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

Status
Not open for further replies.

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2016 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Then he should have said that.
That is exactly what he said, in different words. I don't think there is any ambiguity in his post.

He didn't say anything about injectivity. Saying abscissas are different is just saying that no two points in this set have the same x-coordinate (which would make it impossible to find an interpolating polynomial).
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2016 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this question right, but would that not just be the normal interpolating polynomial?

Correct! (However, I suspect the average HSC 4U student doesn't know about this and would struggle with the Q. without guidance.)
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2016 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this question right, but would that not just be the normal interpolating polynomial?

Yep exactly.

It's a better question if you have not come across interpolation before.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2016 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

The extension I mentioned earlier:

Can you show that this polynomial is the polynomial of least degree passing through these n points?

I think you most likely need some slightly out of syllabus stuff for this though, so don't spend too much time on it.
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2016 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

The extension I mentioned earlier:

Can you show that this polynomial is the polynomial of least degree passing through these n points?

I think you most likely need some slightly out of syllabus stuff for this though, so don't spend too much time on it.
Can't we essentially use the fact that if two at-most-(n-1)th degree polynomials agree at n points, they are identical (*)? So this is the one and only polynomial of at most (n-1)th degree passing through these points, so no different polynomial (of lower degree) can also pass through these points? The fact (*) should be provable using MX2 knowledge of polynomials, shouldn't it? (Basically consider the difference of two polynomials P and Q that pass through these points, call R = P – Q. So R = P – Q is of degree at most (n-1) and has n zeros. We can use the factor theorem and induction on the degree to show that this implies that R is identically zero.)
 

Paradoxica

-insert title here-
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,556
Location
Outside reality
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
Re: HSC 2016 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Can't we essentially use the fact that if two at-most-(n-1)th degree polynomials agree at n points, they are identical (*)? So this is the one and only polynomial of at most (n-1)th degree passing through these points, so no different polynomial (of lower degree) can also pass through these points? The fact (*) should be provable using MX2 knowledge of polynomials, shouldn't it? (Basically consider the difference of two polynomials P and Q that pass through these points, call R = P – Q. So R = P – Q is of degree at most (n-1) and has n zeros. We can use the factor theorem and induction on the degree to show that this implies that R is identically zero.)
We don't have to. We can show that R has infinitely many roots. The only polynomial with infinitely many roots is the zero polynomial.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2016 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Can't we essentially use the fact that if two at-most-(n-1)th degree polynomials agree at n points, they are identical (*)?
Ah yes, this does it. :)

What I must have been thinking of was the problem of computing the degree of of the interpolating polynomial for a given collection of x_i, y_i. This is equal to the rank of a certain matrix from memory, and I do not know if there is a purely MX2 way of describing/computing this quantity in a way that is not quite cumbersome.
 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2016 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Are you sure about this? I drew it on Geogebra and it doesn't work.
The claim is true (and not particularly hard to prove), you must be doing something wrong in Geogebra.
 

Drsoccerball

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2014
Messages
3,657
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2015
Re: HSC 2016 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

The claim is true, you must be doing something wrong in Geogebra.
Is an orthocenter the point where the perpendiculars for the triangle's midpoints meet ?
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: HSC 2016 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Is an orthocenter the point where the perpendiculars for the triangle's midpoints meet ?
It's the point of intersection of the altitudes. An altitude is the perpendicular from one vertex to the opposite (possibly extended) side (doesn't necessarily meet it at the midpoint).
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2016 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

Might as well post a solution to the conics question as it has been a while.

Consider the rectangular hyperbola (ct,c/t) parametrised by t in the set of nonzero reals.

Let P,Q,R be three points on this hyperbola with parameters p,q,r respectively.

Consider the line through P that is orthogonal to QR. (The altitude through P). It's gradient is qr and hence this line has equation:

y-c/p=qr(x-cp).

We can now ask where this line meets the hyperbola (other than at P).

The equation is given by:

c^2/x-c/p=qr(x-cp)

=>pc^2-cx=pqr(x^2-cpx).

The sum of roots of this quadratic is cp-c/pqr, and as cp is one root (our line was constructed to pass through P), the other must be x=-c/pqr.

The nice thing here is that this quantity is symmetric is p,q,r!

This implies that the other altitudes of the triangle must all meet the hyperbola again at this same point. (Relabel the vertices of the triangle and do the same computation as above if you cannot see this.)

I.e. the three altitudes must intersect at a point on the hyperbola as required.
 

Drsoccerball

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2014
Messages
3,657
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2015
Re: HSC 2016 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

What was the source of this question?
It was a calculus book. Some guy proved that it converges to a number only if the graph's concavity is towards the x axis.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: HSC 2016 4U Marathon - Advanced Level

It was a calculus book. Some guy proved that it converges to a number only if the graph's concavity is towards the x axis.
Which book/guy? And what exactly do you mean by saying that the concavity is towards the x-axis? That in a small neigbourhood of the root the second derivative is non-positive? That the second derivative is non-positive on the whole real line? (Note also by symmetry that if functions with a certain concavity have convergent Newton iterates, then so will functions of the opposite concavity.)

Well I will post what is clear to me:

1. For Newton's method to be well defined, we must have f' nonzero. (Apart from the possibility of higher order zeros of f, which we will ignore for now).
This means that f' is always positive or always negative, that is, f is monotonic. Consequently f can have at most one zero, which we may assume is at x=0, by a change of variables. We also assume wlog that f is increasing.

2. Let g(x)=f(x)/f'(x), the correction term in Newton's method.

We have g'(x)=1-f(x)f''(x)/f''(x)^2, so 0 < g'(x) < 2 by the assumption.

3. The above implies 0 < g(x) < 2x for x > 0, and 2x < g(x) < 0 for negative x. Which implies that the (n+1)-th approximation from Newtons method is closer to the exact root than the n-th approximation.

4. If we have a concavity condition, like: f''(x) > 0 for x > 0 or f''(x)<0 for x < 0, then we can show that the Newton iterates eventually stay on the same side of the root, which implies they converge. (Monotone bounded sequences converge, a convergent sequence of Newton iterates must converge to a fixed point, i.e. a root.) This fact is completely independent of the bound 3. though and only used concavity and monotonicity. Furthermore, this concavity condition is not necessary for convergence, we can also have "bad concavity" near the root that leads the iterates to cross the root at each step...this process can still zigzag towards the root though.


Basically, I think you should be more precise in your question statement for something like this. There are lots of ways of guaranteeing convergence of Newton's method, but being able to say that Newton's ONLY works at a certain set of numbers is a much harder task, and I suspect your source question is not actually asking for this given the provided conditions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top