By the way: it's "Dijkstra" (Edsger Dijkstra) rather than "djikstra". You are obviously a clever boy to be even aware of Dijkstra's algorithm.the exam writers just want you to SUFFER
anyways i think this is to differentiate students based on their abilities - like an E3 from an E4
i think by pearson they mean fitzpatrick, if i recall correctly i think pearson is their publisherYes. Why the heck did you not mention the actual textbook instead of mentioning the publisher. If you mentioned Cambridge, we all have a fair idea of which text you are referring to. Pearson??
if you want more vector questions that are harder, definitely take a look at cambridge's questions (especially the ones towards the end of the exercise in the development section), especially for applications of vectors and vector proofsI was looking at some vector questions in the pearson textbook and they were a piece of cake. Did some HSC questions that were actually difficult.
Why?
Also some vector questions would be niceeee.
i've got one of those (excel successone, got as a hand-me-down from a friend) but unfortunately they're not much help, since vectors was only added recently as part of the new syllabus and thus only the papers from 2020 onwards have them . excel specifically has replacement questions to compensate for the lack of newly introduced topics in the old syllabus papers but the vectors questions are pretty simple too. i'd suggest going through top schools' trial papers then maybe?Oh right, in that case I’d recommend doing some Cambridge but Cambridge vectors is also way too easy, if you can get one of those past hsc question books that would be much better
oh definitely, i like the geometric proofs questions but physical applications aren't in the new fundamentals book (they do intro to vectors in the first exercise, geometric proofs and applications in the second and projectile motion in the third, then the review exercise)do terry lee then, not too hard but general difficulty of questions is greater than of cambridge