioms.

So starting from the 'axiom' (x - y)2 > 0 you make the logical deduction to arrive at the result. If we start with the result, you're effectively taking the x2 + y2 > 2xy as your 'axiom' to show that
(x - y)2 > 0.

Looking at it more carefully:

x2 + y2 > 2xy

iff x2 - 2xy + y2 > 0

iff (x-y)2 > 0, which is true for all real x,y ...

You then conclude that x2 + y2 > 2xy. Why are you able to conclude that? (the flow of the main argument is fine but its the point that you make the conclusion that I'm a bit concerned about)

This is because (x - y)2 > 0 is a true statement (an axiom) which then leads us to the result we want by a set of deductions (notice that the direction of the logical argument is different to the order you've presented it in). So what you've presented here in relation to the logical argument isn't in the 'logical order'.

In other words, a mathematical proof is where we use axiom A to demonstrate the truth of statement S (i.e. A --> S) so when you present them, naturally you should use the axiom to arrive at the statement by the conclusion.

Anyway, back to my original point, the working backwards approach isn't a valid proof in that question because for some domain D, if



then



but the converse isn't necessarily true
 
Last edited:

seanieg89

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

You are right of course cutemouse, I just like to stress the dangers of working backwards as many high school students don't tend to think too much about which directions arguments work. The squaring example is a rather trivial one, but can be well disguised sometimes, it is bizarre how often I see students make mistakes when solving inequalities involving absolute value signs for instance.

Once one is comfortable with what he is doing and has a sense for when an argument is "valid" I have no problem with them using any heuristics they like to arrive at a proof.
 

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,391
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

Another question:

 

seanieg89

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

Let f(x)=x*arcsin(x). As the product of two odd functions f is even, so it suffices to prove the assertion for 0<=x<1.

f is the product of two positive and increasing functions on the interval 0<=x<=1. Hence 0=f(0)<=f(x) < f(1)=pi/2 for all -1 < x < 1.
 

math man

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
503
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

Using the Gaussian integral:

and Euler's identity:

deduce the following special integrals:

 

seanieg89

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

The obvious method that comes to mind is looking at the sector contour with one side being part of the positive real axis, and an angle of pi/4 radians. The integral along the circular arc tends to zero which implies that half of the Gaussian integral is equal to the negative integral of e^(-z^2) over the diagonal ray. Which after applying Euler's identity gives us what we want.

Clearly this is beyond the scope of mx2 so perhaps you had another solution in mind.
 
Last edited:

Johnstan

Sickunt overload
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
168
Location
Compton
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
Uni Grad
2012
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

The obvious method that comes to mind is looking at the sector contour with one side being part of the positive real axis, and an angle of pi/4 radians. The integral along the circular arc tends to zero which implies that half of the Gaussian integral is equal to the negative integral of e^(-z^2) over the diagonal ray. Which after applying Euler's identity gives us what we want.

Clearly this is beyond the scope of mx2 so perhaps you had another solution in mind.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
 

math man

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
503
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

yes i have a simple solution in mind, involving only 4u properties applying those 2 formulaes
 

cutemouse

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

Probably using e^(i x^2) = cos (x^2) + i sin (x^2) and treat i as a constant and take the real and imaginary parts.

But yes, the complex analysis way is quite elegant I think.
 

seanieg89

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

Probably using e^(i x^2) = cos (x^2) + i sin (x^2) and treat i as a constant and take the real and imaginary parts.

But yes, the complex analysis way is quite elegant I think.
He explained his method to me through PM and I don't think it is valid, but we will see if someone can post a valid solution using MX2 only techniques (I don't think this is possible).
 

Sindivyn

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
194
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Re: 2012 HSC MX2 Marathon

Could have generalised the problem by using the equation xy = k^2 instead =p

Oh and there is actually a nice and cheap way of calculating (or checking) the Implicit Derivative.




So for the equation xy= k^2, we have:



I know it doesn't seem worth it for this particular example, but it really helps when it comes to implicitly differentiating things like:

Would you mind going over the second example? Didn't really understand the method.
 

Carrotsticks

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

Would you mind going over the second example? Didn't really understand the method.
Partial f / Partial X means you differentiate f(x,y) purely with respect to x, and you treat Y as a constant.

Similarly for Partial f / Partial Y.
 

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

Top