Search results

u can work out a lot of things from the marking guidelines along with examiners comments thats how I figure out how to do many of the questions I have the 2001 scanned. Have the 2003 un-scanned and I'm doing 2002 2001 is here: http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=41424...

>> i mean can u go from a=-n^2x to x=acos(nt+@)?? << I'm quite sure that I said you cannot So if you ask me then you'll get that answer And I have a big faith that other people will say the same EDIT: hmm.. I withdraw all those statements >> Or can we always do it by integrating? <<...

it says: "a possible solution" so you do what Mr Li0n said (it's like when proving the natural / exponential growth formula... do it from the possible solution) you have 4=4(a^2-16) 1=a^2-16 17=a^2 and just an alternative answer without that formula, you can do x=acos(2t+@) , i.e...

He / she was asking it the other way around. Without knowledge or assumption that the x has the form of acos(nt+@), I don't think it can be done. But maybe it can :p

>> i have a question that says that a=-n2x show that x=acos(nt+@)?? How do i do it? << I don't think you can do this one ^_^

well I agree but isn't that quite obvious anyway? ;)

Rorix.. u gave the answer away to Mr Black!!

yes but you defnitely are not allowed to quote that formula in extension 1. it might be okay in ext2 depending on the nature of the Q. Hmm I wont bother doing that using cartesian now.. (to check Jase's answer) but to Abtari: there will be 2 values of theta. sin2@ (where @ is theta...

it is, hehe.. but is W = q V in the formula sheet? I can't find it I think it's a good idea to omit some formulas :D

using formula is not a good idea and, say if they Q has 4 marks, you wont get 4 marks using that formula

oh BTW, I have another tip. Never ever stay up late before a maths exam, whether it be for study or other things. EDIT: I think my tip should be: don't do too much work before the exam, and that includes the morning before exam.

or, without calculus, on the first page of the formula sheet you have E = F/q, i.e. F = E*q (where * is times) on the second page you have E = V/d combining, F = V/d*q but work = force*distance E_k = V*q note: the email notification was sitting on my inbox and I hadn't bothered going to...

Oh I see. The thing is my teacher never told me about Rorix's theorem, so it's understandable that I didn't know it ^_^ Thanks.

>> so using the q without assuming it will work << When we did it we assume it will work ^^ if we don't assume it will work, why do we do it? >> but there are much better ways for this q than plainly bashing it out. << Hmm.... like what? oh, your target UAI.. will you achieve it? ;)

umm... how do you know that? [ how do you know that a^n = -pa^(n-2) - qa^(n-3) ] I can easily prove it by induction, but is it naturally true already?

yes I get part b To anyone reading: for this Q, do you think we're allowed to work backwards / use the given result (in an obvious way... not like working backwards but pretending to work forwards all the time)? mm should I tell Mr Black? Obviously not since he'll delete his post and say...

didn't you do this one on purpose though? what do you think of my edited post?

the numerator of any integer root of a polynomial with real coefficients will be a divisor of the constant term and given an unknown polynomial, there is a non-zero probability that the polynomial has only real coefficients, and has an integer root, and that the leading term is 1 or -1 :)

sometimes it's because the forum lags :p whoops.. they put a time limitation now so that there are no double posts (notice I wrote it's, not it is) @ Trev: It has everything, everything to do with maths!! 1. Slide Rule is a manual calculating device, now largely obsolete, consisting of...

Doesn't the book have a contact number? Hmm.. you might be able to ask from this: http://www.boredofstudies.org/jeffgeha.php