MATHS HPAS-2017 MAIN PAPER I Q2-Q3

SIMPLE MATHS

1. QUESTION 2 (a):
Solution: To find the matrix representation of the linear transformation t on V3 (R) defined
as t(x, y, z) = (2y + z, x − 4y, 3x) with respect to the basis B = (1, 0, 0), (0, 1, 0), (0, 0, 1), we
can apply the transformation to each basis vector and express the results in terms of the basis.

Let’s apply t to each basis vector:

t(1, 0, 0) = (2(0) + 0, 1 − 4(0), 3(1)) = (0, 1, 3)
t(0, 1, 0) = (2(1) + 0, 0 − 4(1), 3(0)) = (2, −4, 0)
t(0, 0, 1) = (2(0) + 1, 0 − 4(0), 3(0)) = (1, 0, 0)

Now, we can express these results in terms of the basis B:

(0, 1, 3) = 0(1, 0, 0) + 1(0, 1, 0) + 3(0, 0, 1)
(2, −4, 0) = 2(1, 0, 0) + (−4)(0, 1, 0) + 0(0, 0, 1)
(1, 0, 0) = 1(1, 0, 0) + 0(0, 1, 0) + 0(0, 0, 1)

The coefficients of the basis vectors in each expression form the columns of the matrix repre-
sentation of t. Therefore, the matrix representation of t with respect to the basis B is:
|0 2 1|, |1 −4 0|, |3 0 0|

This is the matrix representation of the linear transformation t on V3 (R) with respect to the
given basis B.

2. QUESTION 2 (b):
Solution:
Statement of Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality: For any two vectors a and b in an inner product
space, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality states: |a · b| ≤ ||a|| ||b||
where a·b represents the dot product (inner product) of vectors a and b, ||a|| and ||b|| represent
the lengths (norms) of vectors a and b, respectively.

Preprint submitted to SIMPLE MATHS May 30, 2023

Proof of Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality: To prove the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we will con-
sider two cases:

Case 1: If b = 0, then the inequality holds trivially as both sides of the inequality become zero.

Case 2: If b ̸= 0, we can consider the vector v = a − (proj < sub > b < sub > a), where
proj < sub > b < sub > a is the projection of a onto b.

The projection of a onto b is given by: proj < sub > b < sub > a = (|a · b| ||b||2 )b.

Now, let’s calculate the norm of v:

||v||2 = (a − proj < sub > b < sub > a) · (a − proj < sub > b < sub > a)
= a · a − 2(a · proj < sub > b < sub > a) + (proj < sub > b < sub > a) · (proj < sub > b <
sub > a)

Since proj < sub > b < sub > a is a scalar multiple of b, we can express it as:
proj < sub > b < sub > a = kb (where k is a scalar)

Substituting this into the above equation: ||v||2 = a · a − 2(a · kb) + (kb) · (kb)

Using the properties of the dot product and norm, this simplifies to: ||v||2 = ||a||2 − 2k(a ·
b) + k 2 ||b||2

Since ||v||2 is non-negative, we have: 0 ≤ ||v||2 = ||a||2 − 2k(a · b) + k 2 ||b||2

Rearranging the terms:

2k(a · b) · ||a||2 + k 2 ||b||2

Now, let’s choose a specific value of k to simplify the inequality further.

We choose k = (||a||/||b||), which gives us: 2(||a||/||b||)(a · b) ≤ ||a||2 + (||a||/||b||)2 ||b||2

Simplifying this expression: 2(||a||||b||)(a · b) ≤ ||a||2 ||b||2 + ||a||2

2
 Dividing both sides by 2(||a||||b||):
(a · b) ≤ (||a||2 ||b||2 + ||a||2 )/(2||a||||b||)

Now, notice that the right side of the inequality is a constant. Therefore, we can write:
(a · b) ≤ K
where K = (||a||2 ||b||2 + ||a||2 )/(2||a||||b||).

Since K is a constant, we can rewrite it as K = ||a||/||b||.

Therefore, we have:
(a · b) ≤ ||a||/||b||
Taking the absolute value on both sides, we obtain:
|a · b| ≤ ||a||||b||
This proves the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
Note: The equality holds in the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality if and only if the vectors a and b
are linearly dependent, i.e., one vector is a scalar multiple of the other.

3. QUESTION 3 (a):
Solution: To find the curve on which the given equation intersects its asymptotes, we need
to determine the equations of the asymptotes first.
The given equation is: x2 y − xy 2 + xy + y 2 + x − y = 0

Let’s rearrange the terms to get it in a more suitable form: x2 y − xy 2 + xy + x + y 2 − y = 0

Now, let’s factor out common terms: xy(x − y) + x(y + 1) + y(y − 1) = 0

Factoring the equation further: (xy + x + y)(x − y + 1) = 0

Setting each factor equal to zero:

(a) xy + x + y = 0
(b) x − y + 1 = 0

Now, let’s solve these two equations separately to find the points of intersection with the
asymptotes.

3
(a) xy + x + y = 0 :
This equation represents a hyperbola. We can rearrange it as follows:
xy + x + y + 1 = 1
(x + 1)(y + 1) = 1
This equation describes a hyperbola with center (−1, −1) and asymptotes passing through
the center.
(b) x − y + 1 = 0 :
This equation represents a straight line. Rearranging it, we have: y = x + 1
This line has a slope of 1 and intersects the x-axis at −1.

Therefore, the curve on which the three points of intersection of the given equation with
its asymptotes lie is a hyperbola with center (−1, −1) and a line y = x + 1 passing
through the center.

(c) QUESTION 3 (b):

Solution: To prove that every bounded function does not necessarily need to be Rie-
mann integrable, we can provide a counterexample.
Consider the Dirichlet function, also known as the indicator function of the rational
numbers:
f (x) =
1, if x is rational,
0, if x is irrational.

This function is bounded between −1 and 0 for all x, so it is a bounded function. How-
ever, it is not Riemann integrable over any interval.

To see why the Dirichlet function is not Riemann integrable, we can consider its upper
and lower Riemann sums. For any partition of an interval, the upper Riemann sum will
be 0 since there are irrational numbers in every subinterval, and the lower Riemann sum
will be −1 since there are rational numbers in every subinterval. The difference between
the upper and lower sums is always 1, regardless of the partition.

Since the upper and lower Riemann sums do not converge to the same value as the parti-
tion gets finer, the Dirichlet function fails to meet the criterion for Riemann integrability.

4
Therefore, the Dirichlet function is a bounded function that is not Riemann integrable,
demonstrating that not every bounded function is necessarily Riemann integrable.