Questions 1 (ii) — (vii) from here.
With all of these questions the first thing we want to do is plug in the value; i.e. if we are evaluating we should first try
. If we find that
is undefined (e.g. division by zero), we will usually have to ‘factor out the bad stuff’. The reason this works is because of the following theorem:
Theorem
Suppose that except perhaps at
. Then
.
Take for example
.
Now if , then
— which is undefined. However we can cancel an
above and below… well what we really do is as follows:
.
However this is only true in the case where ; i.e. we have that
for all
— and use the above theorem to say that
.
(ii)
.
First off plugging in gives
— undefined. What we want to do is factorise above and below and hopefully there will be a
term which we can cancel above and below (for
), and use the above theorem. First off the denominator is simply a difference of two squares:
.
I can think of three ways to factorise the numerator.
Formula
The numerator has the form which I know has factors via a formula. I never learnt this formula ‘off’ but instead have a quick derivation (using the Binomial Theorem I suppose):
.
Hence I have
.
Factor Theorem
The factor theorem states that:
A complex number is a root of a polynomial
if and only if
is a factor of
.
i.e. if , then
for some polynomial
(and vice versa).
When I plugged in into
I got zero — hence
is a factor of
. This means I can perform polynomial long division to get
;
that is
as before.
Polynomial Division
You can just straight away do polynomial long division to get
,
for .
Taking one of the first two factorisations leads to:
,
for .
Using this or the will allow us then to plug in
to get
.
(iii)
Plugging in yields division by zero — undefined.
,
for . Hence:
.
(iv)
Plugging in gives
. Done and dusted!
(v)
Plugging in gives
— done.
(vi)
Plugging in gives division by zero. These type need a manipulation called ‘multiplying by the conjugate’ (which is just multiplying by
— which changes nothing of course):
.
The numerator here is a difference of two squares: so we have:
.
Hopefully the top will factorise with an term that we could cancel out:
.
Thence we have
,
for . Therefore
.
(vii)
This one is not so straightforward and beyond exam standard. I can’t see a simple solution I will simply present a solution.
At , the expression in undefined. Let
and consider
,
.
By inspection is a root of
so hence
is a factor. Polynomial long division yields:
.
Therefore, after a cancellation of the terms, and division by a
:
,
Now plugging in gives
.
Question 2 Summer 2010.
(a)
We want to find positive integers (whole numbers) and
such that:
.
There are two main methods of doing this.
Closed Interval Method.
Suppose that a function is continuous. Then
attains its absolute maximum and minimum on
and further can only be attained at criticial points — i.e. the endpoints
, points where the derivative is zero (
), or points where the function is not differentiable (
does not exist).
In this case we want to look at . We know that the numerator and denominator are continuous as polynomials and their quotient is continuous for
— which is certainly the case for
. Hence we can use the closed interval method to find the absolute maximum/ minimum of
.
First we find the critical points. As the endpoints, we have are critical. Next we find points where
. By the quotient rule:
.
Now a fraction is equal to zero if and only if the numerator is zero and as (!), there are no points where
.
Finally, by the quotient rule, is differentiable for all
which is satisfied for all
so the function is differentiable on
.
Hence the only critical points are and
so we test the function at these points:
.
.
Now these are the absolute maximum and minimum of on
so we can safely conclude that
on as required.
Using Inequalities
A quick manipulation using the properties of the absolute value function:
.
This problem requires the following fact:
For , if
and
then we may divide the smaller by the larger and the larger by the smaller to preserve the inequality, i.e.
.
So to find an upper bound (), I want to find an upper bound for
and a lower bound for
.
By the triangle inequality, and using properties of the absolute value function:
.
Clearly this is maximised for large so we have (i.e.
is the largest
we are concerned with in
):
.
By the reverse triangle inequality:
,
for similar reasons.
Putting these two bounds together, using the above fact:
.
Now we do the opposite. First a lower bound for :
.
A upper bound for :
.
So we have:
.
So, by this method, all and all:
.
(Note that the closed interval method gives exactly sharp bounds (well until we round to the smaller/ larger integer)).
(b)
Now let and
. We want to show that for all
, there exists a
such that if
, then
.
How we start this is by looking at the term.
.
We would hope at this stage to see a term and a
term. Sure enough if we factorise the numerator we see
so we write:
,
using the properties of the absolute value function:
.
This is exactly where we want to be now because we can use the upper bound above ( — be it
or
depending on which method we used) to say that
.
Hence now if we make small so that
,
,
i.e. , then we are done.
Now we write:
Let . Choose
(
could be
or
or whatever upper bound you found in part (a)). Now let
. Then
.
That is,
Leave a comment
Comments feed for this article