* Honours Maths paper 1 * AFTERMATH

BrendaN_f

Gileadi wrote: »

"confined to" would tend me to think otherwise

read it like this

"Definite integrals with applications to areas, and volumes of revolution (confined to cones and spheres)"

i think it'll be very easy for them to weasel out of this

dambarude

Definite integrals with applications to areas and volumes of revolution (confined to cones and spheres)

The cones and spheres bit refers only to the revolution bit as far as I can see. I'd say that the area of a disk is fair game.

partyatmygaff

amJam wrote: »

Jusssst wondering....

Did anyone else try the x=rsin(theta) substitution for the disc in question 8c? Because y=(square root of) r(squared) - x(squared) ...??


....anyone?!

That's how it's meant to be done.

Digits

Michael_E wrote: »

I did that, yes. That's the way I've always done it.

Me too, well since last night anyway.:P

Thanks again for your help Michael_E you saved me 20 or so marks.:)

muggy

kahf1_01 wrote: »

we should all stop trying to figure out the answers and post mortom all this. Instead START WRITING LETTERS, all that s**t. I worked so hard at maths for the last 2 years. I put huge amounts of effort and work into. if you could only see all the refil pads I've gone through in the last 2 years with maths. you would fall over. I'm not going to let the SEC tinker around with my LIFE and FUTURE ... the battle is not over yet, I'm going to go down dieing and FIGHTING!

Fair play lad its a true comment.....Who de **** said it came up in 1998..It didnt..Ppl trying to reck our brains...Where can we officialy complain..?? All my class are writing quick letters tomorrw to the department

River Song

Digits wrote: »

Me too, well since last night anyway.:P

Thanks again for your help Michael_E you saved me 20 or so marks.:)

I dunno how exactly I helped but thanks? :P

amJam

Michael_E wrote: »

I did that, yes. That's the way I've always done it.

Awesome, thanks! I hadn't done a disc one before, just thought I'd give it a go! Think it worked anyway!

Also, for question 1bii, did anyone say that n={1,3,5,7,9....}??

aranciata

amJam wrote: »

Jusssst wondering....

Did anyone else try the x=rsin(theta) substitution for the disc in question 8c? Because y=(square root of) r(squared) - x(squared) ...??


....anyone?!

I did it that way. Got the right answer, forgot to quadruple it though? That's what... a blunder at most? 3 marks? a slip maybe? Someone give me some good news, i'm traumatised enough after today....

Digits

Michael_E wrote: »

I dunno how exactly I helped but thanks? :P

Just kinda cleared up a few things about that Q8 (c) for me.

AddictedToYou

The '(confined to cones and spheres)' bit obviously only applies to the volumes of revolution, because they're volumes not areas..

I actually like Q8, but wasn't too fond of bits of the algebra..

Patriciamc93

Digits wrote: »

1999 paper 1 question 8 (c)

Not a circle but the exact same method.

My folens ones don't have it all...... Perhaps a miss print

River Song

Digits wrote: »

Just kinda cleared up a few things about that Q8 (c) for me.

Ah okay, well glad I could help in some small way

Looked through that thread, I said "I highly doubt it [area by integration] will come up"

...oops xD

amJam

aranciata wrote: »

I did it that way. Got the right answer, forgot to quadruple it though? That's what... a blunder at most? 3 marks? a slip maybe? Someone give me some good news, i'm traumatised enough after today....

Yeah, I'd say that's only a blunder at most, because you were most of the way there! Don't worry

MathsManiac

drg85 wrote: »

Only that, on a technicality, that solution is in part undefined. The question clearly states the function exists between [0,-1] when infact you must assume it extends into the positive axis. Had I been sitting the paper, that alone would have thrown me. Couple that with a few other technical errors (the whole arctan of an undefined value is utterly stupid, and really glaring) I didn't think it was at all a fair question.

That's rubbish. The question clearly states that the functions are defined on all of R other than x=0 and x=-1, which is true. The issue of an arctan of an undefined function doesn't arise, as they clearly excluded the only two values of x that would lead to that happening.

It then stated that the diagrams were showing you parts of the two graphs, which is again (in the case of the correct diagram, A) true. (Showing you the x>0 portions.)


There is no technical inaccuracy. If you understand what derivatives tell you about a function, you can answer it. If you don't, you can't. As other students have correctly stated, B is ruled out because the derivatives of the graphs shown in B are clearly not everywhere equal, and C is ruled out because it shows increasing functions. If you draw the graphs on wolframalpha, you'll see that the diagram is pretty accurate, in fact.

MikeHough

Maybe_Memories wrote: »

I just finished doing them out there

just have to scan and upload.

hurry up please

happyturtle

This paper was absolutely ridiculous... I've been studying really hard and went through all past papers only to fail now :mad: I was hoping for B1 as I almolst always received B or A in the past papers, and I don't know if I have even made it do C3 now....

salbal

am i the only person that loved it? 6c was beautiful, only thing a bit funny was 1 b(ii), but it wasnt too bad! was tricky tho, theyl mark it easy!

Daniel S

salbal wrote: »

am i the only person that loved it? 6c was beautiful, only thing a bit funny was 1 b(ii), but it wasnt too bad! was tricky tho, theyl mark it easy!

No you're not, but we've perma banned all who have. :pac:

Not the best way to start of on boards....

Sparticle

Am I the only one who thought the exam was fine?

I thought the point of maths exams was to test comprehension of maths and not the ability to parrot methods from previous exam questions.

