Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 ia Paper 1 12F b Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-06
For a nondecreasing function, the endpoint bounds show it is bounded. On the uniform partition into intervals, its Darboux sums satisfyFor a nonincreasing function apply the same calculation to , or use . Thus every monotone function on is Riemann integrable.
For the unheaded rational-weight example, each summand is nonnegative, and increasing only adds indices. Hence its sum is nondecreasing and lies between zero and one, including the separately specified value at zero. It is a left-continuous cumulative function of an atomic measure.
If and , the index appears in the sum at but not at . All other changes are nonnegative, so . This remains true for arbitrarily small positive , proving discontinuity at , including a right discontinuity at zero when that rational is encountered. Every interval of positive length contains such a rational in its interior. The discontinuities are therefore dense, although the function is Riemann integrable by the monotone-function result just proved.
More concretely, truncate after the first weights. The resulting finite sum of step functions is integrable, and the uniform tail is at most . This also proves integrability and gives, if its value is desired,The integral formula follows by integrating the finite sums and using the uniform tail bound. Here “every interval” has the usual nondegenerate-interval meaning; a singleton is not being asserted to contain a discontinuity.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 ia Paper 1 12F a Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-06
For a bounded real function on , take a partition with nodes . Its lower Darboux sum and upper Darboux sum areThe function is Riemann integrable when ; their common value is its Riemann integral. Equivalently, for every some partition has . Indeed a common refinement of nearly extremizing upper and lower partitions proves necessity, while arbitrarily small gaps force equality of the two integrals. This is the Riemann integrability criterion.
A continuous function on a compact interval is bounded and uniformly continuous. Choose a mesh small enough that its oscillation on each subinterval is less than . Then ; using first makes the desired inequality strict. Thus every continuous function on is Riemann integrable.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 ia Paper 1 11E ii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-06
From , differentiating successively gives and whenever those derivatives have been constructed. Starting with twice differentiability, this relation supplies the next two derivatives at each stage. Thus is infinitely differentiable, and its origin series isFor a fixed , both and are bounded on the compact interval between zero and , say by . Every higher derivative is one of these two functions. Taylor's theorem, with the remainder just proved, therefore bounds the order- remainder by , which tends to zero: its consecutive positive-term ratio is . Hence the series converges to for every real . It also gives by the usual hyperbolic-function series.
At any other centre , apply the proved origin result to , which also satisfies . Its even derivatives at zero are , and its odd ones are . ConsequentlyThis proves convergence at every centre without assuming that smoothness alone implies equality to a Taylor series.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 ia Paper 1 11E i Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-06
For , put and . The auxiliary function satisfiesRolle's theorem first gives a zero of strictly between zero and . Apply Rolle's theorem to between that zero and zero, where , to obtain a zero of . Continue in this way. The derivatives through order are continuous, since they are differentiable; hence every application is valid even if is not continuous. After applications there is strictly between zero and with .
But , so . Writing yields the Taylor formula with Lagrange remainderThe same construction using repeated applications of Rolle's theorem applies when , with intervals ordered from to zero. For the identity is immediate and any works. This proves the Taylor theorem with Lagrange remainder using only the allowed theorem and elementary differentiation.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 ia Paper 1 10E iii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-06
Apply the mean value theorem to on . It gives with . Both and are within of , soThis proves the endpoint secant-tangent approximation without any continuity assumption on . The continuity required by the theorem is only that of itself.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 ia Paper 1 10E ii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-06
For continuity at any , choose for a desired error . If , the stated bound gives . Thus is continuous, in fact uniformly continuous.
When , the difference quotient satisfiesTherefore the derivative exists at every point and is zero. Part (i) proves is constant. This is the lemma that Hölder exponent greater than one forces constancy; no differentiability was assumed in advance.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 ia Paper 1 10E i Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-06
Take any inside the given open interval. Differentiability implies the continuity needed on , and the derivative is zero throughout it. The mean value theorem therefore gives . Since the two points were arbitrary, the function is constant on the interval.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 ib Paper 4 13G ii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-07
Let and be the connected components of and . First, is connected in the product topology. For each , the connected slice meets the connected slice . Their union over is connected by the common-intersection argument, and is exactly .
Now let be the connected component of in . The coordinate projections are continuous, so their images of are connected and contain and . Maximality therefore gives . Conversely, the connected set contains , so it lies in . . This is connected components of a product space; it requires neither local connectedness nor path connectedness.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 ib Paper 4 13G i Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-07
Fix , and let be the union of all connected subsets containing . Their union is connected: a separation of the union would place on one side, and every connected member meeting that side would have to lie entirely there. The other side would be empty. By the defining equivalence relation this union is exactly the connected component of .
The closure of a connected set is connected as well. Indeed, if its closure had a separation into relatively open nonempty pieces, density would make both pieces meet the original set and give a separation of that connected set. Therefore is a connected subset containing , so maximality gives . The reverse inclusion is automatic. Every connected component is connected and closed.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 ib Paper 4 11G ii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-07
The map , , is a module homomorphism, and it is injective because and is a torsion-free module. The linear independence in a module of makes the map sending the standard basis to an isomorphism. Thus is a finite free module, and . This proves embedding a finitely generated torsion-free module in a finite free module. No claim that the submodule itself is free over an arbitrary integral domain is needed.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 ib Paper 4 11G i Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-07
For each , maximality implies a nontrivial relationHere , since otherwise this would contradict the linear independence in a module of . Thus . Take , with empty product equal to one. Because is an integral domain, . Every satisfies , and this is also true for . Expressing any element of the finitely generated module as an -linear combination of now gives . This is clearing denominators relative to an independent module subset; it does not require to be a field.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 ib Paper 2 4G ii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-07
False without a separation assumption. Give the indiscrete topology , and take . Both spaces are finite and hence compact, but is not a closed set because is not open. In a Hausdorff space, a compact subset would be closed; that hypothesis is absent here.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 ib Paper 2 4G i Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-07
True. In a discrete topology, the singletons form an open cover. If is compact, a finite subcover exists, so is finite. Conversely, any open cover of a finite set has a finite subcover: choose one member containing each point. This converse does not require the discrete topology.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 ib Paper 2 20H iii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-14
For an active monster, independence givesBoth probabilities vanish before time and at odd times. By convolution and Cauchy-Schwarz, : indeed, write the -step probability as the inner product of two translates of the -step probability mass function. ThereforePositivity follows by prescribing simultaneous steps taking both walkers straight to the origin; that event has probability . An active monster thus leaves a positive escape probability.
