2018 International Mathematical Olympiad

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That is just waffle

And you know it.

If a students solution involved incorrect statements (that they choose to not use), but the path to the solution is correct, and the answer is correct, then it is correct. Not barely correct.

Which doesn't mean anything, anyway

More waffle

A trigonometry problem, maybe involving use of cosine rule, leading to an answer of 57.2 degrees.

If they have 57.2 on the answer line, no matter what they have written and discarded, it is correct.
Not barely correct. Which isn't a sensible statement.

You have cited some bizarre case where 18 are wrong, just 2 correct.

I , and everyone else, is bemused.

Please provide an example of this barely correct student

You should have stuck your head in the sand. Wouldnt look so foolish

Oh..thumbs down? Who could be so sad?

Originally posted by @blood-on-the-tracks
Fair enough.

Between you and me, I accept that my original explanation was hastily typed and clumsy. I don't so much accept the criticism of my reply to you, but if that is your perception, then I fair enough.

I do apologise for my tetchy reply to you.

All I would say, is that we would all like the Maths explained at a !evel that makes ...[text shortened]... r more aggressive ways.

I am assuming that you accept my rather long winded proof is correct?

Yes, it is correct. It was that factor of 1/2 that bothered me, once it dawned on me that it had been introduced into the numerator in the first step then the correctness of the proof became clear to me.

I did wonder if some sort of proof by iteration was possible. Since the n = 0 term is just 4/3. The problem is I can't see a way of proving the iteration in a way that doesn't exploit some working similar to either Duchess' or your method, in which case the iteration is redundant.

Bear in mind that people have to read this stuff off a screen, and without most of the formatting that happens in maths books, or even places like Wikipedia. Writing an integral in these forums is a monstrous pain. Quite often they'd understand the step if it was written down on paper, but the medium sort of gets in the way.

I can only think of two universities in this country that have entrance exams and I think one of them stopped using them. You went to Oxford?

Thanks for that. I hurried past the '2' to get to dealing with the bracket part.

I may be older than you think! Passed entrance exam, ( but not with that question, as you probably guessed!) at Oxfords rivals many years ago.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

So, we going to see this 18/2 person, or, probably, not?

I really have little idea what you are waffling about

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Are you following this. ?

Deep Thought explained perfectly . I would say his use of mathematical language (although wisely avoiding 'barely correct'. )
would be difficult for a layman to understand, but I did.

So no further comment necessary. I accept his criticism is of my proof as presented as lacking though he (and I p resume you) accept it is true.

Please stop thumbing down my posts. Just makes you look foolish

I have since edited my error. RHP allow a 'window' to correct small slips, but unfortunately braying trolls do not afford us such an indulgence.

Before tonight, I had no contact with either gentleman, and temporarily confused them, you quoting one and the other contributing on here.

But you knew that. You really are clutching at straws.

18/2?

And why am I a troll on this thread? I tried to contribute by offering an alternative proof to one of your problems, and have met nothing but screeching abuse. How does that make me a troll?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Do you teach math and history? Just wondered, you seem strong in both fields.

Originally posted by @blood-on-the-tracks
I have since edited my error. RHP allow a 'window' to correct small slips, but unfortunately braying trolls do not afford us such an indulgence.

Before tonight, I had no contact with either gentleman, and temporarily confused them, you quoting one and the other contributing on here.

But you knew that. You really are clutching at straws.
...[text shortened]... one of your problems, and have met nothing but screeching abuse. How does that make me a troll?

The fact that your proof was correct and she was unable to determine it for herself...That is why you are such a threat, and will forever be labeled a troll by Duchess. She is a complete mathematical fraud that plagiarizes proofs. She engages in mathematics on her terms, with her pre-worked problems, and always introduces a problem with a statement of her brilliance: "solving it in a matter of moments as a child". You should notice how she completely disengaged when you provided a proof of your own? She never strays from the path laid for her and wont ever dare engage in actual mathematics with any poster.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"If Soothfast, a professor of mathematics, will accept Blood on the Tracks's original claimed
'proof' as completely correct, then I shall do so too"


Prove it yourself you belligerent fool? Why does someone as "brilliant as you" need Soothfast to validate his proof!