You are not logged in.
hi bobbym and gAr
I need help with this problem.
We have the series:
Find the limit:
Last edited by anonimnystefy (2011-06-22 04:33:36)
Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.
Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
The knowledge of some things as a function of age is a delta function.
Offline
Hi anonimnystefy,
I think I have seen it somewhere.
Is that a putnam question?
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Last edited by anonimnystefy (2011-06-22 04:47:46)
Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.
Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
The knowledge of some things as a function of age is a delta function.
Offline
Hi,
http://amc.maa.org/a-activities/a7-prob … f/2006.pdf
http://amc.maa.org/a-activities/a7-prob … /2006s.pdf
Last edited by gAr (2011-06-22 05:10:39)
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Hi anonimnystefy;
This is not going to be much help but numerically I would say 2.25
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
hi bobbym
that is the answer but i don't know how to get to it.
Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.
Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
The knowledge of some things as a function of age is a delta function.
Offline
it says here that it should be solved using Stolz theorem but i don't know how.
Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.
Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
The knowledge of some things as a function of age is a delta function.
Offline
Did you check the links I mentioned?
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
yup but i don't understand anything
Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.
Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
The knowledge of some things as a function of age is a delta function.
Offline
Hi;
The second solution seems easier.
In your case you can easily prove the first statement:
Where the next step comes from!?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
I too couldn't understand!
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Hi,
One solution using Stolz-Cesaro's theorem, not rigorous one!
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
New Problem
We have two positive integers both less than 10000. The arithmetic mean and the geometric mean of these numbers are consecutive odd integers. What is the maximum difference of the two numbers.
A says) I got it.
B says) Me too.
C says) Yep!
D says) Me too.
E says) I don't.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi bobbym,
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Hi gAr;
Can not check your answer, I have to go shopping and I am late. See you in a bit.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Okay, no problem!
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Hi gAr;
That is correct!
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Thanks!
Do you know of any mathematical method?
I couldn't solve without a computer.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Partly yes!
You can reason about it. It is obvious that a and b must be squares. Otherwise the geometric mean would not be an integer. a could equal b but then the difference would be 0. It is also obvious from the other conditions that a and b must be odd.
Now the difference between two different squares gets larger as the squares get larger. So you start from the biggest square 31 and work your way down by twos.
Hold it! a and b do not have to be odd! But they both have to be even or odd. So that reduces the pairs you check.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi bobbym,
I was thinking:
Since a and b must be perfect squares and we can assume one of the numbers must be a largest perfect square less than 10000, which is 9801.
Now, all we need to do is solve a quadratic equation to find the other.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Hi gAr;
Yes, we can go a little further.
We can solve that:
Since we know that a is a square we get:
and
Now we see that b is also a square as we already knew and that b is +- 2 larger or smaller than a
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi bobbym,
Yes!
And another variation:
The same what you mean, slightly different manner.
We observe 2 things:
edit: ignore this! The reason which I thought was correct isn't convincing me now.
Last edited by gAr (2011-06-24 15:48:21)
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Once you find 99^2 and 97^2 you do not have to look for any others. All pairs must be within 2 so finding the biggest pair means finding the biggest difference.
The original problem was for 1000 not 10000. The answer is still the same 31^2 and 29^2.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Yes, so we can go upto any n, and the answer is always there, easy!
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
That is the way it looks. I did it by computer also. It is easier to come up with math solutions when you are staring at the answer.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline