Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

December 22, 2025, 09:17:59 am

Author Topic: Questions 2  (Read 1768 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

frog1944

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 163
  • Respect: +2
Questions 2
« on: October 22, 2017, 08:43:53 pm »
0
Hi,

1. Are we meant to draw diagrams in pencil? Or should we do it in pen (considering they're scanned)?
2. Why when doing inequalities, can I raise e to the power of both sides and the inequality is preserved? Is it because e^x is monotonic increasing AND is greater than 0 for all x?
3. If in part (i) I do some weird derivation, and obtain an additional results than (i) actually asked for (e.g. inequality question asked show x/y + y/x >= 2, I derive the AM-GM inequality for n=2 in the process), and then in (ii) I say using the other result obtained in (i) (e.g. the AM-GM inequality) is that sufficient? Or would I have to derive whatever the result may be again?

Thanks

RuiAce

  • ATAR Notes Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 8814
  • "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
  • Respect: +2575
Re: Questions 2
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2017, 08:45:56 pm »
+1
Hi,

1. Are we meant to draw diagrams in pencil? Or should we do it in pen (considering they're scanned)?
2. Why when doing inequalities, can I raise e to the power of both sides and the inequality is preserved? Is it because e^x is monotonic increasing AND is greater than 0 for all x?
3. If in part (i) I do some weird derivation, and obtain an additional results than (i) actually asked for (e.g. inequality question asked show x/y + y/x >= 2, I derive the AM-GM inequality for n=2 in the process), and then in (ii) I say using the other result obtained in (i) (e.g. the AM-GM inequality) is that sufficient? Or would I have to derive whatever the result may be again?

Thanks
You should be drawing them in pen. (Feel free to use pencil and then trace over it.)


________________________________

When that happens, it's likely you took the unintended approach. But so long as you don't assume anything you try to prove, it is fine.

frog1944

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 163
  • Respect: +2
Re: Questions 2
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2017, 08:47:06 pm »
0
Great! Thanks RuiAce, for the preservation of the inequality must whatever function I'm applying also be greater than 0 for all x, or just the monotonic increasing part is necessary?

RuiAce

  • ATAR Notes Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 8814
  • "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
  • Respect: +2575
Re: Questions 2
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2017, 08:49:33 pm »
0
Great! Thanks RuiAce, for the preservation of the inequality must whatever function I'm applying also be greater than 0 for all x, or just the monotonic increasing part is necessary?
Just the monotonic increasing part suffices. If you think about it, cubing both sides still preserves the inequality even for negative real numbers (and of course \(x^3\) is monotonic increasing).

frog1944

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 163
  • Respect: +2
Re: Questions 2
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2017, 08:51:28 pm »
0
Yeah I see what you're saying. Thanks RuiAce, I appreciate it :)