MATHS P1 Higher/ those going for an A

leomessi

I'm doing algebra,diff,int,sequences and series.
But I might also do Q5 ie the mixed bag if there's no weird logs/or if something unexpected happens in the others.
I know the binomial (as it can crop up in sequences and series) but what proofs by induction (just need to brush over them) are likely to come up?

P.S aren't they making the maths easier this year there due to the uproar about last years paper?

salman85

droping to ordinary on the day...

Yuugib

Proofs are easy enough, go over all of them. There is always a big chance of one of them comming up, either in Q5 or Q4

meeka

There was an uproar last year? I don't think the actual paper being easier makes getting higher grades any easier anyway, they usually make the marking scheme tougher when that's the case.

sd123

Am I right in saying that theres very few proof by induction theorems anyway. If you're aiming for an A they should be very easy to you, so no point in trying to guess them, just do them all. Is this not obvious?

leomessi

sd123 wrote: »

Am I right in saying that theres very few proof by induction theorems anyway. If you're aiming for an A they should be very easy to you, so no point in trying to guess them, just do them all. Is this not obvious?

I know, but I'm more like going for an A for the laugh due to how many points is needed for my course. Anyway I'm sure you can leave out the diff induction one as it came out last year (if it comes up again, I'll hold my hands and write down ,"you got me'), and de moivre one if you're not doing Q3. Which leaves...?

Cokehead Mother

De Moivre's came up in Q5 last time it was up...

turgon

sd123 wrote: »

Am I right in saying that theres very few proof by induction theorems anyway. If you're aiming for an A they should be very easy to you, so no point in trying to guess them, just do them all. Is this not obvious?

One has to be able to prove De Moivre's therom and the differential rule by induction. They are both piss.

One thing I dont get is peoples way of studying proofs. People spend like hours learning them off. While you say one should not get them I disagree. If you know the core method (even just the diagram) and are good at maths you should be able to prove it no bother. Its all logical.

Peleus

turgon wrote: »

One has to be able to prove De Moivre's therom and the differential rule by induction. They are both piss.

One thing I dont get is peoples way of studying proofs. People spend like hours learning them off. While you say one should not get them I disagree. If you know the core method (even just the diagram) and are good at maths you should be able to prove it no bother. Its all logical.

****, i havent done De Moivre's proof. better study it. The proofs by induction are so easy. Even if you have no idea how to do it you just go through the steps. (true for n=1, assume true for n=k, prove true for n=[k+1]) and the relationship between n=[k+1] and n=k is always pretty obious so its easy to proove.

The proofs are so easy. You just look at the logtables and see if you can find the formula it came from and its easy.

turgon

I love maths.

PurpleFistMixer

Yeah, induction is mad handy.

Not sure which ones I'll do. I'll do as many as I have time for.. did all of them in the mock. Algebra and calculus first, then whatever looks nice. Complex numbers/matrices tend to screw me over for whatever reason.

I've barely learned any proofs. Only remembered about them today... I just pray de Moivre's doesn't come up. We never did it in class because we hadn't done induction at the time, and I never really bothered to learn the proof myself... Factor theorem's grand, though.

Mark200

meeka wrote: »

There was an uproar last year? I don't think the actual paper being easier makes getting higher grades any easier anyway, they usually make the marking scheme tougher when that's the case.

Yeah approximately the same percentage of people will get an A every year, and the same percentage will fail.

Or something like that anyway, but I've heard from loads of different teachers/examiners that they adjust the marking schemes to control how many people get certain grades.

sd123

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Yeah, induction is mad handy.

Not sure which ones I'll do. I'll do as many as I have time for.. did all of them in the mock. Algebra and calculus first, then whatever looks nice. Complex numbers/matrices tend to screw me over for whatever reason.

I've barely learned any proofs. Only remembered about them today... I just pray de Moivre's doesn't come up. We never did it in class because we hadn't done induction at the time, and I never really bothered to learn the proof myself... Factor theorem's grand, though.

Do you not just read through them, and remember the general steps, and proove it as if you're doing a normal question and work through it step by step. I went through them last year in the final hour before the exam for the first time. My teacher didn't do any proofs with us. As i said above, if you're good at maths, theres no learning involved. If not, maybe learning them by rote would be the best option, although I disagree with people doing this.

PurpleFistMixer

Aye well it's not a case of sitting down for hours and learning them off by heart, but I do need to look over them. Remembering the general steps is the tricky bit. And some of the proofs for the Groups option are brutal. One of them's a good page long.

Aoibheann

leomessi wrote: »

I'm doing algebra,diff,int,sequences and series.
But I might also do Q5 ie the mixed bag if there's no weird logs/or if something unexpected happens in the others.
I know the binomial (as it can crop up in sequences and series) but what proofs by induction (just need to brush over them) are likely to come up?

P.S aren't they making the maths easier this year there due to the uproar about last years paper?

There was uproar? But it was such a lovely paper..

Question 5 is usually fairly handy once you're prepared for it.. but be warned, they very occasionally mix questions 4 and 5 up a bit.. then again, you're doing sequences and series so you'll be fine! I'd +1 the de moivre's theorem by induction to be safe! Go over all the induction though, you can never be sure and they're all easy enough anyway..

sd123

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Aye well it's not a case of sitting down for hours and learning them off by heart, but I do need to look over them. Remembering the general steps is the tricky bit. And some of the proofs for the Groups option are brutal. One of them's a good page long.

Ok, fair enough, I only half covered that option so I can't talk unbiasly bout it. Good luck in learning them anyway. :pac:

Da Bomber

Anyone wanna give a guess at what proofs are most likely to come up and save me the bother of learnin all of them!?:)

pocket aces

perpendicular distance- its the longest and one of the hardest but hasnt been up in years...

Peleus

what did you guys get in the mock? i mean results-wise

The Walsho

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Aye well it's not a case of sitting down for hours and learning them off by heart, but I do need to look over them. Remembering the general steps is the tricky bit. And some of the proofs for the Groups option are brutal. One of them's a good page long.

You do the groups option too? Glad I've found someone else doing it!

PurpleFistMixer

Aye, well I'm doing further calc as well, but I did groups on my own time. It's really different to the rest of the maths course, I think, much more related to number theory or something... And it's handy enough! Composition of permutations is fun. ¬.¬

Yuugib

The Walsho wrote: »

You do the groups option too? Glad I've found someone else doing it!

eh.. me still waiting for that mathsy paper 2 from you eh.. eh.. eh..

Aoibheann

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Aye, well I'm doing further calc as well, but I did groups on my own time. It's really different to the rest of the maths course, I think, much more related to number theory or something... And it's handy enough! Composition of permutations is fun. ¬.¬

..Still don't understand why you didn't do the further probability question..

PurpleFistMixer

Probability is why! Even if it is curiously relevant in quantum mechanics, I can't make myself like it.

Timans

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Probability is why! Even if it is curiously relevant in quantum mechanics, I can't make myself like it.

If you had to choose between a probability question and another one, what would you choose?

(2)
(1)

:pac:

Aoibheann

Haha, I know.. but it's beautiful, so easy and logic-y and..

Why am I not studying maths in college?? :S

KnifeWRENCH

leomessi wrote: »

P.S aren't they making the maths easier this year there due to the uproar about last years paper?

Did LC Maths last year and I don't think there was uproar about our paper - it was fairly standard to be honest. Having said that, I thought Q.4 on Paper 1 (Sequences and Series) was horrendous, but our Paper 2 was quite nice!

I know a lot of people don't like Probablility and Statistics, but I absolutely loved those questions. Statistics is usually part (c) of Q.7 and it is undoubtedy (imo) the easiest 20 marks on the paper. There's so little to learn - 3 formulas (weighted mean, standard deviation, standard deviation of frequency distribution)

Also on Paper 2 I'd recommend Q.2 - vectors are your friend because the course is short!

Paper 1: excluding last year's horror show I'd recommmend Q.4 (I got 48/50 in my pre, about 5/50 in my actual:() If things like arithmetic/geometric sequences and Summing to n of a series come up, you're sorted!
The integration question can be quite tough: you can easily make a mistake without realising it, and go off on a wild goose chase for ages!

As for the options, I assume most of ye are doing FCAS?? It's an ok question - make sure you know the LIATE method for integration by parts. And make sure you know all Maclaurin series' back to front.

It's a pretty intimidating paper, and I don't envy ye having to do it! But best of luck

ian.f

pocket aces wrote: »

perpendicular distance- its the longest and one of the hardest but hasnt been up in years...

Its not really that hard at all if you understand whats going on... just a good few different steps that you wouldn't be able to bull**** about on the day

turgon

With proofs all you need it a few steps. If you know the result you can work towards that. Very easy.

I see a load of you have done other topics (we did calculus). The probability question seems easy, when I read them I could already probably do half the question. But I am terrible at probability so...

I think Paper 2 Q8 is very easy. The max/min is basically the same as paper 1 Q7, and the integration is mostly just applying formula. The series are a bit tricky, but then again theres not much they can ask.

turgon

P.S I really should be studying :eek::eek::eek::eek:

sd123

square_igloo wrote:

Did LC Maths last year and I don't think there was uproar about our paper - it was fairly standard to be honest.

+1. Don't know why people are saying it was hard. Compared with 2006 which wouldve kicked me in the blx, 2007 was a walk in the park.

Having said that, I thought Q.4 on Paper 1 (Sequences and Series) was horrendous, but our Paper 2 was quite nice!

-1. Q4 was pretty easy imo, just because you didn't have to put the numbers directly into an easy formula you learned off, people thought it was hard.

Aoibheann Brady wrote: »

Haha, I know.. but it's beautiful, so easy and logic-y and..

Why am I not studying maths in college?? :S

square_igloo wrote: »

I know a lot of people don't like Probablility and Statistics, but I absolutely loved those questions. Statistics is usually part (c) of Q.7 and it is undoubtedy (imo) the easiest 20 marks on the paper.

FWIW, we did statistics, standard deviation, etc. in my course, which was a bit of a surprise seeing that I'm studying medicine. So if you don't do maths/TP do medicine!!