Math Challenge - September 2019

In summary: I did not know this result.In summary, the conversation discusses various mathematical problems and proofs. The topics include ring theory, mean values, algebra, determinant, prime numbers, series convergence, curves, frames of curves, and circle geometry. The conversation also presents various equations and asks for proofs and calculations.
  • #36
archaic said:
These are speculations, I can't really answer the question.

This seemed to be equal to zero so I tried computing the area using some triangles and rectangles. I think that it's because of the fact that or something like this.
So compute .
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Sorry, I am new here so I might get some of the formatting wrong.
I first expressed each integral into sums of two integrals:
Adding these two equations together:
So, as said before, we need to compute the following integral:
Let :
Multiply the numerator and denominator by :Observe that is an odd function. Therefore: Finally:
 
  • #38
odd_even said:
Sorry, I am new here so I might get some of the formatting wrong.
I first expressed each integral into sums of two integrals:
Adding these two equations together:
So, as said before, we need to compute the following integral:
Let :
Multiply the numerator and denominator by :Observe that is an odd function. Therefore: Finally:
Well done! The integration itself can be done a bit easier, but you had all the right ideas. The problem should show, that beside the usual additive symmetry there is sometimes a multiplicative symmetry, too.

If you're interested in more of these, have a look at
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/solution-manuals-for-the-math-challenges.977057/
 
  • #39
#8) hence convergent. But I bet you want the work, so: this a particular value of a Dirichlet series of the the form , and for such series there exists an abscissa of convergence with the property that the series converges whenever and diverges whenever -- Knopp, Theory and Application of Infinite Series, pg. 317, #7. Since it is well-known that the series converges for , said abscissa is .

In the Cauchy product consider the general term of the righthand side (the inner sum) , by replacing each square root in the denominators with the largest such root, , we see that we must have



and hence the given Cauchy product is certainly divergent. The reason is that the series we took the Cauchy product of is not absolutely convergent, hence not equal to the square of the sum.
 
  • Like
Likes member 587159
  • #40
benorin said:
#8) hence convergent. But I bet you want the work, so: this a particular value of a Dirichlet series of the the form , and for such series there exists an abscissa of convergence with the property that the series converges whenever and diverges whenever -- Knopp, Theory and Application of Infinite Series, pg. 317, #7. Since it is well-known that the series converges for , said abscissa is .

In the Cauchy product consider the general term of the righthand side (the inner sum) , by replacing each square root in the denominators with the largest such root, , we see that we must have



and hence the given Cauchy product is certainly divergent. The reason is that the series we took the Cauchy product of is not absolutely convergent, hence not equal to the square of the sum.
The Leibniz criterion as reason for convergence would have been a lot easier.
 

Similar threads

2
Replies
42
Views
8K
3
Replies
93
Views
13K
2
Replies
61
Views
9K
2
Replies
61
Views
8K
3
Replies
80
Views
7K
3
Replies
100
Views
9K
Replies
33
Views
8K
2
Replies
60
Views
10K
3
Replies
102
Views
9K
4
Replies
114
Views
8K
Back
Top