Maths Extension 1 Predictions/Thoughts (5 Viewers)

[cheesynooby]

Did any of you actually consider "After T seconds"?
this is genuinely a retarded question, anyone with common sense would have known the time of flight is the same.

?
the time of flight isn't the same..

 

[coolcat6778]

?
the time of flight isn't the same..

i forgot what i did but i still arrived at root k

 

[coolcat6778]

?
the time of flight isn't the same..

there are many questions i did the wrong working yet arrived at the right answer lol, even the k = 26 binomial distribution one

 

[cheesynooby]

there are many questions i did the wrong working yet arrived at the right answer lol, even the k = 26 binomial distribution one

interesting.. that might mean you get penalised for the 'show' questions

 

[RedDragonStar1]

I fumbled on it losing the sqrt somewhere along the way but no i didn't even read the after T seconds part lol. If i didn't mess up the sqrt i would've still gotten it right without using t=T.

 

[coolcat6778]

interesting.. that might mean you get penalised for the 'show' questions

lol look at all these hieroglyphics, i don't understand their garbage solution at all. what i did was
E(x) = p = 20 = mu
-------q = 80
var(x) = pq/n
P(X>x)
P(X<x) = 1 - P(X>x)
look at table find z score
z = k - mu / sigma
then solved from there to get k = 26.

They never taught us their nomenclature so i never used it lol.

 

[academicalwizard101]

bruh I proved U/V=1/root(k) is independent of k instead of V/U. will I get penalised for that?. I just realised

 

[coolcat6778]

bruh I proved U/V=1/root(k) is independent of k instead of V/U. will I get penalised for that?. I just realised

no way in hell, I also put V = root(k) U since that's how relations are normally expressed in physics. You still showed that the ratios are related.

 

[alphxreturns]

Did any of you actually consider "After T seconds"?
View attachment 50229
this is genuinely a retarded question

would saying tA and tB are different be fine?

 

[RedDragonStar1]

View attachment 50230
lol look at all these hieroglyphics, i don't understand their garbage solution at all. what i did was
E(x) = p = 20 = mu
-------q = 80
var(x) = pq/n
P(X>x)
P(X<x) = 1 - P(X>x)
look at table find z score
z = k - mu / sigma
then solved from there to get k = 26.

They never taught us their nomenclature so i never used it lol.

ngl even that's weird to me cuz i never properly worked on sample props, i just use standard formulas to do it.

still gets k=26 tho

 

[coolcat6778]

ngl even that's weird to me cuz i never properly worked on sample props, i just use standard formulas to do it.

still gets k=26 tho

I did math advanced style of working out, much simpler as well. I don't know why they need to show off they are using university level nomenclature, it's not that deep lmao

 

[coolcat6778]

ngl even that's weird to me cuz i never properly worked on sample props, i just use standard formulas to do it.

still gets k=26 tho

I doubt they will deduct marks if you did it my or your way. The marking guidelines for max marks is usually "correct solution". Since the question asked for "find the value of k" k = 26 is indeed enough to get full marks regardless of working

 

[academicalwizard101]

yeah hopefully we don't get a pedantic marker tho

no way in hell, I also put V = root(k) U since that's how relations are normally expressed in physics. You still showed that the ratios are related.

 

[BionicMango]

Did any of you actually consider "After T seconds"?
View attachment 50229
this is genuinely a retarded question

Oh yeah I almost forgot then just replaced ‘t’ with ‘t-T’ just for object B and it still worked fine, as long as you consider that ‘initially’ means at time t=T for object B.

 

[BionicMango]

ngl even that's weird to me cuz i never properly worked on sample props, i just use standard formulas to do it.

still gets k=26 tho

Both sample proportions and the regular equations will work, you just change E(X) and Var(X) to match a proportion or just a total number if that makes sense

 

[coolcat6778]

Oh yeah I almost forgot then just replaced ‘t’ with ‘t-T’ just for object B and it still worked fine, as long as you consider that ‘initially’ means at time t=T for object B.

did u get root k as a ratio

 

[mickeyd_357]

bruh I proved U/V=1/root(k) is independent of k instead of V/U. will I get penalised for that?. I just realised

I DID THAT TOO

 

[BionicMango]

did u get root k as a ratio

Yup

 

[nutfluid]

Did any of you actually consider "After T seconds"?
View attachment 50229
this is genuinely a retarded question

i just said some shit about it accelerating the same amount if both is increased in height i didnt know how to approach it i studied binomials not projectile motion, so over im pissing and shitting myself with anger or something i dont know

 

[tsswhzl]

Did any of you actually consider "After T seconds"?
View attachment 50229
this is genuinely a retarded question

Is it just me or is T literally nothing. Only thing that matters are the initial and final positions. Like I don’t actually care how long you waited to throw the second ball it just landed at the same spot.