Maths tutoring available (1 Viewer)

[mathtute]

Hi,
My name is Holly, I graduated from St Catherines school last year and am now attending UNSW and doing a bachelor of Science International. This means that I study maths, physics, french and I am taking astronomy as an elective.

Maths was one of my strong points at school.
I recieved an ATAR of 98.0, a 95 in mathematics 2 Unit and an 86 in mathematics extension 1.

The maths I am currently taking now is equivalent to Extension 2 ( 4 unit) mathematics at school.

I am very patient and am an excellent teacher. I am looking to tutor students from years 7-10 however I would be willing to tutor struggling year 11 students doing mathematics 2 unit.

I am looking to charge $30 per hour.

If you live in the eastern suburbs I could arrange somewhere central to meet you (such as a library or a coffee shop) or life you can get to UNSW I would be happy to meet you there.

My email address is,
holly_lincoln@hotmail.com

Please contact me if you are interested.
Thanks,
Holly</SPAN>

 

[nikkifc]

The maths I am currently taking now is equivalent to Extension 2 ( 4 unit) mathematics at school.

I wouldn't say that MATH1131 or 1141 is equivalent to HSC Mathematics Ext 2.

For instance, alot of the complex numbers material is glossed over. There is hardly any conics and volumes (by slices and cylindrical shells). It also misses the Mechanics component of Ext 2 Maths and so on.

I don't think even in terms of difficulty it compares to Mathematics Ext 2. Some of the stuff of domain and ranges is Year 11 2U stuff...

 

[annabackwards]

I wouldn't say that MATH1131 or 1141 is equivalent to HSC Mathematics Ext 2.

For instance, alot of the complex numbers material is glossed over. There is hardly any conics and volumes (by slices and cylindrical shells). It also misses the Mechanics component of Ext 2 Maths and so on.

I don't think even in terms of difficulty it compares to Mathematics Ext 2. Some of the stuff of domain and ranges is Year 11 2U stuff...

Indeed, but maths 1141 + phys > HSC 4U maths depending on the person

Oh and complex numbers is glossed over in uni because they consider it to be easy as pie

 

[shaon0]

I wouldn't say that MATH1131 or 1141 is equivalent to HSC Mathematics Ext 2.

For instance, alot of the complex numbers material is glossed over. There is hardly any conics and volumes (by slices and cylindrical shells). It also misses the Mechanics component of Ext 2 Maths and so on.

I don't think even in terms of difficulty it compares to Mathematics Ext 2. Some of the stuff of domain and ranges is Year 11 2U stuff...

I would argue that Math1131/1141/1151 are conceptually much harder overall than MX2. Plus, the marking is very harsh as you're marked to standards of pure mathematicians not HSC students (in my experience).

 

[annabackwards]

I would argue that Math1131/1141/1151 are conceptually much harder overall than MX2. Plus, the marking is very harsh as you're marked to standards of pure mathematicians not HSC students (in my experience).

That and they assume you know conics etc etc.

Just the other week, I didn't realise they were using volumes by slicing/shells to find the equations for Moments of Inertia until i tried proving it myself >.>

 

[nikkifc]

That and they assume you know conics etc etc.

Just the other week, I didn't realise they were using volumes by slicing/shells to find the equations for Moments of Inertia until i tried proving it myself >.>

That would probably be in Physics, not Mathematics. And usually in Physics they don't examine such theoretical proofs. I believe the content is based primarily on substitution of numbers etc.

Also, I believe that there is very little Conics in first year university maths. After that you don't see it at all. So it's not really that important. I wouldn't imagine that you'd need to prove the various properties of a conic. It's most likely that you need to know how to sketch conic sections, which is really is quite straightforward. I think General Mathematics do a bit on this.

 

[shaon0]

That would probably be in Physics, not Mathematics. And usually in Physics they don't examine such theoretical proofs. I believe the content is based primarily on substitution of numbers etc.

Also, I believe that there is very little Conics in first year university maths. After that you don't see it at all. So it's not really that important. I wouldn't imagine that you'd need to prove the various properties of a conic. It's most likely that you need to know how to sketch conic sections, which is really is quite straightforward. I think General Mathematics do a bit on this.

