Math Challenge - October 2019

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on a series of mathematical challenges posed in October 2019, with various problems being solved by users such as @MathematicalPhysicist, @tnich, and @Delta2. Key topics include inequalities, probability, matrix properties, and properties of convex functions. Notably, Jensen's inequalities are highlighted for their utility in functional analysis, while the orthic triangle problem is discussed in relation to minimizing perimeter. The discussion showcases collaborative problem-solving and diverse mathematical concepts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Jensen's inequalities in functional analysis
  • Familiarity with properties of convex functions
  • Knowledge of matrix theory, specifically regarding real matrices
  • Basic probability theory and combinatorial analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore advanced applications of Jensen's inequalities in optimization problems
  • Study the properties and applications of orthogonal matrices in linear algebra
  • Investigate the principles of probability theory related to random selections and divisibility
  • Learn about convergence of series and the Cauchy product in mathematical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and enthusiasts interested in problem-solving techniques, inequalities, and advanced mathematical concepts in analysis and linear algebra.

  • #31
fresh_42 said:
No. And the question asks for the acoustic(!) interval, which is a ratio, not a difference. There is no way to deduce an initial condition to calculate the absolute frequencies.

In that case would the factor instead be$$\frac{f_{2}}{f_{1}} = \frac{c-v}{c+v} = \frac{8}{9}$$which corresponds to a decrease by a major second as per the harmonic series?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
etotheipi said:
In that case would the factor instead be$$\frac{f_{2}}{f_{1}} = \frac{c-v}{c+v} = \frac{8}{9}$$which corresponds to a decrease by a major second as per the harmonic series?
Yes. It is ##\nu'= \dfrac{\nu}{1-\dfrac{v}{s}} ## versus ##\nu''= \dfrac{\nu}{1+\dfrac{v}{s}}##
 
  • #33
Number 15:
(1) & (2)
if (1) is wrong, then (2) must also be wrong, so (1) is correct.
(3) & (4)
since (1) told us that ##a## is rational, then ##a## can't be ##\sqrt13## or ##-\sqrt13##, so (4) is correct.

Now, if (6) is correct, ##a## can be any even natural number divisible by ##7##, which is wrong.

if (5) is right otherwise, ##a## can only be ##7## or ##14##, but since (6) is wrong at the same time, ##a## can only be ##7##, which is the answer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and Delta2
  • #34
I don't understand question 14. Are we asked to pick two points on the sphere and find the midpoint of the segment that connects them?
 
  • #35
archaic said:
I don't understand question 14. Are we asked to pick two points on the sphere and find the midpoint of the segment that connects them?
Yes and no. Yes, as this is part of the question, and no, since this procedure has to be done with any second point. We have a fixed single point ##P## and a set ##\mathbb{S}^2##. Then we consider all lines ##\overline{PQ}## from ##P## to ##Q## to another point ##Q## on the sphere. This line has a center ##M_Q##. The problem asks for ##\{\,M_Q\in \overline{PQ}\,|\,Q\in \mathbb{S}^2\,\}\,.##
 
  • #36
fresh_42 said:
Yes and no. Yes, as this is part of the question, and no, since this procedure has to be done with any second point. We have a fixed single point ##P## and a set ##\mathbb{S}^2##. Then we consider all lines ##\overline{PQ}## from ##P## to ##Q## to another point ##Q## on the sphere. This line has a center ##M_Q##. The problem asks for ##\{\,M_Q\in \overline{PQ}\,|\,Q\in \mathbb{S}^2\,\}\,.##
Like this?
Supposing that ##P=(x,y,z)##, the set of all midpoints between ##P## and ##Q## by varying ##Q## would be ##\{(\frac{x+x_Q}{2},\frac{y+y_Q}{2},\frac{z+z_Q}{2})|(x_Q,y_Q,z_Q)\in\mathbb{S}^2\}##.
 
  • #37
archaic said:
Like this?
Supposing that ##P=(x,y,z)##, the set of all midpoints between ##P## and ##Q## by varying ##Q## would be ##\{(\frac{x+x_Q}{2},\frac{y+y_Q}{2},\frac{z+z_Q}{2})|(x_Q,y_Q,z_Q)\in\mathbb{S}^2\}##.
Yes, but which equation describes those points? What is it what you have written down?
 
  • #38
Question 14
Isn't this just a scaling of the original sphere? So this would be a sphere at point P whose slope at P is tangent to the original sphere and has radius half of the original sphere.

Okay so I thought about an equation but for the love of me I cannot seem to translate the sphere into the correct position to be a tangent to P.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
lekh2003 said:
Question 14
Isn't this just a scaling of the original sphere? So this would be a sphere at point P whose slope at P is tangent to the original sphere and has radius half of the original sphere.

Okay so I thought about an equation but for the love of me I cannot seem to translate the sphere into the correct position to be a tangent to P.
Well, it's not a scaling anymore if the center is shifted. Your description is right, as is the set which @archaic defined. What I wanted to see is a simple transformation from one description to the other one. As you both have basically solved it, let me give the solution I had in mind. (Please note the two directions! The centers are on the smaller ball, and all points of the smaller ball are indeed a center of some chord!)

The variable endpoint ##X## of the chord is on the sphere, so for its position vector we have ##\vec{x}^2=r^2##. The position vector of the center of the chord ##\overline{PX}## is thus
$$
\vec{c}=\dfrac{\vec{p}+\vec{x}}{2} \;\Longleftrightarrow \; \vec{x}=2\vec{c}-\vec{p}
$$
hence ##r^2=(2\vec{c}-\vec{p})^2## or ##\left( \vec{c}-\dfrac{\vec{p}}{2} \right)^2=\dfrac{r^2}{4}##.

So the set of points we were looking for are all on a sphere with center ##\overline{OP}/2=\vec{p}/2## and radius ##r/2##. All points of this sphere are on the other hand a center of some chord of the original sphere with endpoint ##P##, since we can go back. The point ##P## itself is the center of the chord ##\overline{PP}##.
 
  • #40
@fresh_42 ahh, thanks for the explanation, that makes sense.
 
  • #41
4 challenge problems left, who can solve them?

New ones on Friday!
 
  • #42
Greg Bernhardt said:
4 challenge problems left, who can solve them?

New ones on Friday!
I would try, but i don't fancy speed learning topology right now :P
 
  • #43
fresh_42 said:
5. Let ##A=\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k\, , \,B=\sum_{k=0}^\infty b_k## be two convergent series one of which absolutely.
Prove: The Cauchy-product ##C=\sum_{k=0}^\infty c_k## with ##c_k=\sum_{j=0}^ka_jb_{k-j}## converges to ##AB##.
Give an example that absolute convergence of at least one factor is necessary.
This is The Theorem of Mertens, Knopp, Theory and Applications of Infinite Series, pg 321, 188.
An example when absolute convergence of at least one factor is necessary is the other challenge problem I just did, the Cauchy product ##\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^n}{\sqrt{n+1}}\right) ^2##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
10K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
12K
  • · Replies 114 ·
4
Replies
114
Views
11K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
12K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
13K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
14K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
16K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
12K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
12K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
11K