For a sleepy monster, the origin capture by a sufficiently sleepy planar random walk can be proved using the printed schedule: during it occupies . For any , let be the first with . Markov-chain recurrence of makes finite almost surely, and it is independent of . By conditioning on and using the stated block bound,As , continuity of probability for decreasing events shows that the event of infinitely many simultaneous origin visits has probability at least . Regard the independent trajectories as continuing even after a possible first capture.
To turn this into probability one, use the eventual coupling of planar symmetric random walks; the block events need not be independent. Two planar simple symmetric random walks begun at sites of the same parity can be coupled to agree eventually. Run them independently until they meet. Their difference walk is irreducible on the even-parity sublattice, and its -step return probability is , by convolution and symmetry. The preceding divergent-series criterion makes this difference walk a recurrent Markov chain, so it hits zero almost surely. After that stopping time, use identical increments for both copies, preserving their marginal laws by the Strong Markov property.
Fix any finite calendar time and any two possible histories up to that time. Corresponding princess positions have the same parity, as do the corresponding monster positions at its internal walk time. Apply the eventual probabilistic coupling separately to the two princess futures and the two monster futures, keeping the princess and monster walks independent in each pair. Both the calendar clock and the monster's internal clock tend to infinity. Hence after a finite calendar time the two pairs of trajectories agree, so either both realize or neither does. The conditional probability of is therefore the same for every possible finite history.
Consequently for every . By the martingale convergence theorem, these conditional expectations converge to as the histories exhaust the trajectories. Thus is zero or one. Since it is at least , it is one. In particular,This argument uses the supplied unconditional block probabilities; it does not silently strengthen them to conditional probabilities given past failures.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 ib Paper 2 20H ii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-07
For a planar simple symmetric random walk write its coordinates as and rotate to . Each step now has four equally likely values . Thus the two rotated coordinates are independent one-dimensional simple symmetric random walks.
A return is impossible at odd times, and at time its probability isFor , the supplied estimate gives . At the lower bound is actually equality, ; this harmless strict-endpoint typo does not affect the argument. The harmonic series diverges, so the criterion proved above shows that the origin is recurrent, in the terminology of a recurrent Markov chain. Translation invariance gives the same conclusion for every state. The Markov chain is irreducible, so from any starting point it hits any fixed state almost surely and revisits it infinitely often. One can see the hitting assertion directly: repeated returns to the starting point give repeated positive-probability opportunities to follow a finite path to the target.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 ib Paper 2 20H i Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-07
Let . By the Strong Markov property, the probability of hitting and subsequently returning to is . This event implies a return to , so . For , interpret the event as two successive returns.
Set and let be the th successive return. Repeated use of the Strong Markov property gives . The total number of visits, including time zero, is both and . By Tonelli theorem,The identity is valid with value . In particular, divergence of the return-probability sum is equivalent to Markov-chain recurrence.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 ib Paper 2 17B ii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-14
Put and . Integrating the Schrödinger equation across the delta potential gives continuity of andFor incidence from the left, write on and on . Matching gives and , henceThe incident and transmitted probability currents have the same velocity factor, so the reflection coefficient and transmission coefficient areFor , an even bound state has , . The derivative jump now gives , so andThere is exactly one positive value of , hence exactly one even bound state. Its normalized amplitude is . An odd decaying solution would have to vanish at zero and is therefore trivial.
In the shrinking finite square well, its integrated potential is , not : the full width is . With fixed and , . The matching condition then bounds by , so remains bounded. Consequently , and the previous matching condition givesUsing recovers the same bound-state energy. All other even levels disappear as the width shrinks.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 ib Paper 2 17B i Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-14
The time-independent Schrödinger equation gives the even interior wavefunction , with . Outside, normalizability of a bound state requires , with .
Continuity of the wavefunction and its derivative at gives and . A nonzero solution cannot have , so division givesAt the formally allowed endpoint , the even interior solution is constant; derivative matching would force the exterior amplitude to vanish, leaving the zero solution. Nontrivial bound states therefore have . The matching formula is the even-state condition for a finite square well.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 ib Paper 2 13D iii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-07
For , , the numerator modulus is and the denominator modulus is at least . Hence the magnitude of the right-side contour integral is at mostOn the corresponding bounds are and , giving exactly the same bound . Thus the total vertical contribution is and vanishes. This integral estimate handles the endpoints where a pointwise uniform-decay argument would fail.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 ib Paper 2 13D ii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-07
On the top side put , with running from to . Since and , the reversed orientation cancels the minus sign. The two horizontal integrals therefore sum toIf the vertical contributions vanish, the previous residue theorem evaluation yields the Fresnel integralThis also is an ordinary oscillatory improper integral, not merely a symmetric principal value: integration by parts, using , bounds either tail beginning at by a constant times .
There are unlisted articles, also show them or only show them.