HSC 2014 MX2 Marathon ADVANCED (archive) (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Thank you all for the thoughts.
I certainly have put time in analysing the idea.
The idea is not baseless. Well known geometric facts support that, such as the question I posted a+b+c>=abc in a unit circle; area of a rectangle; volume of a cuboid.
What I was not able to do was using the right name for the type of expressions generated. This allowed seanieg89 to construct the counterexamples.
'Well most homogeneous cyclic polynomials won't even have global extrema'- This is true unless there is a constraint placed on a homogeneous
cyclic function of the variables in the original polynomial, which I also forgot to mention previously.
For example, (x-2y)^2(2x-y)^2 is a homogeneous cyclic polynomial, now plus the constraint xy=4, the minimum is 16 when x=y >0.
Apologies for the delay. My family loves to drag on these holiday events.

Of course the idea is not baseless...but each of your successive guesses is. You successively strengthen your assumptions and weaken your conclusion hoping that the new claim is true, but each time you have not posted any evidence for why you think this slightly weaker claim is true, given that the previous claim wasn't.

Nor have you posted any proofs or attempts thereof.

I am not a machine for testing your claims one after another. To improve at mathematics you should learn to bash your head at things for longer...especially when you don't know if things are true or false...they are the best practice of all.

The promised counterexample is just a slightly modified version of the previous one, to make it homogeneous:



"Well most homogeneous cyclic polynomials won't even have global extrema- This is true unless there is a constraint placed on a homogeneous
cyclic function of the variables in the original polynomial, which I also forgot to mention previously.
For example, (x-2y)^2(2x-y)^2 is a homogeneous cyclic polynomial, now plus the constraint xy=4, the minimum is 16 when x=y >0."

Sure, before I thought you were only making claims about unconstrained optimisation. Then you introduced the positivity constraint, which as I pointed out does not change things.

Neither do such polynomial equation constraints.

Counterexample:
Minimise x+y subject to the constraint x^2 + y^2 >= 1 and x >= 0 and y >= 0. The extremal points are then (1,0) and (0,1) contrary to your claim.

(Neither do such constraints always imply existence of extrema, unless (for example) the function is continuous and the restricted domain of our function ends up being compact.)
 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Generally, I wouldn't tweak any assumptions or hypotheses under risk of being overly specific to say a class of functions and then mistaking the property to being applicable over a broader spectrum (which looks like what happened above)

Perhaps a difference in style, I wouldn't dedicate too much effort in an attempt to seek out a disgustingly pathological counter-example (if by pathological you mean something that really tests the boundaries of the current assumptions a la Riemann's Pathological function versus the former definition of Riemann integrability). I personally think that is a waste of time because they can be very difficult to think of sometimes (the 'disgustingly pathological' counterexamples)

However, I do see some merit in spending a couple of minutes thinking about a quick counter-example before jumping into proofs.
The tweaking I was objecting to was more the tweaking outlined in my second paragraph. He posted a "solution" to a question citing a result that is untrue. He has then successively weakened it many times (but not enough to make it true), and keeps asking me to find counterexamples. It is like a student of yours resorting to guessing after discovering only the first half of his argument was valid.

I don't mean any particularly outlandish counterexample. I just meant "pathological" to mean weird enough not to satisfy the theorem. (So any counterexample at all really.) As jyu said, the nicest objects like rectangles of fixed perimeter satisfy his claim. As it happens, so does the inequality he originally posted a solution to. But without isolating what it is about this inequality that makes the claim true, he hasn't proven anything at all.

I think it just depends on the starting point. Before I try to resolve a statement as true or false, I think about it a bit and see whether I THINK it is true or false.
I have been almost certain that each of jyu's statement's has been incorrect, hence me heading directly to counterexample hunts.
He seems to be sure of the opposite, (enough to keep bouncing slightly modified versions at me), so it seems logical to me that he should seek a proof and at least post his ideas on this.

In the best case scenario he finds a proof, and in the worst case scenario, he hits stumbling blocks that lead HIM to a counterexample without having to ask me.
 

jyu

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
623
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Apologies for the delay. My family loves to drag on these holiday events.

Of course the idea is not baseless...but each of your successive guesses is. You successively strengthen your assumptions and weaken your conclusion hoping that the new claim is true, but each time you have not posted any evidence for why you think this slightly weaker claim is true, given that the previous claim wasn't.

Nor have you posted any proofs or attempts thereof.

I am not a machine for testing your claims one after another. To improve at mathematics you should learn to bash your head at things for longer...especially when you don't know if things are true or false...they are the best practice of all.

The promised counterexample is just a slightly modified version of the previous one, to make it homogeneous:



"Well most homogeneous cyclic polynomials won't even have global extrema- This is true unless there is a constraint placed on a homogeneous
cyclic function of the variables in the original polynomial, which I also forgot to mention previously.
For example, (x-2y)^2(2x-y)^2 is a homogeneous cyclic polynomial, now plus the constraint xy=4, the minimum is 16 when x=y >0."

