Search results

Which do you think is the hardest 2U paper?

Hmm, but would it be of much use? I know in 4U it could be of use for integration... but I don't think I've come across anything in 3U that would require it. What's the fundemental limit like? Is it much different to the informal treatment of limits we do now? BTW, I noticed n the 1967 2U...

Hooke's law... shouldn't that had been in Physics? :S haha But it does explain why Coroneos had a bit on it in his revised book. What about transformation of axes? ie. (if I recall correctly) X=xcosθ-ysinθ and Y=xcosθ+ysinθ I read this is one of Coroneos' books I think.

1st chapter.

What were the main differences between the old maths courses (ie. the pre 1981 courses) and the current one? I know 4U changed alot, like they introduced Volumes, Conic Sections, Additional Complex numbers (eg. DeMoivre's theorem) and Circular motion in mechanics... but I'm not sure how the...

Hehe... seems to be the contrary of her husband (was my maths teacher for most of my time in HSC maths). I wonder if she teaches all levels like her husband (including Ext 2)... EDIT: http://au.ratemyteachers.com/stephen-baker/18381-t/2 <-- this supports what I said XD

Sorry to jump offtopic, but did/does Fort St have a maths teacher called Mrs Baker?

Look in the Coroneos 4U book. It's there in one of the examples.

Yeah... to be honest though, I don't think they should change the course. I think it's nice the way that it is.

Yes the signs of P(z1) and P''(z1) must be the same for a good 1st approximation using Newton's method of estimating roots to polynomials.

I don't think they are going to drop Mechanics. Rather IIRC, it was something about taking circular motion out and putting in other stuff like electric circuits...

"Better" is a subjective term. Personally, I'd prefer to use long division. But I was just pointing out that there is an alternative method.

=\ spell the guy's name correctly: Coroneos. I never really encountered a question that involved the closeness of a root. I shall have a look later but nevertheless the signs of P(z1) and P"(z1) do matter, which is what I said initially.

Or you could use long division...

Yeah I know what you mean but I believe that Coroneos had his booked checked by alot of people before publication. Plus most content in the books have been published since something like 1961... that's a long time compared to many other books... So the chance of any error is pretty slim.

I haven't looked into that parabola example yet. I'll do it tomorrow or something. But it's not like it came to me in a dream or anything. It's published in one of the books of the perhaps one of the most prolific HSC Maths authors, ie. Jim Coroneos' 3U book. So it can't really be wrong.

If you start from the 1st approx x=2.1 a better estimate is not reached. lol. You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. You said that the actual root was x=2.21... And you said that x=2.3 is closer to the root than x=2.1? They're pretty much about the same (I think)... And plus the...

4q^2(p+r)^2 - 4.(p^2 - q^2 ).(q^2 - r^2)=0

Discriminant = 0

Maybe I messed something up because I did it mentally. But consider something like say P(x)=2x^3-3x^2-7 Why would x=2.1 have been a worse choice as a first approximation using Newton's Method of estimating polynomial roots over x=2.3?