-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Can someone please explain 'the director circle' (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter edd91
- Start date
George W. Bush
Banned
Why, yes, I can. The directror circle is a club which one can join, involving the Japanese American National Museum.
Exclusive benefits of Director's Circle Membership include:
- Invitations to exhibition opening receptions and other unique donor events throughout the year
- VIP tours of the National Museum
- Recognition in National Museum publications and on the Annual Giving Circles Wall (one-year)
- A special memento gift from the National Museum
- Plus all benefits of General Membership
Director's Circle agm-dir$1,000.00
serious response pending
Exclusive benefits of Director's Circle Membership include:
- Invitations to exhibition opening receptions and other unique donor events throughout the year
- VIP tours of the National Museum
- Recognition in National Museum publications and on the Annual Giving Circles Wall (one-year)
- A special memento gift from the National Museum
- Plus all benefits of General Membership
Director's Circle agm-dir$1,000.00
serious response pending
George W. Bush
Banned
Which conic are you intending to construct?
KeypadSDM
B4nn3d
Meh, you don't need it, whatever the hell it is.
George W. Bush
Banned
the director circle is, i'm pretty sure, the two circles x^2+y^2=a^2 and x^2+y^2=b^2, which can be used to construct ellipses and hyperbolas.
(and circles too, I'd imagine
)
(and circles too, I'd imagine
)
George W. Bush
Banned
i think it's in the syllabus actually
i just don't think it's called the director circle
its quite tedious to explain, search on google
i just don't think it's called the director circle
its quite tedious to explain, search on google
I actually do remember the third derivative thread and remember thinking it was kind of slack the markers cant recognise valid methods.
You would expect though that if a marker saw a method he didnt know, he'd ask senior markers??
You would expect though that if a marker saw a method he didnt know, he'd ask senior markers??
If it's an obscure result, it's reasonable for them to expect a student to prove it, I think. I mean, if not then basically every result with any sort of use would be given a name and markers would be wasting all of eternity looking up obscure results because someone thought "hey, that's just an application of #NAME#'s theorem".
It's like turtle's "well-known fact" result, it's just not practical.
Likewise, the arguement about the third derivative - it's certainly valid, but has the student learned how to use it or are they just taking something told to them on faith?
Whilst in practice a lot of the syllabus could just be taking things on faith, there is meant to be at least a veneer of encouraging understanding in there.
{Calling the third derivative result 'obscure' might be being a bit unfair, but it's not something the marker can be confident the student knows the reasoning behind. At least with the others, if the student uses it the marker can be fairly sure their teacher's tried to explain it to them}
It's like turtle's "well-known fact" result, it's just not practical.
Likewise, the arguement about the third derivative - it's certainly valid, but has the student learned how to use it or are they just taking something told to them on faith?
Whilst in practice a lot of the syllabus could just be taking things on faith, there is meant to be at least a veneer of encouraging understanding in there.
{Calling the third derivative result 'obscure' might be being a bit unfair, but it's not something the marker can be confident the student knows the reasoning behind. At least with the others, if the student uses it the marker can be fairly sure their teacher's tried to explain it to them}
KeypadSDM
B4nn3d
The third derivative method, however, is obscenely obvious. Also, many students who use the second derivative method, and dx either side might not know what they're doing, but they still get marked correctly.
The "not knowing reasoning behind" is a crap argument. Most people don't know what half of the memorised formulas they use mean.
The "not knowing reasoning behind" is a crap argument. Most people don't know what half of the memorised formulas they use mean.
turtle_2468
Member
sigh... lets not try to get too elitist here..
turtle_2468
Member
So, how did you know that pi^2/6 < 7/4? Can you prove that without a calculator?
How about: sum of terms from 1/j^2 in the sequence < integral from (j-1) to infinity of x^(-2) dx (looking at the graph vs bar chart/Riemann sum of the terms)
= 1/j-1 upon solving.
Specifically letting j=3:
1/9+1/16+....< integral from 2 to infinity of x^(-2)=1/2
Hence sequence < 1+1/4+1/2=7/4.
I don't like the assumption of the meaning of "easy" above btw... proving the result + the 3 lines is much much harder than the proof above..
How about: sum of terms from 1/j^2 in the sequence < integral from (j-1) to infinity of x^(-2) dx (looking at the graph vs bar chart/Riemann sum of the terms)
= 1/j-1 upon solving.
Specifically letting j=3:
1/9+1/16+....< integral from 2 to infinity of x^(-2)=1/2
Hence sequence < 1+1/4+1/2=7/4.
I don't like the assumption of the meaning of "easy" above btw... proving the result + the 3 lines is much much harder than the proof above..