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

** Higher Level Maths Paper 1 2012 Before/After **

1…121314151618»

Comments

  • #512
    ei.sderob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭ei.sderob


    In 1(c) they say the new eq's roots are 1 less than the old eq's roots not it's factors. So wouldn't you actually be taking 1 from x=(whatever they were) and not from x-(whatever they were) = 0 ? I mean, doing it the second way would be saying that the factors are one less than the old eq, thus you'd actually be increasing the roots by 1.


  • #513
    legend44
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭legend44


    For Question 2 C (i) and (ii), I proved that it was true for 1 and 2 and that it would be therefore true for any no. greater than 1 as 2 + any constant is going to be > 2.
    Is this any use?


  • #514
    TheHazer
    Registered Users Posts: 9 ✭TheHazer


    legend44 wrote: »
    For Question 2 C (i) and (ii), I proved that it was true for 1 and 2 and that it would be therefore true for any no. greater than 1 as 2 + any constant is going to be > 2.
    Is this any use?

    No I believe you would have to prove it for all numbers sorry


Advertisement