Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2012 September 5

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 5

Project Euler question

There is a Project Euler problem (whose number I am not quoting so the answer is not given away directly here), where one needs integer solutions to 2b^2 - 2b - n^2 + n = 0. b=3 and n=4 is one solution to this equation. The equations b' = 3b + 2n - 2 and n' = 4b +3n - 3 generate b' and n' which are also solutions to the equation. Two questions please: (1) How do I prove that the b' and n' equations are valid? (2) How does one do Diophantine magic and generate those equations in the first place? -- SGBailey (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The equation is equivalent to 2b(b − 1) = n(n − 1). Now it becomes obvious b = n = 1 is another solution... --CiaPan (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I know the equations work, I've got a dozen solutions and could have a dozen more if I wanted them (they get quite big...). But I'm interested in the proof and creation of the "next set of solutions" equations. Yes 1,1 is a solution. So is 0,1. But so is 3,4. -- SGBailey (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where they come from, but it's simple enough to show that they work: just plug your formulas for b' and n' into the original equation and simplify. You'll get 2b^2 - 2b - n^2 + n = 0. Under the assumption that you started with a solution, this shows that b' and n' are a solution.--121.73.35.181 (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(1) solved. You are right thanks - when I tried that previously, I went wrong; but it worked ok second time. So (2) where did the generating equations come from??? -- SGBailey (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Convergents (p,q) to the continued fraction expansion of sqrt(2) are (1,1), (3,2), (7,5), (17,12), (41,29) etc (see Pell number). Alternate convergents (1,1), (7,5), (41,29) etc. satisfy

$p^{2}=2q^{2}-1$

Successive convergents in this sequence are related by the recurrence relations

$p'=4q+3p\quad q'=3q+2p$

Use the transform

$n={\frac {p+1}{2}}\quad b={\frac {q+1}{2}}$

and you get the (n,b) sequence (1,1), (4,3), (21, 15) etc. which satisfies

$(2n-1)^{2}=2(2b-1)^{2}-1\Rightarrow 4n^{2}-4n+1=8b^{2}-8b+1\Rightarrow n^{2}-n=2b^{2}-2b$

with the recurrence relations

$n'=4b+3n-3\quad b'=3b+2n-2$

Gandalf61 (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you (I think). I didn't understand most of that, but I'll study it for a few days and see if it makes any sense then. -- SGBailey (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Complex variables inequality

Hi. I'm working in a book, and looking at a claim that goes as follows: For $|e^{z}-1|\leq {\frac {1}{2}}$, we have ${\frac {1}{2}}|z|\leq |e^{z}-1|\leq 2|z|$. I've checked this by doing a change of variables $\zeta =e^{z}-1$, parameterizing the circle $|\zeta |={\frac {1}{2}}$, and checking that ${\frac {1}{2}}|\log(\zeta +1)|\leq |\zeta |={\frac {1}{2}}\leq 2|\log(\zeta +1)|$ all around the circle (for the principal branch). I checked just by graphing the left and right as functions of a real variable, and sure enough, they stayed away from ${\frac {1}{2}}$. This is terribly awkward, though. Does anyone know an easier way to see this? Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless I’m missing something, the first part of the inequality is false.

I will type * for times, and ^ for ”to the power of”.

Because, suppose that z = 2pi*i. Then e^z = e^(2pi*i) = cos(2pi) + i*sin(2pi) = 1 + 0 = 1. So then |e^z - 1| = 0, which is less than 1/2. So z = 2pi*i satisfies the assumption.

But then the first part of the inequality, (1/2)|z| <= |e^z -1|, becomes (1/2)(2pi) <= 0, or pi <= 0, which is just not true. Cardamon (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. The inequality applies for z close to 0, not close to other multiples of 2pi*i. It can be fixed by adding the condition that |z|<1 or something.

I seem to have it figured out. The trick is to do the substitution $\zeta =e^{z}-1$, and assume that $|\zeta |\leq {\frac {1}{2}}$; this obviates the problem you mention. Then you really want to show that ${\frac {1}{2}}|\zeta |\leq |\log(\zeta +1)|\leq 2|\zeta |$. This can be accomplished by playing with the series expansion of $\log(\zeta +1)$ and the triangle inequality. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)