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

fleeflyfloflum

Hey,

Just asking, for the differentiation proofs for the product and quotient rules, is the method at the back of the green concise ok if it asks from first principles?

Thanks

Mista

needirishhelp wrote: »

What equipment do we need for Paper 1 HL? Is it just a calculator and pens or do we need set squares and a compass aswell?

Bring a ruler, pencil and rubber as well, we might have to draw a graph.

And ALWAYS draw graphs on graph paper, never in the answer booklet.

Saracarroll

fleeflyfloflum wrote: »

Hey,

Just asking, for the differentiation proofs for the product and quotient rules, is the method at the back of the green concise ok if it asks from first principles?

Thanks

Yes, i think so because it is first principles, f(x), f(x+h)...etc

Mista

cocopopsxx wrote: »

This will sound like a stupid question but do you know that identity which means 'it holds true for all values of r', I.e. You can sub in any value for r, how do you know when to use that? :S

This is a question like:

(3x-2) (x+5) = 3x^2 + px + q: for all x, find p and q.

Just multiply out the brackets:

3x^2 + 13x - 10 = 3x^2 + px + q

Therefore, p = 13 and q = -10

reznov

Always prove with first principles unless the induction proof of differentiation.

michaelm82803

reznov wrote: »

Always prove with first principles unless the induction proof of differentiation.

There are some alternate proofs of the Product and Quotient rules, using implicit differentiation and logarithmic differention, which are both valid and in my opinion easier to understand.

Chuchoter

I wish I had never come here I understood complex arguments perfectly now I'm confused. I HATE YOU ALL .:mad:

fleeflyfloflum

michaelm82803 wrote: »

There are some alternate proofs of the Product and Quotient rules, using implicit differentiation and logarithmic differention, which are both valid and in my opinion easier to understand.

Yup they are the ones in the concise book, was just wondering were they alright to use, thanks!

Mista

Chuchoter wrote: »

I wish I had never come here I understood complex arguments perfectly now I'm confused. I HATE YOU ALL .:mad:

Just forget everything that was said and stick to your own way of doing it :P

Chuchoter

Mista wrote: »

Just forget everything that was said and stick to your own way of doing it :P

I checked the book. My way still works, all is well with the world! :P

finality

What's the protocol with sketch graphs? Do you have to label the axes/use graph paper, or do they just want the general shape of the graph?

ChemHickey

finality wrote: »

What's the protocol with sketch graphs? Do you have to label the axes/use graph paper, or do they just want the general shape of the graph?

Do everything possible to make sure you get your marks.

ChemHickey

michaelm82803 wrote: »

reznov wrote: »

Always prove with first principles unless the induction proof of differentiation.

There are some alternate proofs of the Product and Quotient rules, using implicit differentiation and logarithmic differention, which are both valid and in my opinion easier to understand.

But the question states by first principle? Do you not have to do it by first principles?

earwax_man

Is the code dmtunb not working for anyone else on e-xamit? I don't know where they get u+1 from in integration substitution of 2008 Q8 bii

Pepperr

earwax_man wrote: »

Is the code dmtunb not working for anyone else on e-xamit? I don't know where they get u+1 from in integration substitution of 2008 Q8 bii

I don't think anything to do with substitution can come up on the integration Q.

DepoProvera

They're using the u=x^2 - 1 and rearranging to get x^2=u + 1

Then as du=2xdx then du(u+1)=2x.x^2 which gives you the top line. Sorry on my phone do I can't write it out.

However I'd say just use the divide in method they also give.

michaelm82803

ChemHickey wrote: »

But the question states by first principle? Do you not have to do it by first principles?

That was in 2000. After a recent pronouncement, according to my maths teacher, Mr. Roantree, The alternate methods are acceptable. I bloody hope he's right anyway!

DepoProvera

michaelm82803 wrote: »

That was in 2000. After a recent pronouncement, according to my maths teacher, Mr. Roantree, The alternate methods are acceptable. I bloody hope he's right anyway!

Haha I have him too. He's a god and I trust him but I still learnt the first principle just in case!

Dicksboro_man

1995 q2 (very last bit with p>q>k/root 3)...honestly like...DAFUQ?

ChemHickey

earwax_man wrote: »

Is the code dmtunb not working for anyone else on e-xamit? I don't know where they get u+1 from in integration substitution of 2008 Q8 bii

U = x^2 -1
Then manipulate the formula so

x^2= u + 1

RedTexan

I'd keep an eye out for the rate of change in differentiation, since that stuff is no longer on paper 2 and still on the syllabus could be put in to throw a lot of people off

ChemHickey

RedTexan wrote: »

I'd keep an eye out for the rate of change in differentiation, since that stuff is no longer on paper 2 and still on the syllabus could be put in to throw a lot of people off

That's what I thought too! and max min problems.

leaveiton

I sort of hope the paper is a bit proof-heavy or has a proof as a part c or something. I'm fine with all of them, so it's easy marks :P

finality

Pepperr wrote: »

I don't think anything to do with substitution can come up on the integration Q.

This is incorrect. That's only in the pilot schools and in applied maths.

mcpaddington

leaveiton wrote: »

I sort of hope the paper is a bit proof-heavy or has a proof as a part c or something. I'm fine with all of them, so it's easy marks :P

What do you mean proofs?

leaveiton

mcpaddington wrote: »

What do you mean proofs?

Factor theorem, De Moivre's, first principles, product rule, quotient rule, sum rule, differential rule, those kind of things.

earwax_man

DepoProvera wrote: »

They're using the u=x^2 - 1 and rearranging to get x^2=u + 1

Then as du=2xdx then du(u+1)=2x.x^2 which gives you the top line. Sorry on my phone do I can't write it out.

However I'd say just use the divide in method they also give.

Thanks, man!

michaelm82803

leaveiton wrote: »

Factor theorem, De Moivre's, first principles, product rule, quotient rule, sum rule, differential rule, those kind of things.

Didn't the factor theorom come up last year? Its hardly a likely contender if so!

cfitz94

ok. so what do u do if u fail maths in ur leaving cert??

MattHelders

Very do-able paper I thought.

Thank you so much Mr. Newton-Raphson

I'd say I have around 30% going into P.2