Anyways, 1st yr uni maths >>> 4u maths.

 

[annabackwards]

That would probably be in Physics, not Mathematics. And usually in Physics they don't examine such theoretical proofs. I believe the content is based primarily on substitution of numbers etc.

Also, I believe that there is very little Conics in first year university maths. After that you don't see it at all. So it's not really that important. I wouldn't imagine that you'd need to prove the various properties of a conic. It's most likely that you need to know how to sketch conic sections, which is really is quite straightforward. I think General Mathematics do a bit on this.

Trust me, we do much more interesting proofs than basic Conics and in much more depth. Never since before uni have i come across a course that is so rigorous in showing proofs. 4U maths is a lightweight when it comes to showing proofs - heck, you guys don't know how to even proof sin(a+b) = sina*cosb + cosa*sinb

Conics just came up in my maths homework.... It comes up in a lot of places and they don't show the proof or any of its properties because they assume you are smart enough to prove it yourself/are able to realise what you need to do.

Anyone can sketch a conics section - one example is just a basic parabola which a toddler could sketch. Oh and the OP does do physics XD

Anyways, 1st yr uni maths >>> 4u maths.

+1

 

[hscishard]

heck, you guys don't know how to even proof sin(a+b) = sina*cosb + cosa*sinb

Not if you're me
I like reading the proofs first before learning how to use it for some reason

 

[annabackwards]

Not if you're me
I like reading the proofs first before learning how to use it for some reason

Oh? And how did you prove it, the geometric method or the complex numbers method (which we get shown in uni)? I'm just curious is all

 

[hscishard]

Was taught the geometric method.

Complex numbers. Lol wtf. Lucky it's uni

 

[nikkifc]

heck, you guys don't know how to even proof sin(a+b) = sina*cosb + cosa*sinb

It's easy. Draw a triangle such that two right angled triangles are inscribed in it and then go from there using the sine rule etc. It's not that hard.

 

[shaon0]

It's easy. Draw a triangle such that two right angled triangles are inscribed in it and then go from there using the sine rule etc. It's not that hard.

Try to do the harder q's in my MATH1151 Linear Alg hw showing riguorous working and then you may be able to say 4u>1st yr.

 

[annabackwards]

Was taught the geometric method.

Complex numbers. Lol wtf. Lucky it's uni

Ahaha yeah, i thought so XD

It's easy. Draw a triangle such that two right angled triangles are inscribed in it and then go from there using the sine rule etc. It's not that hard.

That's not a rigurous proof as you're taking other proofs for granted without proving them.

Try to do the harder q's in my MATH1151 Linear Alg hw showing riguorous working and then you may be able to say 4u>1st yr.

+1

 

[shaon0]

Ahaha yeah, i thought so XD


That's not a rigurous proof as you're taking other proofs for granted without proving them.


+1

Thanks lol. At least someone agrees with me.
In regards to ur proof q;
I(cisAcisB)=I[(cosA+isinA)(cosB+isinB)]
sin(A+B)=cosAsinB+sinAcosB

 

[nikkifc]

That's not a rigurous proof as you're taking other proofs for granted without proving them.

Um, yes it is. Like what proofs? Like the dividing line has no area/thickness? That doesn't generally require a proof, it's more like a definition.

 

[annabackwards]

Thanks lol. At least someone agrees with me.
In regards to ur proof q;
I(cisAcisB)=I[(cosA+isinA)(cosB+isinB)]
sin(A+B)=cosAsinB+sinAcosB

Hehe yusssssssssssssss.

Um, yes it is. Like what proofs? Like the dividing line has no area/thickness? That doesn't generally require a proof, it's more like a definition.

Actually, if you do further maths (like in uni) you'd find that the diving line does come into play. And i was referring to your "proof" of the expansion of sin(a+b)

 

[shaon0]

Hehe yusssssssssssssss.


Actually, if you do further maths (like in uni) you'd find that the diving line does come into play. And i was referring to your "proof" of the expansion of sin(a+b)

Yeah, i agree. @nikkkifc, Axioms are usually sketchy and u'd have to do a lot of further/advanced maths subjects to really be able to comment on lines etc.