HSC 2016 MX2 Integration Marathon (archive) (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

porcupinetree

not actually a porcupine
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
664
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

For some reason, I seem to lose a factor of 2 during the final substitution (meaning that my final answer is instead of ). Can someone please point out where I went wrong?

(excuse my current mathematical incompetence; it's the holidays, okay)

 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Last edited:

Paradoxica

-insert title here-
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,556
Location
Outside reality
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

I could not see a feasible substitution, but the indexes were suggestive of a quotient of fifth roots, so that's what I went for.

Anyway, I'm gonna be stalking you on stack exchange to collect more integrals.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

It is perhaps a bit much to expect a current student to tackle the above integral without hints, so here is a a rough walkthrough:









 
Last edited:

Drsoccerball

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2014
Messages
3,650
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2015
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

Sean be like "Now something easier" Turns out to be impossible with HSC knowledge...
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

Sean be like "Now something easier" Turns out to be impossible with HSC knowledge...
Very possible with HSC knowledge, especially with the number of given hints.
 

Paradoxica

-insert title here-
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,556
Location
Outside reality
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

Very possible with HSC knowledge, especially with the number of given hints.
Nobody actually knows what you mean when you refer to "inequalities from repeated integration". You need to provide an explanation for this vague and ambiguous claim.
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

Nobody actually knows what you mean when you refer to "inequalities from repeated integration". You need to provide an explanation for this vague and ambiguous claim.
Maybe referring to the Taylor polynomial bounds? E.g. things like

 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

Apologies for vagueness, didn't want to hand-hold too much as I think it is a nice thing for a student to discover by him/herself. I will elaborate now :).


Yep, Integrand is exactly right. I was referring to the upper and lower bounds coming from the alternating partial Taylor sums.

That knowing anything about Taylor series is out of syllabus is irrelevant, as you don't need to have seen these before and you don't need to know what these things are called.


It is MX2 knowledge that for non-negative real x.

This implies that for non-negative real x.

This implies that for non-negative real x.

etc.

The inequalities arising from iterating this process are exactly those I was referring to with my statement about repeated integration.

Note that combining the above inequalities with what we already know from syllabus, we have:



for non-negative x, and



We can obtain "tighter" upper and lower bounds for sin and cos by iterating this process. I leave it to you guys to figure out exactly how far you need to go.



Also, as a slight aside: I am sure most of you realise from syllabus knowledge that quantities like sin(cx)/x and sin(cx)/sin(x) tend to c as x tends to zero. For this reason, when we write something like sin(cx)/x in this question, you might as well assume that we are instead referring to the function f(x) that is equal to sin(cx)/x for nonzero x and has f(0)=c. f is continuous at 0 so it is more convenient notationally to do this.
 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

As another remark: I believe I have seen this same method used to prove these bounds for the trig functions in some MX2 material before. In Cambridge or a past paper/trial perhaps?

Note you can also phrase the argument in terms of differentiation:

(cos(x)-1+x^2/2)' = -sin(x)+x >= 0 for non-negative real x

=> cos(x)-1+x^2/2 increases over the non-negative reals.

=> it is bounded below by its value at x=0, that is 0.
 

Paradoxica

-insert title here-
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,556
Location
Outside reality
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

Apologies for vagueness, didn't want to hand-hold too much as I think it is a nice thing for a student to discover by him/herself. I will elaborate now :).


Yep, Integrand is exactly right. I was referring to the upper and lower bounds coming from the alternating partial Taylor sums.

That knowing anything about Taylor series is out of syllabus is irrelevant, as you don't need to have seen these before and you don't need to know what these things are called.


It is MX2 knowledge that for non-negative real x.

This implies that for non-negative real x.

This implies that for non-negative real x.

etc.

The inequalities arising from iterating this process are exactly those I was referring to with my statement about repeated integration.

Note that combining the above inequalities with what we already know from syllabus, we have:



for non-negative x, and



We can obtain "tighter" upper and lower bounds for sin and cos by iterating this process. I leave it to you guys to figure out exactly how far you need to go.



Also, as a slight aside: I am sure most of you realise from syllabus knowledge that quantities like sin(cx)/x and sin(cx)/sin(x) tend to c as x tends to zero. For this reason, when we write something like sin(cx)/x in this question, you might as well assume that we are instead referring to the function f(x) that is equal to sin(cx)/x for nonzero x and has f(c)=c. f is continuous at 0 so it is more convenient notationally to do this.
See, I already knew this conceptually in my head, but no labels are ever placed on my ideas unless they are already labelled in the external world.

Of course, you being you refused to explicitly state anything, so even if I already had that knowledge in mind it was completely useless to me without any references.

New day, new pointer created.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top