• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

HSC 2016 MX2 Integration Marathon (archive) (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Paradoxica

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

The first one is easily handled by a remapping (substitution) of x -> 9/x

The second integrand is odd.

The third integrand has period 2π. This means the integral is identically equal to 8 times the integral of the integrand over an arbitrary interval of length 2π.
Perform the following remappings: x -> x - π, x -> x - π/2, x -> x + π/2
Shifting the borders so that they are all identical, say, 0 to 2π, add the four variations of the integral together.
The four integrands simplify to 1. So we have four times the integral is eight times the integral from 0 to 2π.
Thus, the integral is 4π.
 
Last edited:

juantheron

Active Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
259
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

But Paradoxica answer of my second Integral is
 

Paradoxica

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

But Paradoxica answer of my second Integral is
That's not possible. Unless you interpret the exponentiation the other way around (which I cannot, as you have clearly and explicitly wrapped it in brackets), the integral is zero.

Mathematica also returns zero.
 

nanoputian

New Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
9
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

Answer is 1

As n approaches infinity, 2n-2 approaches 0 much faster than n^2 goes to infinity. Therefore as n approaches infinity, n^2.x^(2n-2) approaches 0. Hence, the integral simply becomes 1.

Btw, this is my first time posting, how do you format the equations?
 
Last edited:

jathu123

Active Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Messages
357
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2017
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

12312312312312312.PNG latex code crashed half way through :( I might have did the long way
 

jathu123

Active Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Messages
357
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2017
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon



not sure if this question was already posted, but a fun integral to try. It's from the Putnam 1980 competition
 

InteGrand

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



(Essentially same method as previous Q., except also need to determine for which a the integral converges.)

(I have a feeling Paradoxica asked this some time in the past, maybe on the 2015 Integration thread.)

Actually it's fairly easy to show it converges for all real a (there's no question at all in fact as the denominator is always greater than 1, so no chance of a singularity). Also discussing convergence (or improper integrals in the first place) isn't in the HSC syllabus, so you usually wouldn't need to worry too much about proving convergence in HSC 4U.
 
Last edited:

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Re: MX2 2016 Integration Marathon

Is it really that easy


Also what would you compare it with?
 

InteGrand

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

Is it really that easy


Also what would you compare it with?


Naturally inclined to use the "order-bound" comparison test my lecturer taught
No need to even take limits, because the integrand is a continuous function on the domain of integration (if we want we can define appropriate left- or right-hand values that make the function continuous there; there isn't any problem because the denominator will always be greater than 1, so there's no singularity).

And yes, answer is pi/4.
 
Last edited:

seanieg89

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

Answer is 1

As n approaches infinity, 2n-2 approaches 0 much faster than n^2 goes to infinity. Therefore as n approaches infinity, n^2.x^(2n-2) approaches 0. Hence, the integral simply becomes 1.

Btw, this is my first time posting, how do you format the equations?
This is not correct. (The flaw in your logic is that when x=1 at the endpoint of the interval, n^2.x^(2n-2) does NOT tend to zero, in fact it gets very large!) This endpoint dragging your function up is enough to make the limiting value of the integral more than 1.

In fact, the limit is 2. A nonrigorous but convincing way of seeing this is observing that the arc length of a curve y=f(x) between 0 and 1 is given by



(You can prove this by summing the lengths of the infinitesimal line segments and using the definition of the Riemann integral.)

Then the integral in this question is just the arc length of y=x^n between x=0 and x=1.

For large n, this curve gets smaller away from x=1, and increases more sharply to reach the endpoint (1,1). Visually, for large n, it tends to the mirrored L-shape consisting of the line segment between (0,0) and (1,0) and the line segment between (1,0) and (1,1), each of which has length 1.

I.e it's arclength tends to 2.


This argument would be convincing to any mathematician because of how well behaved the curve y=x^n is, but in general you have to be quite careful when making statements about the limiting arc lengths of a sequence of curves that approximates a limit curve, so it is a worthwhile exercise to try to prove that the limit is 2 analytically. (I.e. using inequalities etc.)
 

InteGrand

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

This is not correct. (The flaw in your logic is that when x=1 at the endpoint of the interval, n^2.x^(2n-2) does NOT tend to zero, in fact it gets very large!) This endpoint dragging your function up is enough to make the limiting value of the integral more than 1.

In fact, the limit is 2. A nonrigorous but convincing way of seeing this is observing that the arc length of a curve y=f(x) between 0 and 1 is given by



(You can prove this by summing the lengths of the infinitesimal line segments and using the definition of the Riemann integral.)

Then the integral in this question is just the arc length of y=x^n between x=0 and x=1.

For large n, this curve gets smaller away from x=1, and increases more sharply to reach the endpoint (1,1). Visually, for large n, it tends to the mirrored L-shape consisting of the line segment between (0,0) and (1,0) and the line segment between (1,0) and (1,1), each of which has length 1.

I.e it's arclength tends to 2.


This argument would be convincing to any mathematician because of how well behaved the curve y=x^n is, but in general you have to be quite careful when making statements about the limiting arc lengths of a sequence of curves that approximates a limit curve, so it is a worthwhile exercise to try to prove that the limit is 2 analytically. (I.e. using inequalities etc.)
Are there any useful sufficient conditions that'd make the arc length of the limit curve equal the limit of the arc lengths?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top