Sure, before I thought you were only making claims about unconstrained optimisation. Then you introduced the positivity constraint, which as I pointed out does not change things.

Neither do such polynomial equation constraints.

Counterexample:
Minimise x+y subject to the constraint x^2 + y^2 >= 0 and x >= 0 and y >= 0. The extremal points are then (1,0) and (0,1) contrary to your claim.

(Neither do such constraints always imply existence of extrema, unless (for example) the function is continuous and the restricted domain of our function ends up being compact.)
Thanks again for another 'counterexample'.
Is 0 the minimum of x+y when x=y=0?
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Thanks again for another 'counterexample'.
Is 0 the minimum of x+y when x=y=0?
Sorry, my constraint was supposed to be x^2 + y^2 >= 1, not 0.
 
Last edited:

jyu

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
623
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Sorry, my constraint was supposed to be x^2 + y^2 >= 1, not 0.
But this revised constraint is excluding x^2+y^2<1. I was thinking of all x and y > 0 including 0 if defined as pointed out in Sy's.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

But this revised constraint is excluding x^2+y^2<1. I was thinking of all x and y > 0 including 0 if defined as pointed out in Sy's.
I have already provided counterexamples for problems where you have allowed any positive x and y, you then brought up constrained optimisation in post #3067 (via the constraint xy=4), so I found one for that too.
 

jyu

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
623
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Thank you. Something wrong with my last post. I totally agree with you.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

No worries.
 

jyu

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
623
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Sorry That I am doing it again.
If x^2 + y^2 = 1 in your last example?
Have you got a counterexample for zero degree cyclic rational functions?
Thanks for your patience.
To make clear, I wasn't trying to make any claim at the start, purely to do Sy's question the quickest way.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

1. I would have to cook up a different counterexample for a constraint like x^2+y^2=1 as we would then necessarily get a maximum. The claim is still not true though.

But as I said before, I am not going to bother to provide any more counterexamples for you without evidence on your behalf. These statements are all false until proven true, given how similar they are to things I have proven to be false in the earlier posts in this exchange.

2. I already gave you a counterexample for degree zero cyclic rational functions in post #3068.

3. Well if you are using things you aren't sure about the truth of, it is not really a solution.
 
Last edited:

TL1998

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
39
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

'Prove that the tangents at oppositve vertices of a cyclic quadrilateral intersect on the secant through the other two vertcies IF AND ONLY IF the two products of opposite sides of the cyclic quadrilateral are equal
 
Last edited:

Davo_01

Active Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
116
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

IMAG0645[1].jpgIMAG0645[1].jpg
'Prove that the tangents at oppositve vertices of a cyclic quadrilateral intersect on the secant through the other two vertcies IF AND ONLY IF the two products of opposite sides of the cyclic quadrilateral are equal

I wonder who can do this :)
Refer to attached diagram:

Some results we can prove using similarity:











Hence the product of opposite sides of a cyclic quadrilateral are equal when tangents at opposite vertices intersect on the secant through the other two vertices. (The converse is also true)

Note: If the above condition is not true, then one or more of the results proved using similarities cannot be true, implying A, C and F cannot be collinear, therefore the intersection can only occur if the result is true.
 
Last edited:

TL1998

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
39
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

View attachment 30320View attachment 30320

Refer to attached diagram:

Some results we can prove using similarity:











Hence the product of opposite sides of a cyclic quadrilateral are equal when tangents at opposite vertices intersect on the secant through the other two vertices. (The converse is also true)

Note: If the above condition is not true, then one or more of the results proved using similarities cannot be true, implying A, C and F cannot be collinear, therefore the intersection can only occur if the result is true.


I was able to prove that if the intersection lies on the secant, the products would be equal.

But is the bolded part really enough to show the converse is true? I posted the question because i had difficulty with the converse.
 

Davo_01

Active Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
116
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

[/B]

I was able to prove that if the intersection lies on the secant, the products would be equal.

But is the bolded part really enough to show the converse is true? I posted the question because i had difficulty with the converse.
Thats pretty much what i did.

For the converse, I guess an alternate way of doing it is assuming the result holds, then proving A, C and F are collinear and if it isn't, then the intersection does not occur. Other than that, in my reasoning I try to explains that if the condition does not hold, then it must be due to one or more of the similarities we proved cannot be true and the only way it could be false if the points A, C and F are not collinear.
 
Last edited:

RealiseNothing

what is that?It is Cowpea
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
4,591
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Prove that the number will have at most decimal places before it repeats itself.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Prove that the number will have at most decimal places before it repeats itself.
Haha that's a cute question. (Although I am not sure if you are are talking about a) the length of the block before the first copy of the repeating block, b) the length of the repeating block or c) the decimal at which the second copy of the repeating block begins). Here is my work anyway.

 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2014 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

:). Right idea and pretty close to being done, but we can have a pair of the k's being -1 instead of all of them having to be 1.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top