The exam wasn't that hard just a bit different.

MikeHough

will the op please make a poll about what people thought of the exam.
it wud be effective to see about 100 "terribles"
(and 1 "great"...:o:o:o)

salbal

i said A too, it was a fair and clever question, made you think, alot of people are upset because they couldnt reem off things they had learnt, maths is about a challenge, it was pretty challenging, but a good paper

C14N

salbal wrote: »

am i the only person that loved it? 6c was beautiful, only thing a bit funny was 1 b(ii), but it wasnt too bad! was tricky tho, theyl mark it easy!

I quite liked it. A few blunders and an awkward q8c and q1bii, other than that, I thought it was fairly standard. I am quite happy at the uproar about it though as it could result in getting easier marks.

Also for 7c, I worked out different slopes for increasing values of x. The slopes got smaller and smaller so I said it couldn't be B (as B clearly becomes steeper) and that it couldn't be C because it's negative. Is this still right? I didn't notice that f(x) and g(x) were different in B...

Catacomb

happyturtle wrote: »

This paper was absolutely ridiculous... I've been studying really hard and went through all past papers only to fail now :mad: I was hoping for B1 as I almolst always received B or A in the past papers, and I don't know if I have even made it do C3 now....

At least you're not actually going to fail, like me.

Cheer up.

Healium

Looks like a really awful paper. Scraped a D2 last year, most definitely would have failed this paper

Not saying that the paper shouldn't be challenging (I was never expecting a high grade), but this'll have half the country thinking they've failed and missed out on their college courses, which is the LAST thing they need in the middle of exams

Anyway, chins up, exam is over. Chances are that paper 2 will be a lot easier, and the exam will be marked relatively easy if so many people didn't do good. LOTS of attempt marks :cool:

Good luck in paper 2!

MikeHough

C14N wrote: »

I quite liked it. A few blunders and an awkward q8c and q1bii, other than that, I thought it was fairly standard. I am quite happy at the uproar about it though as it could result in getting easier marks.

Sparticle wrote: »

Am I the only one who thought the exam was fine?

I thought the point of maths exams was to test comprehension of maths and not the ability to parrot methods from previous exam questions.

The exam wasn't that hard just a bit different.

salbal wrote: »

am i the only person that loved it? 6c was beautiful, only thing a bit funny was 1 b(ii), but it wasnt too bad! was tricky tho, theyl mark it easy!

ye are not lads. expressed my happiness with it a few pagesback.

i see all de lads who thought twas grand are finally comin out from under the bush

polka dot

MikeHough wrote: »

will the op please make a poll about what people thought of the exam.
it wud be effective to see about 100 "terribles"
(and 1 "great"...:o:o:o)

I would but I'd rather not! Save some arguments hopefully.

Like, the test had easy enough parts but it had some really awful parts too. Granted if you had looked at those specific questions before then I suppose it would have been great.

I didn't think this thread would get this big.
:P

Sparticle

I was so smug when the Disc proof came up that I didn't realise that in the question before it I factorised x^2 + 2X + 2 as (X+1)^2.

I facepalmed so hard my face imploded.

NotExactly

Shanee. wrote: »

Failed without a doubt.. dunno is there any point doin anymore of the leaving

I would do the rest if I was you. If you're repeating you might want to be able to drop Irish/English or a Science :rolleyes:

PseudoFamous

kilrush wrote: »

Yeah it was slightly harder than usual but if you had actually done any work it was still an easy test.

I'm sorry, I worked my ring off all year, averaging somewhere around a B2 most of the year, getting a B1 for the mocks. My honest to God, best case scenario is somewhere around 48% in this paper. This was by no means "an easy test", and judging from the reactions of everyone in higher maths as they walked out, ashen faced, chins down, I was nearly certain they felt the same. This, of course was verified, when I asked about how they had done. This was a low, dirty trick to make Project maths seem like an innovation, or some rubbish. Don't believe me? Have a gander at the Project Maths paper.

partyatmygaff

Sparticle wrote: »

Am I the only one who thought the exam was fine?

I thought the point of maths exams was to test comprehension of maths and not the ability to parrot methods from previous exam questions.

The exam wasn't that hard just a bit different.

Yes but when an exam has been of a certain standard for 14 or so years only to suddenly fly up in standard without prior warning it's not very fair.

The questions today may not have been extremely difficult (Some undoubtedly were) but the question styles were something that the vast majority of students were unfamiliar with. Due to the vastness of the course, most students simply learn off methods to answer questions and leave it at that. Teachers simply don't have the time to cover the course properly for the very same reason. They go over methods and not the theory behind the methods due to the time constraints placed upon them. If a student wants to truly understand the theory they have to do so on their own time.

For example, take Complex Numbers. When we were taught how to find the roots of a Complex number using De Moivre's theorem we were taught this (To me, anyway) extremely convoluted method using what is known as general polar form. I spent all of fifth year completely bewildered by it. This year however I decided to up my knowledge of Maths. I visited sites like Planetmath or Interactive Maths to learn more about the theory behind the Maths I learned in school. All it took for me to understand the method to obtain the roots using De Moivre's theorem was a single line and a small diagram on a website. It simply said "[LATEX]z^x = 1[/LATEX] has x equally spaced roots" accompanied by a diagram. In school, we spent a week going over a needlessly complicated "General Polar form" instead. I could say the same for numerous other topics where simply learning the theory would have been a great deal better than simply learning the method.


(And yes I'm extremely annoyed about not having a De Moivre's theory question in Q3 )