Ekman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,615
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
Re: MX2 2015 Integration Marathon
Yeah I got that as well.i got
Yeah I got that as well.i got
Here is a question that concerns inequalities arising from
integration. (It is harder conceptually than most questions in this thread, but easier than
a lot of them in terms of how technically demanding the required manipulations are.)
btw is there a non-strict lower bound for your question? It seems to me (at least on the positive integers) that the expression is monotone decreasing tending towards a limit, but then there is no non-strict lower boundIn case anyone wants to try to prove the similar question I posted based on the factorial before Sy posts his, it is MUCH MUCH shorter and easier than the above.
Well if it tends to a limit from above, wouldn't any real number less than that limit be a non-strict lower bound?btw is there a non-strict lower bound for your question? It seems to me (at least on the positive integers) that the expression is monotone decreasing tending towards a limit, but then there is no non-strict lower bound
Yep - that's the way that I first did it to get an answer ofHmm not sure if I was supposed to use something like F(a-x)
I just multiplied by sec^2x and used u=tanx. Then standard arctan integral
EDIT : should be root 6 my bad
I gotAlright lets see if this works:
Thats the answer but you simplified th previous steps making the answer unattainableI got
Idk if it can be simplified though
using f(a-x) you just change the sin to the cos and thus wasting a step (since youre using t formula)lol, "let's see"
used f(a-x), then let cosa be any constant, used t formula and standard arctan integral
How was I meant to do it?Thats the answer but you simplified th previous steps making the answer unattainable
Well if it tends to a limit from above, wouldn't any real number less than that limit be a non-strict lower bound?
There are probably lots of ways of finding one, but I had a particular method in mind.
I wasn't able to think of a way to approximate the lower bound as (though technically if you allow for a strict lower bound like 2pi as an answer to the question, then a strict lower bound of 1 would be sufficient too and easy to prove, though such a bound would not be useful).(Ps, if you are actually able to prove that it is monotonically decreasing and bounded below, then you would have filled in the blank in my question which then completes a proof of Stirling's formula. I'm not sure that's true though...will check.)
Update: A quick check with small numbers seems to indicate this is true, can you prove it though?
Update 2: Ahh it's actually not that hard to prove monotonicity at all. That's cool. That means:
(Proof of montonicity)+(Proof of lower bound)+(Evaluation of limit, given that one exists) = (Proof of Stirling's formula.)
integrand got the lower bound ages ago if you want to look for it by fowarding to when the question was postedI wasn't able to think of a way to approximate the lower bound as (though technically if you allow for a strict lower bound like 2pi as an answer to the question, then a strict lower bound of 1 would be sufficient too and easy to prove, though such a bound would not be useful).
How did you get it?