* Honours Maths paper 1 * AFTERMATH

J_E

irish_man wrote: »

as your here cydoniac, congrats on getting onto the irish indo yesterday!

Does anyone have this paper? I'm dying to see what I was quoted saying

partyatmygaff

Did anyone do all 8 questions? Or was it just me...?

jumpguy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I actually forgot to multiply by 2 so I didn't get full marks for it anyway. I'd say due to the fact most people didn't get it you'll get most of the marks for simply doing the circular integral.

So, how did the rest of the exam go for you jump? I'd say this exam has changed the plans of thousands of people. It certainly did for me. I thought i'd be able to ace paper I

I couldn't figure out what limits to use for the integration (basically, how the fack to get pi in there). But I figured out it had to do with integrating a circle so I'd say I'll get a good few of the marks anyway...

The rest of the exam was okayish I felt, except for Q3. Wish I did Q1 instead of it. My matrices came out wrong at the end so I must've multiplied wrong somewhere.

Q2, Q5, Q6 and Q7 were grand. In Q7 I couldn't get out the (c) (i) but thankfully they gave you the answer so the (c) (ii) was grand. On Q6 I didn't really explain how I got the answer in (c) (ii) (transformation through the asymptote intersection) but I drew the diagram for it...so I hope I get the marks for it. Really I thought it was a fairly challenging paper, nothing you could relax yourself in, Q3 was probably my worst question.

I didn't have time to do all 8 questions. :P

JamieDOC

Where did they get the idea to put a disc into question 8? That's usually my best question. Question 7c made no sense at all and 6c. The whole paper was a nuisance, my first choice in the CAO is down the pipes now anyway...:mad::mad::(

niamhallen

Do they not realise they're screwing with people's futures?

PJelly

doctorg wrote: »

Can you use chain rule on e?

Don't see why not

Patri

So apparently there were mistakes on the paper. Q7 b(2) it was supposed to say find in terms of t and not x. Well that's great I had it in terms of t but i spent 15 ****ING MINUTES TRYING TO GET IT IN TERMS OF X. ****

jumpguy

Patri wrote: »

So apparently there were mistakes on the paper. Q7 b(2) it was supposed to say find in terms of t and not x. Well that's great I had it in terms of t but i spent 15 ****ING MINUTES TRYING TO GET IT IN TERMS OF X. ****

Source for that? It came out as 2x for me.

danoboy254

I've been stalkin this thread for about an hour now

Is anyone gonna post up all the solutions and let us see if it's gonna be worth even attending paper 2?

LilMissCiara

Patri wrote: »

So apparently there were mistakes on the paper. Q7 b(2) it was supposed to say find in terms of t and not x. Well that's great I had it in terms of t but i spent 15 ****ING MINUTES TRYING TO GET IT IN TERMS OF X. ****

No it was supposed to be X. I got it out fine.

firestarter197

no mistake, it comes out as 2x

Zhavey

I'm only going into 6th year in the coming year, and my friends in the exam; I feel so gutted for them... Bloody brutal that they made the evil paper.

nommm

jumpguy wrote: »

Source for that? It came out as 2x for me.

Same.

firestarter197

you get (2t-2)/t+1 which is 2x. They could have asked it in terms of t, but wanted an extra step I guess.

Donerkebab

dambarude wrote: »

(I did it in 2008).

would have taken that paper anyday.

randylonghorn

horrified wrote: »

Disgusted by that Maths paper 1!!!!..I have been studying diligently for Maths all year around and have been achieving 100% in all my class tests!They completely changed the type of questions asked in previous year..because i had gone back 15yrs in each question type when studying.Haven't stopped crying since I left that test.Devestated that it may effect my college entry now as I hoped to study Actuarial maths in college.:(

Ireland 00001 wrote: »

Bye-bye collage. Hello the Dole line.

danoboy254 wrote: »

I've been stalkin this thread for about an hour now

Is anyone gonna post up all the solutions and let us see if it's gonna be worth even attending paper 2?

Stop with the over-reactions, for your own sake!

Yes, by the sounds of it, it wasn't a nice paper.

Therefore it was a not-nice paper for everyone.

So either PII will balance it, or the marking scheme will be eased, or a combination of both.

The percentage of As, Bs, etc. won't be that different this year to any other year, so it will have to be balanced out.

Put it aside and go prepare for PII or whatever your next exam is.

I don't mean to sound unfeeling, of course it's upsetting when you get a horrible paper, but the only thing to do is to pick yourself up and move on.

lauratkd

As a teacher, I thought it was an awful paper overall. I don't mind the odd tricky part to really test people but I think there were too many parts like that this year. Also very annoyed that there was a mistake on it. Think it was question 7 b i "express your answer in terms of x" when it should have read "in terms of t". Not good enough for State Exams.

Patri

jumpguy wrote: »

Source for that? It came out as 2x for me.

I got 2x aswell but apparently t was sufficient. Irish times analysist was saying on rte radio that it's not getting marked for x just for t

JamieDOC

firestarter197 wrote: »

no mistake, it comes out as 2x

I got 2XSquared..I hope I didn't get yet another question completely wrong.

LittleMissLost

WOW. This post has as many views as the total number of people in the country who took higher level maths.. Impressive

I must say that although I dropped a couple of weeks ago, the Higher paper looked absoloutly dispicable and I would have been SO angry and upset. It was complete and utter JOKE!

polka dot

Guys it'll be fine! Chill Don't let it ruin your weekend. We can't go back and change it however much we change. Let's just try our best in Paper 2. Even if we don't get what we want, we can still say we tried our best.

Don't forget about the bell curve!

Fireball07

lauratkd wrote: »

As a teacher, I thought it was an awful paper overall. I don't mind the odd tricky part to really test people but I think there were too many parts like that this year. Also very annoyed that there was a mistake on it. Think it was question 7 b i "express your answer in terms of x" when it should have read "in terms of t". Not good enough for State Exams.

I got 2x for that.

The statement t was equal to x at the start of the question.

LilMissCiara

lauratkd wrote: »

As a teacher, I thought it was an awful paper overall. I don't mind the odd tricky part to really test people but I think there were too many parts like that this year. Also very annoyed that there was a mistake on it. Think it was question 7 b i "express your answer in terms of x" when it should have read "in terms of t". Not good enough for State Exams.

No mistake as such. It is possible to get it in terms of X, and many of us did. It was a bit long though so mean in that sense.

Digits

countdown to 806 on 2fm now.

Alcohol_MAN

lauratkd wrote: »

. Think it was question 7 b i "express your answer in terms of x" when it should have read "in terms of t". Not good enough for State Exams.

No it was x because you get 2(t-1)/(t+1) and you take out the t bits cause
x= (t-1)/(t+1).

The question came up before in a previous exam paper so I didn't mind that.

C14N

lauratkd wrote: »

As a teacher, I thought it was an awful paper overall. I don't mind the odd tricky part to really test people but I think there were too many parts like that this year. Also very annoyed that there was a mistake on it. Think it was question 7 b i "express your answer in terms of x" when it should have read "in terms of t". Not good enough for State Exams.

Actually, it meant x and it worked out fine (see comments above). I was thrown by it at first and had to re-do the whole thing to get it in a format that I could convert back to x.

I think my friend and I were the only ones who didn't find it that bad. There were only 2 that were serious problems (Q1b part (ii) and Q8c) but I had expected something to come up like them that I simply wouldn't be able to do. I still expect the Chief Examiner's Report to say something about how we should have all known these because it's been hidden away on the syllabus since it was first written up and it's our own faults for having a teacher and maths book that didn't cover it.

Sequences and series was a little odd too but it still worked out okay I think. The final part was badly worded ("least positive integer"). I got 1 as an answer, anyone able to confirm or deny if that's right?

ElvisChrist6

lauratkd wrote: »

As a teacher, I thought it was an awful paper overall. I don't mind the odd tricky part to really test people but I think there were too many parts like that this year. Also very annoyed that there was a mistake on it. Think it was question 7 b i "express your answer in terms of x" when it should have read "in terms of t". Not good enough for State Exams.

I was caught out for a second by that, in terms of x, but then I worked out that if I split it into two fractions, one ended up cancelling and the other was what another part of the question said was x!

SoTek72

find dy/dx in terms of x emmmm what ?

C14N

Shayanzadeh wrote: »

I dunno if this was posted already, but here it is.
In my opinion the paper was absolutely horrible!!!! Was hoping for an A1, but no chance...

Twice the integration of square root of r^2 - x^2, with limits 0 and pi.
You are basically getting the area between the graph (which comes from the circle x^2 + y^2 = r^2) and the x-axis.

You had to let x = r sin theta.

x^2 = r^2 sin^2 theta.

dx= r cos theta d theta.

In the square root, r^2 (1-sin^2 theta), change that to r^2 cos^2 theta.

So you have twice the integration of r cos theta. r cos theta d theta.

Take 2r^2 outside, change cos ^2 theta to 1/2 (1+cos2theta).
Cancel 1/2 with 2 outside.

The rest is straight forward...

Why are the limits 0 and pi? If there was a radius of r, why weren't they r and (-r)?

GV_NRG

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Only one word can describe this exam...

WHAT?

The SEC are despicable. It's plainly obvious what they were trying to do with this paper. They want to promote their new syllabus by using us our year as a scapegoat. I've never seen so many people complaining in unison after an exam. Even A1 students felt they'd dropped down to a C or D.

Personally, I don't think I did too badly. I may have gotten a low B... possibly

Q1a: Simple simplification. No major problems here.
Q1b: Part i was just the factor theorem, perfectly normal. Part ii however was impossible. The best I could do was say n was infinity.
Q1c: Relatively easy

Q2a: Modulus inequality. Reasonable.
Q2b: Alpha and Beta roots question. Reasonable except for part ii which was strangely tough.
Q2c: I've never seen a question like this being asked. I managed to prove i and ii easily enough but I couldn't even attempt part iii.

Q3a: Conjugate complex numbers. Nothing strange here.
Q3b: This question looked easy but I got some extremely strange answers for both parts.
Q3c: Part i was nigh on impossible. Part ii and part iii were perfectly fine though.

Q4a: Great question.
Q4b: This question had almost nothing to do with series at all. I got part i and part ii reasonably well. I may have gotten part iii right but I almost certainly didn't get part iv right. I guessed and put down n=1.

Q5a: Great question:
Q5b: Normal log/indices question.
Q5c: Extremely easy induction question.

(I'd say I may have managed something near 50 marks in question 5)

Q6a: Far higher standard part a than past years. Nothing too difficult all the same.
Q6b: Difficult combined use of the quotient and chain rule. Something that would have normally been a part c. Managed to get it out though I think.
Q6c: Part i was quite easy. Part ii and part iii were nasty questions.

Q7a: Implicit differentiation. Not too bad really.
Q7b: Parametric differentiation. A very long question but ultimately not too difficult.
Q7c: I actually enjoyed this question. It was purely theoretical. The differentiation was a bit tough but part ii was simply inspect and answer. Very few people actually understood the question though from what I saw today. What you had to realise was that f(x) and g(x) both had the same slopes at the same x values. Then you had to realise that dy/dx is negative therefore the curve is decreasing. For those two reasons, it was Diagram A that was the right choice.

Q8a: Standard integration question.
Q8b: Part i was perfectly fine. Part ii... not so much.
Q8c: THANK YOU BOARDS!!! I didn't even know this proof existed until last night. I had a look quick over it the night before and it paid off.


So all in all... one of the strangest ever maths paper 1s to ever have been examined. I shudder at the thought of Paper 2

This.

PJelly wrote: »

I think I love you.
A part C in the bag for me. BADLY needed!
Was the integration B (ii) not like (i) in reverse? For (i) I got 1/2Log5
and got 24 for (ii) I ended up with half integral of U over one from 2 to 10..

Sound right?

ya i got that too i think!

jumpguy wrote: »

Source for that? It came out as 2x for me.

yup thats right there is no misprint.

Where is the fella saying he would upload the awnsers??