conics + arnold=? (1 Viewer)

[freaking_out]

i am wondering if the question that arnold/cambridge has for conics reflect on the hsc... they seem weird and i have a feeling its not comprehensively covering the topic... did anyone else use arnold and have the same feeling?

 

[ND]

I use the T.Lee book primarily, but do occasionally use the Arnold book for revision. I've found that the Arnold conics section is pretty typical. I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[Rahul]

the question that arnold set on conics in our test was sooo hard.
the tests we do in class are way harder than the other schools i have seen.....

 

[McLake]

We used Arnold and I agree that the questions arn't very good. Your best bet is to look at past HSC papers to get a feeling for type of question they will ask ...

EDIT: Damn spelling ...

 

[Affinity]

All books are about the same, unless you want to get lucky and recognise a question in the HSC. All conics's about is coordinate geometry (distance, gradient, midpoint, ratio, intercepts etc), differential calculus (finding gradients usually)and solving equations.

 

[underthesun]

unfortunately, solving equations may sometime be a pain in the ass

I use T.Lee, and after doing all of the conics questions there and looking at the past HSC questions (by topic book), i feel that i didn't do enough, or maybe i was just seeing question 8s?

 

[Harimau]

I liked the Patel and Fitzpatricks questions on Conics... And yes, Past HSC is best

 

[Affinity]

Here's a conic question which should take quite some time, I posted a ellipse version sometime ago

P is a point on the hyperbola x^2/a^2 - y^2/b^2 = 1
With foci S, S'
PS, PS' meets the hyperbola again at Q, Q' respectively
the tangents at Q, Q' meet at R.
find the locus of R as P moves.

 

[Phycisist]

....

Nah i think its good for the trials , like the catholic one.
Similarly the volume q's in that book are way different than the ones in patel and other books.

Volume q's in patel and other books look typical for HSC but Volume q's in Arnold look good for trials.

But i havent got round to doing any..

 

[ND]

Re: ....

Originally posted by Phycisist
Nah i think its good for the trials , like the catholic one.
Similarly the volume q's in that book are way different than the ones in patel and other books.

Volume q's in patel and other books look typical for HSC but Volume q's in Arnold look good for trials.

But i havent got round to doing any..

I think that's because the arnolds write the catholic paper.

 

[underthesun]

you mean the CSSA?

are most schools going to do the CSSA?

 

[freaking_out]

We used Arnold and I agree that the questions arn't very good. Your best bet is to look at past HSC papers to get a feeling for type of question they will ask ...

yep, thats what i thought, coz after i did it and looked at some questions, it just didn't feel right . i just picked up a copy of fitzpatrick and it looks good (close to hsc)... so i think i will start working off that.,

btw can someone tell me if ellipses and hyperbolas where their centres are not in the origin- if this is in the syllabus???

 

[McLake]

Originally posted by freaking_out
btw can someone tell me if ellipses and hyperbolas where their centres are not in the origin- if this is in the syllabus???

They are NOT in the syllabus.

 

[freaking_out]

They are NOT in the syllabus.

damn!! my teacher had 2 whole questions (and there was only 4 conics questions in the whole topic test) , which told us to sketch them!!!!!!!!


edit: damn fitzpatrick as well!!! coz my teacher was following his book!!!!

 

[McLake]

Sketching them? That can't be too bad. I'm not sure if SKETCHING them is in the syllabus ...

 

[freaking_out]

Originally posted by McLake
Sketching them? That can't be too bad. I'm not sure if SKETCHING them is in the syllabus ...

not only sketching but also finding the focus, directrices etc. it was cofusing, especially the question you had to sketch this hyperbola which had the centre off the origin!!!!!!

I stuffed up that question as well!!! :mad1: