Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

SuicideFuel Math thread problem (official)

Prove that, if a, b, c are natural numbers such that 1/a + 1/b + 1/c < 1, then 1/a + 1/b + 1/c ⩽ 41/42.

WLOG a >= b >= c. The pareto front of triples is (2, 3, 7), (2, 4, 5), (3, 3, 4), and (2, 3, 7) gives the maximum value 41/42.
 
WLOG a >= b >= c. The pareto front of triples is (2, 3, 7), (2, 4, 5), (3, 3, 4), and (2, 3, 7) gives the maximum value 41/42.
Correct of course. I'd never heard the term "Pareto front" before tho :feelswhere: the more I know :feelsstudy:
 
Find the next number in the sequence: 1, 20, 693, 40064, ?
 
Find the next number in the sequence: 1, 20, 693, 40064, ?

The interpolated polynomial for the respective x values at 0, 1, 2, 3 is 1 + (37120 x)/3 - 18695 x^2 + (19022 x^3)/3 and at x = 4 this is 156177.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given x > 1, evaluate the sum:

(2^i) / (1 + x^(2^i)) for i = 0 to infinity
 
The interpolated polynomial for the respective x values at 0, 1, 2, 3 is 1 + (37120 x)/3 - 18695 x^2 + (19022 x^3)/3 and at x = 4 this is 156177.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given x > 1, evaluate the sum:

(2^i) / (1 + x^(2^i)) for i = 0 to infinity
It's not 156177
 
Given x > 1, evaluate the sum:

(2^i) / (1 + x^(2^i)) for i = 0 to infinity
1/(x − 1) − \sum_{i=0}^n 2^i / (x^(2^i) + 1) = 2^(n+1) / (x^(2^(n+1)) − 1) which tends to 0 as n goes to infinity because x > 1
 
3,215,625,361,728,000,576,908,800,647,833,828,166,212,393,188,480
1715617200179
 
Quick and easy problem. Let a & b be positive integers. Find the minimal value of a + b such that 5/9 < a/b < 4/7 (and prove your claim).
 
Quick and easy problem. Let a & b be positive integers. Find the minimal value of a + b such that 5/9 < a/b < 4/7 (and prove your claim).

5/9 is LRLL on Stern Brocot

4/7 is LRLLL

LRLLLR is 9/16 (minimum prefix for any value between LRLL and LRLLL)
 
5/9 is LRLL on Stern Brocot

4/7 is LRLLL

LRLLLR is 9/16 (minimum prefix for any value between LRLL and LRLLL)
this solution is way cool, except that it's not immediately obvious to me why this actually works
 
5/9 is LRLL on Stern Brocot

4/7 is LRLLL

LRLLLR is 9/16 (minimum prefix for any value between LRLL and LRLLL)

Typo: 4/7 is LRLL, 5/9 is LRLLL

this solution is way cool, except that it's not immediately obvious to me why this actually works

I got slightly lucky with the representation of the 2 numbers, if one was not a substring of another it would require a bit more work.

Basically every string can be arranged lexicographically with R moving in the positive direction and L in the negative direction, with empty space as neutral. Sorting all of these strings corresponds to sorted rational numbers.

Also, a string which is a prefix of another string will correspond to a fraction that has a numerator and denominator of at most the fraction associated with the longer string (due to the rules of the tree generation).

Looking at the tree structure, 5/9 is the left node of 4/7, so the right node of 5/9, which is 9/16, is the root of the tree of all fractions between 5/9 and 4/7.
 
This might be slightly off topic for this thread:

Prove that given no other outside forces, the time to go through a diametric tunnel of a spherical planet is the same as the length of a half orbit.
 
Typo: 4/7 is LRLL, 5/9 is LRLLL



I got slightly lucky with the representation of the 2 numbers, if one was not a substring of another it would require a bit more work.

Basically every string can be arranged lexicographically with R moving in the positive direction and L in the negative direction, with empty space as neutral. Sorting all of these strings corresponds to sorted rational numbers.

Also, a string which is a prefix of another string will correspond to a fraction that has a numerator and denominator of at most the fraction associated with the longer string (due to the rules of the tree generation).

Looking at the tree structure, 5/9 is the left node of 4/7, so the right node of 5/9, which is 9/16, is the root of the tree of all fractions between 5/9 and 4/7.
I know how the Stern-Brocot tree works. All I'm saying is that I find your proof lacking. Personally I don't find it trivial that the a/b your procedure ends up yielding has minimal a + b starting from the definition of the Stern-Brocot tree.
 
This might be slightly off topic for this thread:

Prove that given no other outside forces, the time to go through a diametric tunnel of a spherical planet is the same as the length of a half orbit.
someone really ought to make a physics problem thread
 
I know how the Stern-Brocot tree works. All I'm saying is that I find your proof lacking. Personally I don't find it trivial that the a/b your procedure ends up yielding has minimal a + b starting from the definition of the Stern-Brocot tree.

The leaves of a node must have their numerator and denominator be at least the values of the node.

5/9 is the left leaf of 4/7, and since the tree is an infinite binary tree, the right leaf of 5/9 must be the root of everything between 5/9 and 4/7 because of how a binary tree works.
 
The leaves of a node must have their numerator and denominator be at least the values of the node.

5/9 is the left leaf of 4/7, and since the tree is an infinite binary tree, the right leaf of 5/9 must be the root of everything between 5/9 and 4/7 because of how a binary tree works.
Putting these together indeed works. All of this was already in your previous post, but in my hurry I didn't put the pieces together. Sorry about that.
 
someone really ought to make a physics problem thread
Second this, including topics on EM and relativity (no quantum or particle physics).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the set of ordered pairs (x, y) with x and y as integers and 0 <= x < 2n, 0 <= y < 2m, for some positive integers m and n, prove that there are an odd number of ways to partition the set into subsets of the form {(x_1, y_1), (x_1, y_2), (x_2, y_1), (x_2, y_2)} with x_1 < x_2 and y_1 < y_2.
 
Given the set of ordered pairs (x, y) with x and y as integers and 0 <= x < 2n, 0 <= y < 2m, for some positive integers m and n, prove that there are an odd number of ways to partition the set into subsets of the form {(x_1, y_1), (x_1, y_2), (x_2, y_1), (x_2, y_2)} with x_1 < x_2 and y_1 < y_2.
I think the following works

I'll prove the claim via induction on n. If n = 1, then there are clearly (2m)! / (m! * 2^m) = (2m − 1)!! (odd because product of odd numbers) partitions into rectangular quartets, which is how I'll refer to those special subsets. Suppose we know the claim is true for n = p. Consider the case n = p + 1 and consider the function on partitions into rectangular quartets that swaps every instance of y = 0 with y = 1. Note that this function pairs up those partitions into rectangular quartets where y = 0 and y = 1 do NOT always occur together (e.g., if y = 0 and y = 2 were to occur with the same x as y = 1 and y = 2, then the pair (x, 2) would appear twice) so it suffices to show that there are oddly many partitions into rectangular quartets where y = 0 and y = 1 DO always occur together. However, in this case the number of partitions into rectangular quartets is simply the product of the cases n = p and n = 1, both of which are odd, so their product will be odd as well.
 
Let s_b be a nonempty sub string in base b (b > 1). Prove that the sum of the reciprocals of all positive integers which do not contain s_b converges.
 
Let s_b be a nonempty sub string in base b (b > 1). Prove that the sum of the reciprocals of all positive integers which do not contain s_b converges.
Let L be the length of s_b. By pretending that we're in base b^L instead, we may WLOG assume that L = 1. I'll showcase the idea of the proof by illustrating that the sum of reciprocals of numbers without the digit 7 in base 10 converges. Call this sum S.

We first write S as the sum from n = 1 to oo of S_n, where S_n contains all terms whose denominators have exactly n digits. It's plain to see that every S_n has 8 * 9^(n − 1) summands, each of which is upperbounded by 1/10^n. In other words, S_n < 8/10 * (9/10)^(n − 1). We may thus bound S by a convergent geometric series.

Edit -- by pretending we're in base b^L, we're gonna delete less terms than we otherwise would. E.g., if s_10 = 49, then 1/490 will not get deleted. Luckily this doesn't affect the validity of the argument. Thanks to @mindlessselfindulge for pointing this out to me.
 
