# MX2 Marathon (1 Viewer)

#### HeroWise

##### Active Member
I have solved the Riemann zeta question. I had inspiration from the heavens. God spoke to me directly and helped me solve it. He remarked "Trivial, you should be able to solve it after you do it with me,,,"
Oh well, I can post the solution but this comment box is too small to contain it.

#### stupid_girl

##### Active Member
I have solved the Riemann zeta question. I had inspiration from the heavens. God spoke to me directly and helped me solve it. He remarked "Trivial, you should be able to solve it after you do it with me,,,"
Oh well, I can post the solution but this comment box is too small to contain it.
Did you prove or disprove the hypothesis?

#### Checkmate

##### New Member
Can anyone help me on this one?

Consider the Riemann zeta function $\bg_white \zeta$, defined as
$\bg_white \zeta(s)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{n^s}$
where $\bg_white s$ is complex with a real part greater than 1.
Prove that the real part of every non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta function is $\bg_white \frac{1}{2}$.

If you work it out, please don't post it here but DM me.

I'll pay you $10, and I'm already taking a risk here. Also, after you send it to me, you must destroy your copy (this part is VERY IMPORTANT and non-negotiable). I'm willing to take more of a risk and will pay you$10000 if you DM only me

#### HeroWise

##### Active Member
@Checkmate k DM'd Send money rn or the Nigerian prince will die.

#### Checkmate

##### New Member
@Checkmate k DM'd Send money rn or the Nigerian prince will die.
No clue what you talking about .... I was the one who solved it

#### HeroWise

##### Active Member
Damn I got screenshots Ill send it to DMCA right this moment

#### Checkmate

##### New Member
Damn I got screenshots Ill send it to DMCA right this moment
Too busy claiming the fields medal and discussing my proof with Terence Tao . Ill get back to you later.

#### HeroWise

##### Active Member
JUst used Time machine to show KId Terry Tao how to do Question 6

#### stupid_girl

##### Active Member
(a) Consider the graph of $\bg_white y=\sqrt[3]{x^{5}}\sin\frac{1}{x}$.
(i) Is (0,0) a stationary point?
(ii) Is (0,0) a minimum point?
(iii) Is (0,0) a maximum point?
(iv) Is (0,0) a point of inflection?

(b) Consider the graph of $\bg_white y=\left|\sqrt[3]{x^{5}}\sin\frac{1}{x}\right|$.
Is (0,0) a minimum point?

(c) Consider the graph of $\bg_white y=\sqrt[3]{x^{5}}\left|\sin\frac{1}{x}\right|$.
Is (0,0) a point of inflection?

Last edited:

#### stupid_girl

##### Active Member
(a) Consider the graph of $\bg_white y=\sqrt[3]{x^{5}}\sin\frac{1}{x}$.
(i) Is (0,0) a stationary point?
(ii) Is (0,0) a minimum point?
(iii) Is (0,0) a maximum point?
(iv) Is (0,0) a point of inflection?

(b) Consider the graph of $\bg_white y=\left|\sqrt[3]{x^{5}}\sin\frac{1}{x}\right|$.
Is (0,0) a minimum point?

(c) Consider the graph of $\bg_white y=\sqrt[3]{x^{5}}\left|\sin\frac{1}{x}\right|$.
Is (0,0) a point of inflection?
It seems no one has attempted this interesting question yet.

(a)(i) Yes. When x=0, dy/dx=0.
(ii) No. For any interval -𝛿<x<𝛿, there exists x such that y<0.
(iii) No. For any interval -𝛿<x<𝛿, there exists x such that y>0.
(iv) No. The graph is neither concave nor convex near x=0.

(b) Yes. For any interval -𝛿<x<𝛿, y≥0.
(0,0) is actually one of the global minimum points.

(c) No. The graph is neither concave nor convex near x=0.

Last edited:

#### HazzRat

##### H̊ͯaͤz͠z̬̼iẻͩ̊͏̖͈̪
Next term or even later in the holidays we'll bring this back. Looks fun

#### HazzRat

##### H̊ͯaͤz͠z̬̼iẻͩ̊͏̖͈̪
Question:
How did they get from this step to the other step shown below? I feel like i'm missing smthn pretty obvious

#### xoNat

##### don't worry, be happy
Question:
How did they get from this step to the other step shown below? I feel like i'm missing smthn pretty obvious
View attachment 41860
Compound angle formulas, they're on the reference sheet

#### HazzRat

##### H̊ͯaͤz͠z̬̼iẻͩ̊͏̖͈̪
Can someone smarter than me plz tell me how they did these two steps? If it helps it's for this question:

Working out

#### scaryshark09

##### ∞∆ who let 'em cook dis long ∆∞
for the first one, i think its meant to be x^2, instead of 2^x

all they do is split up the 2x into x+x and then they rearrange the algebra for the first step

#### HazzRat

##### H̊ͯaͤz͠z̬̼iẻͩ̊͏̖͈̪
for the first one, i think its meant to be x^2, instead of 2^x

all they do is split up the 2x into x+x and then they rearrange the algebra for the first step
Ahh makes sense. I was wondering abt that.

#### scaryshark09

##### ∞∆ who let 'em cook dis long ∆∞
for the second one they are just factorising, but i think its meant to be xm instead of just x

#### scaryshark09

##### ∞∆ who let 'em cook dis long ∆∞
for the second one they are just factorising, but i think its meant to be xm instead of just x
and again its meant to be x^2, not 2^x

#### HazzRat

##### H̊ͯaͤz͠z̬̼iẻͩ̊͏̖͈̪
for the second one they are just factorising, but i think its meant to be xm instead of just x