One twist:
To the final you may bring one double-sided sheet of handwritten notes, and your midterms. One question from the midterms will make a surprise appearance!
1a. Let a,b be integers such that a
2 = b
3.
Is b necessarily a square?
If yes, prove it, otherwise, give a counterexample (a pair {a,b}).
ANSWER. Yes, it's true. Write out the prime factorizations, and look at the power of a prime p occurring in the equation: 2a
p = 3b
p. Hence each b
p must be even. Then the product over all p of p
(bp/2) is an integer, and a square root of b.
1b. Let a,b be integers such that a
10 = b
15.
Is b necessarily a 10th power?
If yes, prove it, otherwise, give a counterexample (a pair {a,b}).
ANSWER. No. In fact this equation is just the 5th power of the one above! For a small solution to the equation above, take b = 2
2 = 4, a = 2
3 = 8. Then this second equation holds but b=4 is not a 10th power of an integer.
1c. Let a,b be integers such that a
323 = b
391.
Then a,b are both powers of some other integer. What are those powers?
ANSWER. Follow the same analysis as in 1a to get 323a
p = 391b
p. To simplify this equation, divide by the gcd of 323 and 391, which we can calculate with Euclid's algorithm. 391-323 = 68, 323-4*68 = 323-272 = 51, 68-51 = 17, 51-3*17 = 0. So 17 is the gcd, and dividing we get 19a
p = 23b
p. Hence each b
p is a multiple of 19, and b is a 19th power of some guy, where a is the 23rd power of that same guy.
2. Prove by induction that sum
i=1...n 1/i(i+1) = 1 - 1/(n+1).
ANSWER. The easiest base case is n=0, where this says 0=0. (If you wanted to do the base case n=1 where this says 1/1*2 = 1 - 1/2, that's not
so hard either, but it is harder.)
Then for n>0, the LHS can be rewritten as (sum
i=1...n-1 1/i(i+1)) + 1/n(n+1) by separating out the last term. (When n=0, there is no term at all, much less a last term.) By induction, the first part of that adds up to 1-1/n. Then we check that
1-1/n + 1/n(n+1) = 1 - 1/(n+1)
which is easy.
3. Let k,n be natural numbers, such that n! > k
n. Show that for all N > n, N! > k
N.
ANSWER. By induction on N. The base case is N=n, which is given to us. (So in fact we're going to show it for all N greater than or equal to n.)
Now we can assume that it's true for N, and wish to prove it for N+1. Look first at (N+1)! = (N+1) N! > (N+1) k
N. We would like for that to be > k
N+1, i.e. we would like N+1 > k.
We know N+1 > n. Do we know n > k? If not, then n is less than or equal to k, in which case n! is a product of n numbers less than or equal to k, and this product is therefore less than or equal to k
n. But we were told that isn't true.
Having reached that contradiction, we learn n > k, so N+1 > k, which was the remaining step in showing that (N+1)! > k
N+1. This completes the induction step.
4. Let R,S be two equivalence relations on the same set X.
a. Show that R intersect S is an equivalence relation (where "intersect" means as sets of ordered pairs).
ANSWER. Let x,y,z denote elements of X.
Reflexive: since R,S are reflexive, (x,x) is in R and S, hence in the
intersection.
Symmetric: if (x,y) is in R intersect S, it's in both R and S. Since R and S are symmetric, that implies (y,x) is in both R and S. Hence it's in the intersection.
Transitive: same deal as symmetric. If (x,y) and (y,z) are in R intersect S, they're in both R and S. Since R and S are transitive, (x,z) is in both R and S. Hence it's in the intersection.
b. Let RuS denote the union of R and S. Of the three conditions required of an equivalence relation, which ones does RuS automatically satisfy? For each condition {reflexive, symmetric, transitive}, either show that RuS satisfies it, or give an example of X,R,S where RuS doesn't satisfy it.
Reflexive. Yes. Since for any x we know (x,x) is in R, it's in RuS.
Symmetric. Yes. Say (x,y) is in RuS. Then it's in either R or S. If it's in R, then (y,x) is in R since R is symmetric, so (y,x) is in RuS. Same proof for "in S".
Transitive. No. Say X has three elements {x,y,z}, and R has the associated partition { {x,y}, {z} }, whereas S has the associated partition { {x}, {y,z} }. Then (x,y) is in R, and (y,z) is in S, so both elements are in RuS, but (x,z) is not in RuS.
5. "Let b,c,n be integers, such that b
n > c
n. Then for all N>n, b
N > c
N." State the negation of this statement and prove
that.
ANSWER. Rewrite with quantifiers explicit:
"For all b,c,n integers, such that b
n > c
n, for all N>n, b
N > c
N."
To negate:
"There exists b,c,n integers, such that b
n > c
n,
and there exists N>n, where b
N is less than or equal to c
N."
Proof: let n=2, b=-3, c=2, N=3. Then (-3)
2 > 2
2, but (-3)
3 is less than 2
3.
Basically a trick question, in that it had silly negative numbers to confuse you, but at least it wasn't a "Prove or disprove" gotcha question.