No like you have to prove it somehow. You don't just show it, you have to prove something from part "a".. But I dunno what exactly to prove.isn't that just a simple factorisation?
well the normals at p is:No like you have to prove it somehow. You don't just show it, you have to prove something from part "a".. But I dunno what exactly to prove.
that's okay. Ok now I feel like an idiot, I think I'm overthinking it hahawell the normals at p is:
and at q is:
[simple derivations]
i was thinking solving them simataneoulsy or something, but that got me nowhere
EDIT: thats all i got lol, soz
i doubt something like this would be asked in the HSCthat's okay. Ok now I feel like an idiot, I think I'm overthinking it haha
It is. That is a well-known identity, and it doesn't matter whether or not p & q have anything to do with a parabola.isn't that just a simple factorisation?
Hmm ok, thank you.It is. That is a well-known identity, and doesn't matter whether or not p & q have anything to do with a parabola.
You don't know that t=p+q. She (he?) is saying that the answer you will get after doing the algebra is [2a(p+q), a(p+q)^2].How do you know t = p + q?
You know too much.She (he?)