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
**HL Maths P2 Before/After
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
I was delighted coming out of that exam an up until I started reading all this :L
my k=8, centre was 4,4 and I think I did point of intersection (I.e. equated circle and line formulae) of circle and x+y=2k and ended up with k being 8 and 0? That was in the last few seconds though so it coulda been wrong!
My alpha was 45 and beta was 100, alpha was 38 from the cosine rule then added on the bit outside from a right angle triangle!
What else.....oh what did people do for the probability of people in arrears being in negative equity? I just multiplied the previous 2 probabilities together?
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I was delighted coming out of that exam an up until I started reading all this :L
my k=8, centre was 4,4 and I think I did point of intersection (I.e. equated circle and line formulae) of circle and x+y=2k and ended up with k being 8 and 0? That was in the last few seconds though so it coulda been wrong!
My alpha was 45 and beta was 100, alpha was 38 from the cosine rule then added on the bit outside from a right angle triangle!
What else.....oh what did people do for the probability of people in arrears being in negative equity? I just multiplied the previous 2 probabilities together?
Haha! Pretty much did everything the same, either we are geniuses or ****ed :P I multiplied the probabilities and got like 0.024. Fingers crossed for us
0 -
-
-
Just wondering if anybody else got this:
k = 5.8 or so. Long story short, I used the perp distance formula to each tangent, baring in mind that all the distances are equal to the radius.
Direction of causality = to be concise, which variable caused which. I had never heard of the phrase before but it seemed logical. The internet suggests I was right
Alpha equals 45, beta equals 80
Alpha was the more important angle because P was further from R, and since we were approximating the distance as arc length, which is equal to angle x radius, the longer radius the more variance0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Just wondering if anybody else got this:
k = 5.8 or so. Long story short, I used the perp distance formula to each line, baring in mind that all the distances are equal to the radius.
Direction of causality = to be concise, which variable caused which. I had never heard of the phrase before but it seemed logical. The internet suggests I was right
Alpha equals 45, beta equals 80
Alpha was the more important angle because P was further from R, and since we were approximating the distance as arc length, which is equal to angle x radius, the longer radius the more variance
I got something really close to that. i had k=3+2root2 which is the same as k= 5.828.
I waffled the direction of causality. No clue what i wrote.
Can't remember what i got for alpha but had 100 for beta.
Same reason for alpha causing a greater error as what i said.0 -
-
I was delighted coming out of that exam an up until I started reading all this :L
my k=8, centre was 4,4 and I think I did point of intersection (I.e. equated circle and line formulae) of circle and x+y=2k and ended up with k being 8 and 0? That was in the last few seconds though so it coulda been wrong!
My alpha was 45 and beta was 100, alpha was 38 from the cosine rule then added on the bit outside from a right angle triangle!
What else.....oh what did people do for the probability of people in arrears being in negative equity? I just multiplied the previous 2 probabilities together?
i got K=-8... I was rushing so I made a slip.
As for tan.... Well I used cosine rule to find alpha and beta.
My Beta was 100, My Alpha was 38.
For question on population, for part iii)
I also multiplied two previous probs together.
For null Hypthoseis i proved it was false.
What a beautful paper!
I dont get what everyone is giving out about, compared to previous years, this paper was taking the piss!!
I mean the trig question was a bit hard, but the way they will correct it either stance is correct.
I.e - If you said alpha would make the error greater and showed the reasons you thought that and these reasons were legit, they would have to give you the marks.
Every answer on that is subjective, so you will most likely get full marks.
As for the final question on trig. Well i just didnt ever bother.
What a friend of mine did was genious though... The question said illustrate, he therefore went away and used a compass and make an arc of the max and min possible values, and then coloured in the area. Technically he is right.
I messed up bad though on the Normal Distribution, the mm caught me out. I misread the question and just messed up the whole values, whatever way i read it i got it wrong, my method was right though. I didnt do the 2nd part.
Question 1 and 2 were easy peasy.
I just said that two triangles would be equal eachother, i said the perpendiculars of two perpendicular lines would equal eachother and i said that the slope of the line would equal the slope of the other side/line.
Then just used two traingles, found area and let them equal each other.
Question 2 was soooooo simple... so simple. I wont ever bother.
Question 6 was simple. You didnt even have to have a basic knowledge of geometry to answer Q.6, ii. All you had to say was that parrelel lines had the same distance between them then subsequently derive one side is = other side. Also the triangle on top left was a transversal similar to the other one... therefore that lines side would be equal to one of the sides on the triangle below.
Also angle would be the same.
SAS congruency.
The first part, you just had to bisect the angle three times.
Easy Peasy.
Question 7 was beautiful.
Question 4 was very badly phrased hence why i prob only got attempt marks for the damn thing.
Question 5 was sooooo easy.... bernoulli theorem on part i, ii.
Then prob of getting 1st score once in first 4 shots + prob of getting second score on 5th try. Use two bernoulli's for this.
Hope this helps make things easier to understand.
I am very happy.... just not happy with question 4, think i might complain to the SEC dues to its phrasing.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
agreed apart from beta, I think you might have done what a lot of people did and had a positive cos which would give that answerJust wondering if anybody else got this:
k = 5.8 or so. Long story short, I used the perp distance formula to each tangent, baring in mind that all the distances are equal to the radius.
Direction of causality = to be concise, which variable caused which. I had never heard of the phrase before but it seemed logical. The internet suggests I was right
Alpha equals 45, beta equals 80
Alpha was the more important angle because P was further from R, and since we were approximating the distance as arc length, which is equal to angle x radius, the longer radius the more variance0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement