Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

October 10, 2025, 05:24:04 am

Author Topic: TT's Maths Thread  (Read 148037 times)  Share 

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #195 on: November 27, 2009, 01:29:07 am »
0
Since I'm in a 'rearranging mood' (lolz) looking at

becomes Which is what we want to prove.

Let













Since





No need for AM-GM  :2funny:



Suppose the inequality is then it's homogeneous if .
Ah right, thanks!

« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 01:32:24 am by TrueTears »
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

kamil9876

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
  • Respect: +109
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #196 on: November 27, 2009, 01:37:23 am »
0
quite kool TT. I noticed a lot of inequalities can be solved either by making those substituions I tried on an earlier Q, or by using the fact that iff  . Rather than AM-GM. In fact a proof of AM-GM for the simple case is done using the latter method.
Voltaire: "There is an astonishing imagination even in the science of mathematics ... We repeat, there is far more imagination in the head of Archimedes than in that of Homer."

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #197 on: November 27, 2009, 02:35:11 am »
0
Alright very last inequality question. It's a USAMO question so I left it until the end ^.^

Prove that the zeros of cannot all be real if
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

Ahmad

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1296
  • *dreamy sigh*
  • Respect: +15
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #198 on: November 27, 2009, 01:50:45 pm »
0
Rather easy for a USAMO question!
Mandark: Please, oh please, set me up on a date with that golden-haired angel who graces our undeserving school with her infinite beauty!

The collage of ideas. The music of reason. The poetry of thought. The canvas of logic.


/0

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4124
  • Respect: +45
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #199 on: November 27, 2009, 04:33:32 pm »
0
Don't know, but substitute and the coefficient of the term is
Or expanding roots might help
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 04:58:45 pm by /0 »

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #200 on: November 27, 2009, 05:42:13 pm »
0
I'm not sure if this is a rigorous proof but it includes a lot of wishful thinking.

Let the roots of be where



Now equating coefficients for and coefficients yields:









Now we require

Let





















But

Thus

However if it is not possible for

Contradiction!

Thus if the polynomial can not have all real roots.
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

/0

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4124
  • Respect: +45
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #201 on: November 27, 2009, 05:47:45 pm »
0
lol very nice :D :D :D
Summation notation could make it more readable though lol

e.g. for the nth symmetric sum or
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 05:51:03 pm by /0 »

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #202 on: November 27, 2009, 05:56:04 pm »
0
lol very nice :D :D :D
Summation notation could make it more readable though lol

e.g. for the nth symmetric sum or
Oh nice, can you show me an example of using that summation notation? I haven't used it before haha
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

/0

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4124
  • Respect: +45
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #203 on: November 27, 2009, 06:12:28 pm »
0
I'm just taking this from the art of problem solving wiki but

I think if you let






.
.
.



And cyclic sum cycles through all the variables, so like or if the context is clear

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #204 on: November 27, 2009, 06:15:12 pm »
0
I'm just taking this from the art of problem solving wiki but

I think if you let






.
.
.



And cyclic sum cycles through all the variables, so like or if the context is clear
wow that's friggin awesome! Thanks!!
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #205 on: November 27, 2009, 09:01:57 pm »
0
Just started combinatorics and I have a few general theory questions:

What is the number of different 9 letter 'words' we could make from the 9 letters "CHERNOBYL"

So this is just

What is the number of different 3 letter 'words' we could make from the 9 letters "CHERNOBYL"

This would be

What is the number of different 9 letter 'words' we could make from the 9 letters "RAMANUJAN"

This would be Since the A and N are indistinguishable so we must divide by the overcounting factor.

Now what if the question said: What is the number of different 3 letter 'words' we could make from the 9 letters "RAMANUJAN"

Do we still need to divide by the overcounting factor?

ie, the answer would be or is that wrong?
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

/0

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4124
  • Respect: +45
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #206 on: November 27, 2009, 09:26:49 pm »
0
I keep trying to prove it and I keep stuffing up, so I'll just say yes NO for now. That's edit: NOT right.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 11:28:29 pm by /0 »

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #207 on: November 27, 2009, 09:30:51 pm »
0
Yeah I think when you divide by the overcounting factor you are already taking into consideration the permutation 'formula'

So is really just lolz
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

kamil9876

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
  • Respect: +109
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #208 on: November 27, 2009, 10:42:55 pm »
0
I don't think it's just a simple division.

Let me derive the C(n,k) formula from the P(n,k) just to show how to generally use an overcounting factor:

say we have n distinct elements, and we want to know how many different combinations of k objects we can choose. There are P(n,k) permutations.

now for clarity, suppose we have n=5, and k=3. and our objects a,b,c,d,e:

Here is a list of permuations in a rectangle:

abc,acb,bac,bca,cab,cba
abe,aeb,bae,bea,eab,eba
.
.
.

etc.

that is, imagine that we list all the permutations, such that all permutations that are the same combination, are in the same row. Obviously there are C(n,k) rows, and a total of P(n,k) elements. But how many in each row? well the answer is k! since there are k! ways of arranging a fixed combination of k elements. Therefore P(n,k)=C(n,k) * k!

====================================================================================

Back to TT's modification of the RAMANUJAN problem:

Recall that our proof above used a bijection between rows and combinations, we will try to do something similair here. suppose that the A's are A1,A2,A3 and the N's N1 and N2. So basically we want to count (N2)R(N1) and (N1)R(N2) as the same thing. Again, arrange the words in a rectangle:

(N1)R(N2),(N2)R(N1)
(N1)J(N2),(N2)J(N1)
(N1)M(N2),(N2)M(N1)

.
.
.
etc.


Now it is looking good so far, we have that 2! factor represented in the length of each row, however this pattern does not continue, as eventually once we start listing words such as AMA, our row length will be bigger!:

(A1)M(A2),(A2)M(A1),(A1)M(A3),(A3)M(A1),(A2)M(A3),(A3)M(A2)

Therefore, I think in order to solve this problem, you must break it up into different cases, since in some cases we get a bigger length in each row.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 10:49:03 pm by kamil9876 »
Voltaire: "There is an astonishing imagination even in the science of mathematics ... We repeat, there is far more imagination in the head of Archimedes than in that of Homer."

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #209 on: November 27, 2009, 11:03:20 pm »
0
Wow that proof up there for the relationship b/w C and P was ingenious especially with the reordering and regrouping!
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.