| Author |
Message |
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 19 Nov 2007 20:53:37 IST
|
|
|
if
X = 1 + 1/ 2 + 1/ 3+ 1/ 4+ 1/ 5+ ..................... + 1/ 106 .
find [X] where [ ] : denotes greatest integer function
|
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 23 Nov 2007 14:16:23 IST
|
|
|
atleast someone try it!!!!!!!
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 23 Nov 2007 16:36:07 IST
|
|
|
is the answer 1?
|
The clock on the wall ticking away... |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 23 Nov 2007 19:20:57 IST
|
|
|
no the answer is 1998
|
this reply: 5 points
(with 1 
in 1 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 22 Jan 2008 23:50:34 IST
|
|
|
very nice problem! k..  (n=1000) Here is the proof. let consider this function in the interval For every , we have a rectangle with the interval as its base and as its height. The sum of the areas of these (upper) rectangles is certainly bigger than the area under the graph of Now: Sum of the areas of the rectangles = , and area under the graph of f(x) = So we have this time consider the rectangles with, again, the intervals as their bases but this time as their heights. this time the sum of the areas of these (lower) rectangles is certainly less than the area under the graph of Now, Sum of the areas of the rectangles = Thus So we've proved that = 
|
Guide to latex:
http://www.goiit.com/posts/list/community-shelf-a-guide-to-latex-48056.htm
JEE and OLYMPIA INFINATUM
http://iit-redefined.theforum.name/index.php
|
this reply: 80 points
(with 16 
in 16 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 23 Jan 2008 00:59:05 IST
|
|
|
(here is the general formula for those who asked) exactly the same argument shows that in general for any we have note that if is not a perfect square, then in general these bounds are not good enough to give us 
|
Guide to latex:
http://www.goiit.com/posts/list/community-shelf-a-guide-to-latex-48056.htm
JEE and OLYMPIA INFINATUM
http://iit-redefined.theforum.name/index.php
|
this reply: 32 points
(with 6 
in 7 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 25 Jan 2008 22:08:50 IST
|
|
|
exact proof konichiwa ................... this sum was given by my iit maths professor............ i was astounded when he gave the proof. so i just wanted to share this problem with my goiitan friends...........
another simple method to solve this problem is........
the general formula is
2*( (n+1) - n ) < 1/ n < 2*( n - (n-1) )
applying summation from 1 to 106 we get the answer........
|
this reply: 5 points
(with 1 
in 1 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
|
|