STEP 2001 Paper 2 Question 5


This thread is an excerpt from a discussion of the STEP papers immediately after they took place.

By Olof Sisask on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 03:24 pm :

By the way - for the very last bit of Q5, did you simply say that the gradient of C2 is increasing more quickly than that of C1 between 0 and 1, and therefore the result follows?


By Nikhil Shah on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 04:10 pm :

For q5, how important do you think the last part (namely showing that k> 1/2e-1 (0r whatever!) is? For some odd reason, I just completely left that out, I'm so annoyed about that!


By Michael Doré on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 04:45 pm :

For Q5, the last part follows from e x3 1 and e2 .


By Tom Hardcastle on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 05:09 pm :

For the last part of question 5, Olof, yes, that's how I did it. (you should also mention that they both start at the origin.)

Tom.


By Michael Doré on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 09:05 pm :

So for the last part of Q5, you simply use e- x3 e- x2 for 0x1.


By Olof Sisask on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 09:11 pm :

You use that to say that the C2 is increasing more quickly than C1 right?


By Michael Doré on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 09:18 pm :

Yes, or from first principles, if y(x) denotes y as a function of x then define:

L(x)=y(x)- x2 e- x2 /2

Then:

dL/dx=dy/dx- xe- x2 - x3 e- x2 =x(1- x2 ) e- x3 - xe- x2 - x3 e- x2 x(1- x2 ) e- x2 - xe- x2 - x3 e- x2 =0

for 0x1. And so we have L(1)>L(0) as the above inequality is strict for all x other than 0, 1 so we get y(1)- e-1 /2>y(0)-0 and since y(0)=0 the result immediately follows.


By Olof Sisask on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 10:14 pm :

Ah, nice!

Olof