Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New log tables

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    RexMundi
    Registered Users Posts: 167 ✭✭RexMundi


    wexhurdler wrote: »
    Could you not just learn them:confused:

    Well, if i don't have to learn them then there is nothing to learn in the entire section. All I'll need is a bit of practice and that's 1/6 of the exam sorted.


  • Options
    #33
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    li-evo7 wrote: »
    I am repeating this year and doing chemistry which needs use of log tables.Will I be alright with the old ones or will I have to buy the new ones??

    You should get the new ones to get used to them. The old ones won't be available in the exam next year, and you're not allowed bring your own tables in.


  • Options
    #34
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    RexMundi wrote: »
    I have yet to have the pleasure of viewing these wondrous new Tables Books. Do they have the co-ordinate geometry of the circle formulae?

    ...

    Yes.


  • Options
    #35
    eamonn4321
    Registered Users Posts: 84 ✭✭eamonn4321


    I noticed on P23 that the set of natural number is shown as {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...}.

    Seems pretty likely to cause confusion (the fact that 0 is omitted).

    I know there are 2 acceptable definitions of the set N, one with 0 and the other without, but the definition including 0 is used in the secondary school curriculum, from first year onwards. The fact that 0 is included in N is usually emphasised to make sure the students don't forget it.

    Was this considered before they settled on this definition in the new 'log book'?

    I wonder will the marking schemes allow answers based on either definition to be considered acceptable?


  • Options
    #36
    jumpguy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭jumpguy


    eamonn4321 wrote: »
    I noticed on P23 that the set of natural number is shown as {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...}.

    Seems pretty likely to cause confusion (the fact that 0 is omitted).

    I know there are 2 acceptable definitions of the set N, one with 0 and the other without, but the definition including 0 is used in the secondary school curriculum, from first year onwards. The fact that 0 is included in N is usually emphasised to make sure the students don't forget it.

    Was this considered before they settled on this definition in the new 'log book'?

    I wonder will the marking schemes allow answers based on either definition to be considered acceptable?
    The marking scheme will probably adjust, although I doubt anyone would look up the log tables to find out what the set of natural numbers are, they're the simplest ones to remember. :) If you have to look up natural numbers...it's probably not gonna be the log tables that will dictate your maths grade.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    eamonn4321
    Registered Users Posts: 84 ✭✭eamonn4321


    Yeap true but could be the difference betweem a D and an E for someone struggling at JC Ordinary level.


  • Options
    #38
    sheep-go-baa
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭sheep-go-baa


    Could be some trouble though in the exams when you usually get marks for writing down any formulas, you can't really get marks if you only got the formula out of the log tables, can you?


  • Options
    #39
    jumpguy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭jumpguy


    RexMundi wrote: »
    Well, if i don't have to learn them then there is nothing to learn in the entire section. All I'll need is a bit of practice and that's 1/6 of the exam sorted.
    I'd advise you to get the log tables and make sure EVERYTHING you need is there. The log tables don't have absolutely everything done. Also, it'd make it easier on the day as you'd be familiar with them.
    eamonn4321 wrote: »
    Yeap true but could be the difference betweem a D and an E for someone struggling at JC Ordinary level.
    Hmm true I guess...it could effect a tiny, tiny proportion (people who are stuggling at JC OL maths and don't know what natural numbers are) of people. I'm sure the marking scheme will allow for both answers. With the maths tables about to become such an integral part of exams, I'm sure most teachers worth their salt will ask their students to buy the tables and familiarize themselves, now that they've become much more relevant to the exams.


  • Options
    #40
    eamonn4321
    Registered Users Posts: 84 ✭✭eamonn4321


    Ah, its more a point of practicality - why couldn't they go with the definition that most of us (maybe 99% at a guess) learned instead of the other one?

    0 is included in the set N in all of the most popular books (AFAIK) for the whole secondary curriculum e.g Tests and Texts, New Concise Maths, Discovering Maths.

    Now the 'log book' directly contradicts that.

    Cue lots of kids getting confused / becoming distrustful of what is in the log book, when in fact it is full of very valuable info.

    Just not very practical as I say.

    Anyway, that 'error' jumped out at me, hopefully there aren't others.

    I love the fact that you can actually read the mensuration formulae - always a plus.

    Loads of other nice info that will be fantastic help for those of a mind to familiarise themselves with it, which every student should unless they are completely lazy, ignorant or just thick ;).


  • Options
    #41
    blubloblu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭blubloblu


    Anyone spot the obvious mistake on the unit circle?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    eamonn4321
    Registered Users Posts: 84 ✭✭eamonn4321


    Dear oh dear - not good.

    Wonder how many more errors are in there, if one had time to check it.

    Wonder how big the print run is........:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #43
    Delta Kilo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭Delta Kilo


    RexMundi wrote: »
    Well, if i don't have to learn them then there is nothing to learn in the entire section. All I'll need is a bit of practice and that's 1/6 of the exam sorted.

    Hmmm, you have 2 papers and you have to answer 6 questions on each so that is a total of 12 questions, which means that you have 1/12 of the exam sorted.

    What was that you said about acing maths again?:p


  • Options
    #44
    jdc123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭jdc123


    Don't mean to rain on everyone's parade but we had an maths inspection this week in school and the inspector said that she doesn't think the new logs will be used in 2010 and that the wont be brought in for maths until the new maths curriculum comes in. She said that it isn't definite yet but that it is very unlikely that they will be used!:(:mad::mad::(:mad::(:mad::(:mad: :mad::mad::mad:


  • Options
    #45
    TheDonMan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭TheDonMan


    jdc123 wrote: »
    Don't mean to rain on everyone's parade but we had an maths inspection this week in school and the inspector said that she doesn't think the new logs will be used in 2010 and that the wont be brought in for maths until the new maths curriculum comes in. She said that it isn't definite yet but that it is very unlikely that they will be used!:(:mad::mad::(:mad::(:mad::(:mad: :mad::mad::mad:

    The whole reason they have bought them out is to be used, the old ones aren't even being sold any more AFIK. So rest assured, the new log tables will be available in the 2010 LC.
    MathsManiac wrote: »
    It's intriguing that people still refer to this as "the log book" and "the log tables". It hasn't been called that officially for donkeys' years. The new one doesn't even have any log tables in it! But I'm sure it'll still be called "the new log book"!

    Anyway, how many people here know how to use log tables to calculate stuff, I wonder? Or a slide rule, for that matter?

    Same reason why people still call aluminium foil "tin foil", old habits die hard I guess.


  • Options
    #46
    Fad
    Registered Users Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    jdc123 wrote: »
    Don't mean to rain on everyone's parade but we had an maths inspection this week in school and the inspector said that she doesn't think the new logs will be used in 2010 and that the wont be brought in for maths until the new maths curriculum comes in. She said that it isn't definite yet but that it is very unlikely that they will be used!:(:mad::mad::(:mad::(:mad::(:mad: :mad::mad::mad:

    They wouldnt be in every single book shop if they werent being rolled out immediately.


  • Options
    #47
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    jdc123 wrote: »
    Don't mean to rain on everyone's parade but we had an maths inspection this week in school and the inspector said that she doesn't think the new logs will be used in 2010 and that the wont be brought in for maths until the new maths curriculum comes in. She said that it isn't definite yet but that it is very unlikely that they will be used!:(:mad::mad::(:mad::(:mad::(:mad: :mad::mad::mad:

    This circular on the SEC website says, in the first paragraph, that they are in for 2010:
    http://www.examinations.ie/secmain/S_56_09_New_Booklet_of_Formulae_and_Tables_for_use_in_State_Examinations_Commission_2010.pdf


  • Options
    #48
    CosmicLove
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40 ✭CosmicLove


    I'm delighted there's more chemistry formulae included in 'em, aswell as the extra for HL maths
    My teacher (who teaches both subjects) was sooo excited telling us. :o


  • Options
    #49
    jumpguy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭jumpguy


    blubloblu wrote: »
    Anyone spot the obvious mistake on the unit circle?
    Now THAT'S a big mistake. Is it the (0,1) part of the circle is labelled (1,0)? That's pretty bad.


  • Options
    #50
    JSK 252
    Registered Users Posts: 1,257 ✭✭✭JSK 252


    Fad wrote: »
    There's the pH formula in the new ones (Dunno what else), pick up a new one.

    Thats rediculous, its a formula which you should know already!

    This new log book is really going to dumb down the exams.


  • Options
    #51
    Bonkers_xOx
    Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Bonkers_xOx


    Exciting times!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Aoifums
    Registered Users Posts: 1,126 ✭✭✭Aoifums


    Why did none of the teachers seem to know these existed? My physics teacher got quite happy when he saw them and my maths teacher told us she hadn't even heard of new ones :confused: It's all a bit weird


  • Options
    #53
    Baile an Locha
    Registered Users Posts: 215 ✭✭Baile an Locha


    New log tables...orgasmic. Oh what sad lives we live.


  • Options
    #54
    LiNgWiStIkZ
    Registered Users Posts: 582 ✭✭✭LiNgWiStIkZ


    This could potentially mean harder exams. Maybe they'll let us off for 2010 :)


  • Options
    #55
    smileygirlloves
    Closed Accounts Posts: 123 ✭✭smileygirlloves


    yup there great make maths way easier!!!! the formulas are written really clear too:D:D:D:D


  • Options
    #56
    WHirl7
    Registered Users Posts: 48 ✭WHirl7


    LiNgWiStIkZ wrote: »
    This could potentially mean harder exams. Maybe they'll let us off for 2010 :)

    Yeah my teachers reckon the 2010 exams will be the same standard as before and then when everyone does ridiculously well they'll make em harder for 2011! Good year to be doing the LC if that's the case! :)


  • Options
    #57
    Kazbah
    Registered Users Posts: 764 ✭✭✭Kazbah


    Just wondering is there a PDF version, or does anyone feel like doing me a big favour and scanning in the Area & Volume and Co-Ordinate Geometry pages?


Advertisement