Last edited:
Let L be the length of s_b. By pretending that we're in base b^L instead, we may WLOG assume that L = 1. I'll showcase the idea of the proof by illustrating that the sum of reciprocals of numbers without the digit 7 in base 10 converges. Call this sum S.

We first write S as the sum from n = 1 to oo of S_n, where S_n contains all terms whose denominators have exactly n digits. It's plain to see that every S_n has 8 * 9^(n − 1) summands, each of which is upperbounded by 1/10^n. In other words, S_n < 8/10 * (9/10)^(n − 1). We may thus bound S by a convergent geometric series.

Edit -- by pretending we're in base b^L, we're gonna delete less terms than we otherwise would. E.g., if s_10 = 49, then 1/490 will not get deleted. Luckily this doesn't affect the validity of the argument. Thanks to @mindlessselfindulge for pointing this out to me.
being good at math is like a superpower, I truly suck at this.

This is amazing!
 
Moderately difficult problem. Let x be the sum of t_n / 3^n from n = 1 to oo where t_n is first trit of 2^n + 6^n. Is x rational?
 
Prove that 0x0=0
 
Prove that 0x0=0
Let 0 be the additive identity and 1 the multiplicative identity of any arbitrary ring. By the ring axioms, 0 = 1*0 = (1 + 0)*0 = 1*0 + 0*0 = 0 + 0*0 = 0*0, so, in sum, 0*0 = 0.
 
Moderately difficult problem. Let x be the sum of t_n / 3^n from n = 1 to oo where t_n is first trit of 2^n + 6^n. Is x rational?
6^n + 2^n = 2^n * 3^n + 2^n

floor(log_3(3^n)) > floor(log_3(2^n)) for all positive integers n so first trit of 6^n + 2^n is the same as the first trit of 6^n is the same as the first trit of 2^n

The value of t_n depends on the value of frac(ln(2^n) / ln(3)) = frac(n * (ln(2) / ln(3))) => If frac(n * (ln(2) / ln(3))) >= (ln(2) / ln(3)) then t_n = 2, otherwise 1

In order for x to be rational, t_n has to be periodic. However, this is not possible since (ln(2) / ln(3)) is irrational so no periodic pattern will form.
 
Care to elaborate?

ln(2) / ln(3) is irrational because 2^a =/= 3^b for any positive integers a and b

Assume there is a periodic pattern:

the value of the statement frac((n0 + km) * (ln(2) / ln(3))) >= (ln(2) / ln(3)) is the same for positive integers k with given values of positive integers n0 and m

Knowing that ln(2) / ln(3) is irrational, for any given epsilon close to 0, there exists a positive integer multiple of ln(2) / ln(3) with the fractional part of that value as less than epsilon. Set this value as k, and find some value of w where frac((n0 + wkm) * (ln(2) / ln(3))) crosses the threshold into the other side of (ln(2) / ln(3)).
 
Knowing that ln(2) / ln(3) is irrational, for any given epsilon close to 0, there exists a positive integer multiple of ln(2) / ln(3) with the fractional part of that value as less than epsilon. Set this value as k, and find some value of w where frac((n0 + wkm) * (ln(2) / ln(3))) crosses the threshold into the other side of (ln(2) / ln(3)).
Nice approach, tho your proof is still lacking IMHO.
 
Nice approach, tho your proof is still lacking IMHO.

What would you suggest?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Integrate (x^7 - 1) / ln(x) from 0 to 1
 
:shock::feelsBox::bigbrain::hax:
I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.
 
What are the possible determinants of an n by n binary matrix if each row and each column contains exactly two 1s?
 
Truecel trait: you do don't understand the questions
 
what the fuck is x^6y^6 * x^11y^10
 

Similar threads

NeverGetUp
Replies
25
Views
596
NeverGetUp
NeverGetUp
IncelGolem
Replies
28
Views
695
AtrociousCitizen
AtrociousCitizen
MaldireMan0077
Replies
9
Views
233
Emba
Emba
Flagellum_Dei
Replies
44
Views
3K
faded
faded

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top