lordofworld Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Guys i am stuck with the 3rd one, anyone know how to proceed? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oathblivion Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 (edited) I'm stuck on trying to prove and explain the relationship between P(k+1) - P(k) and the Pascal Triangle.EDIT: Nevermind. I got that part down. I just need to write the expression for the xth row of Pascal's Triangle. But I'm not sure I'm all with the description in one of the first posts. Could anyone explain it a bit more? Edited November 25, 2008 by oathblivion Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannahibfailure Posted November 26, 2008 Report Share Posted November 26, 2008 I'm stuck on trying to prove and explain the relationship between P(k+1) - P(k) and the Pascal Triangle.EDIT: Nevermind. I got that part down. I just need to write the expression for the xth row of Pascal's Triangle. But I'm not sure I'm all with the description in one of the first posts. Could anyone explain it a bit more?Hey I've got this investigation to complete as well. I noticed alot of these posts are from a while ago. Can anyone who completed this investigation possibly send me a copy? I need to see the steps I'm getting stuck in some of the proofs. Don't worry I'm not interested in stealing anyone's work. I just wanna see if my steps and my math match up because im really struggling.Thank you!!!My email is [email protected]Anything would be helpful Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannahibfailure Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 I'm stuck on trying to prove and explain the relationship between P(k+1) - P(k) and the Pascal Triangle.EDIT: Nevermind. I got that part down. I just need to write the expression for the xth row of Pascal's Triangle. But I'm not sure I'm all with the description in one of the first posts. Could anyone explain it a bit more?the xth row of pascal's triangle is just { [x!/(x-0)!0!], [x!/(x-1)!1!],.....[x!/(x-x)!x!] } right?but i also noticed that k is sometimes a multiple of x when x is not prime...in pascal's triangle.for example in the 8th row, when r=1,3,6 & 7, k is a multiple of 8. why does this happen? how can i draw conclusions from this? should i just leave it out and say it only works for the whole row if the row is prime?somebody help!! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannahibfailure Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 I showed that it was not true for x=561, using Little Theorem of Fermat. Everybody was expecting it to be true, but it's not. As I'm the only further maths student at my school I think I'm the only one who got that.why 561?what does this prove?561 isnt prime why would it work Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
falu Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 hey people i'm a math hl student, and i need help with this portfolio...i am no where near getting these answers correct.please help i need to submit this by tomorrow!!! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannahibfailure Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 done this one long ago. but seem to lost the original copydo you have any copy or advice that could be helpful? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsider101 Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 (edited) Is it possible someone can post their IA online. or email me at [email protected] Edited December 12, 2008 by outsider101 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 Please ask specifically what kind of help you need. I don't think anyone will be able to provide help when it is not specified where you need help What exactly is "the converse" of the conjecture, if a conjecture was something along the lines of "It's only divisible by its respective x, when x is a prime number"? I'm not 100% sure I know what converse means, even after a visit to the dictionary. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilly Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I think that I have worked out this investigation in general, although there a few things that worry me:*for the first question about factorisation - is there any in depth explanation required, should i look at rational roots (as opposed to just natural roots), should i look for patterns in the factorisations, even if i don't think they are related to any other part of the investigation, and do these factorised forms have any real relevance, except when deducing the divisibilty of the expression for x=2,3,5... is this the only purpose of this question?! *When exploring more cases in question 1, should the main focus just be supporting what is shown through the divisibility of the expression for x=2,3,4,5, or are they look for some specific othere cases here? *I'd also like to check my assumption that generating a spreadsheet of results for the expression using excel is sufficient for the "appropriate technology" clause*When question 2 and 3 ask for refining and reconsideration of the conjecture, is this really necessary? In my opinion, although these steps simplify the process of porving the original conjecture, they don't really put any doubt in my mind about the conjecture made clear from the results of question 1. Am i missing something, or is this what everything else found as well?*I was also wondering whether people thought that question 4 was very short.. like there appears to be nothing much at all to write if one sticks strictly to the question.. should i actualy prove it, or disprove it, or is there really no need...?Ta Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
olives Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 I am confused with question 3. I know that xCr equals k. and that k is a multiple of x when x is prime but only for 0<r<x, but i do not know what conclusions it wants me to make. i don't want the answer, i just don't know where to go from here...any hints would be great.thanks Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathnerd23 Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 does anyone know how to do questions 4 and 5 of the portfolio or the last 2 question? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) guys stop trying to ask people to send you their portfolio. It is called cheating.anyways.For the relationship between P(K+1) - P(K), i still don't quite get it.i realised if you expand P(K+1)-P(K), the coefficient of the expansion of P(K+1)-P(K) is the pascal triangle.Does that have anything to do with the relationship?and for the Fermat's Little Theorem, which question (and which part of that question) is that for?thanks in advance Edited March 17, 2009 by Jonathan Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
malinka Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 I never once had to use Fermat's Little Theorem in this portfolio, I have no idea where people are getting that from Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahuta ♥ Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Is it possible someone can post their IA online. or email me at [email protected]Hey I've got this investigation to complete as well. I noticed alot of these posts are from a while ago. Can anyone who completed this investigation possibly send me a copy? I need to see the steps I'm getting stuck in some of the proofs. Don't worry I'm not interested in stealing anyone's work. I just wanna see if my steps and my math match up because im really struggling.Thank you!!!My email is [email protected]Anything would be helpfuldo you have any copy or advice that could be helpful?This is not allowed. It's cheating and against the forum and IB regulations. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CantarooTza Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 n^x-n is alway divisible with the prime no. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
slayer845 Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 how the hell do we show that we used technology to show that only prime numbers work? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathnut Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 how did you use fermat's little theorem?did use the modular arithmetics notations?did use the theorem with even numbers?Where can I find Fermat's little theorem online? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divyansh Aggarwal Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 help me i'm stuck on ques 3rd and 4thi exactly don't understand that what do they mean by the form of proof by inductionand i dont know how to get a converse of an expressionplease help me!!!! give me a hint, link or proper answer anything!!pplease help it's due tmrw Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahuta ♥ Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 We can't give you proper answer, thats basically cheating. Just like I tell everyone who keeps everything to the last minute..why are you still doing it when its due tomorrow?! You shouldnt have procrastinated all this time then come asking for answers.Did you check to see if your question is mentioned anywhere here? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.