Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Maths Paper 2 tips (HL)

Options
  • 08-06-2008 6:19pm
    #1
    eoin2nc
    Registered Users Posts: 688 ✭✭✭


    Ok so what do you think will come up tomorrow, ie proofs, what MacLaurin series ect


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    starkinter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭starkinter


    My guess is that the perpendicular distance proof might well come up, area of a circle by integration perhaps, and I would be ready for the inverse tan Maclaurin series. It's all speculation though.


  • Options
    #3
    Cokehead Mother
    Closed Accounts Posts: 773 ✭✭✭Cokehead Mother


    I'm hoping for perpendicular distance and no MacLaurin series.


  • Options
    #4
    Calorimeterman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Calorimeterman


    starkinter wrote: »
    My guess is that the perpendicular distance proof might well come up, area of a circle by integration perhaps, and I would be ready for the inverse tan Maclaurin series. It's all speculation though.

    The area of a circle by integration cannot come up, it's only paper 1.

    But the other two are the tipped ones alright, prepare yourself for a nasty, long, arduous paper, because it's a paper 2...


  • Options
    #5
    eoin2nc
    Registered Users Posts: 688 ✭✭✭eoin2nc


    I wouldnt mind the series of e to the power of x. Its handy enough, but I would hate an integration by parts as a part C like last year, that Q was feckin hard


  • Options
    #6
    starkinter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭starkinter


    Calorimeterman wrote: »
    The area of a circle by integration cannot come up, it's only paper 1.

    There you go; we dodged the bullet on that one so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    yenoolnairb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6 ✭yenoolnairb


    Cokehead Mother wrote: »
    I'm hoping for perpendicular distance and no MacLaurin series.

    The maclaurin series is in the tables if you know what to look at and what to change ;) it shouldn't be a problem


  • Options
    #8
    Calorimeterman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Calorimeterman


    I've only seen the exponential series in part a, and it's too long for part a... They'll probably have insanely long bs fore everything, backed up with a couple of impossible part cs, we'd be lucky if it was infested with proofs...


  • Options
    #9
    Cokehead Mother
    Closed Accounts Posts: 773 ✭✭✭Cokehead Mother


    yenoolnairb wrote: »
    The maclaurin series is in the tables if you know what to look at and what to change ;) it shouldn't be a problem

    Yeah I know... it's called the Taylor series in the tables, right? I really hate those questions though. They're not hard or anything but I find them tedious. I guess it's sort of cool that you can approximate e and pi and root2 and all that crap with it but the process is oh so dull.


  • Options
    #10
    eoin2nc
    Registered Users Posts: 688 ✭✭✭eoin2nc


    Cokehead Mother wrote: »
    Yeah I know... it's called the Taylor series in the tables, right? I really hate those questions though. They're not hard or anything but I find them tedious. I guess it's sort of cool that you can approximate e and pi and root2 and all that crap with it but the process is oh so dull.

    What page is that on?


  • Options
    #11
    Cokehead Mother
    Closed Accounts Posts: 773 ✭✭✭Cokehead Mother


    eoin2nc wrote: »
    What page is that on?

    I think it's on the page with the integrals... 41 or 42?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    johnjoejacksie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭johnjoejacksie


    Can anyone do 1997's Maclaurin?? What do you sub in for x?? Good revision for anyone that tries it ;).

    We're in for a tough paper to make up for the doddle of a first one.

    I can see series expansion for pi, graphs for inverse functions or period and range of continuous periodic functions showin' a face.

    What is "ratio of two areas connected with specific parallelograms"?????


  • Options
    #13
    Cokehead Mother
    Closed Accounts Posts: 773 ✭✭✭Cokehead Mother


    johnjoejacksie wrote: »
    Can anyone do 1997's Maclaurin?? What do you sub in for x?? Good revision for anyone that tries it ;).

    We're in for a tough paper to make up for the doddle of a first one.

    x = 1/9.


  • Options
    #14
    Calorimeterman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Calorimeterman


    I have the solution to the 1999 MacLaurin series in front of me. The examiners wouldn't dare to throw that up again, it ruffled quite a few feathers back then, I believe.

    I have stared at it for about 15 minutes and I just don't get it, and I understand the MacLaurin series well...


  • Options
    #15
    Cokehead Mother
    Closed Accounts Posts: 773 ✭✭✭Cokehead Mother


    Calorimeterman wrote: »
    I have the solution to the 1999 MacLaurin series in front of me. The examiners wouldn't dare to throw that up again, it ruffled quite a few feathers back then, I believe.

    I have stared at it for about 15 minutes and I just don't get it, and I understand the MacLaurin series well...

    I don't see what's so feather-ruffling about it.

    They ask you to derive the MacLaurin series for cosx and find the general term. Nothing unusual there.

    Then they just want you to find the values of x for which U_(n+1)/U_n as n goes to infinity is less than 1. Nothing unusual there either. :confused:


  • Options
    #16
    johnjoejacksie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭johnjoejacksie


    Calorimeterman wrote: »
    I have the solution to the 1999 MacLaurin series in front of me. The examiners wouldn't dare to throw that up again, it ruffled quite a few feathers back then, I believe.

    I have stared at it for about 15 minutes and I just don't get it, and I understand the MacLaurin series well...

    I'll check it out. Thanks Cokehead Mother, I'll take a swindle at that so.


  • Options
    #17
    johnjoejacksie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭johnjoejacksie


    Cokehead Mother wrote: »
    x = 1/9.

    Explain, please!!! I can't understand why I can't understand it!


  • Options
    #18
    Cokehead Mother
    Closed Accounts Posts: 773 ✭✭✭Cokehead Mother


    johnjoejacksie wrote: »
    Explain, please!!! I can't understand why I can't understand it!

    You want the square root of 10.

    You have an approximation of the square root of 1 + x.

    |x| < 1.

    So you can't just say x = 9 and sub it in to your expression for root(1 + x).

    1 = 9/9. So if you let x = 1/9, then 1 + x will equal 10/9. We can can then find the square root of 10/9, or root10/3.

    Then to get root10 we multiply by 3.


  • Options
    #19
    johnjoejacksie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭johnjoejacksie


    You're a livin' legend Cokehead Mother.


  • Options
    #20
    tramoredude
    Closed Accounts Posts: 122 ✭✭tramoredude


    The tan^-1 X MacLaurin Series has never been up afaik...

    I'm just going to learn that one, I hate MacLaurin Series! Hopefully there will be a Max / Min problem and Integration by Parts as the part B and C ( Wishful thinking :( )

    Any idea what Trig proofs are likely? I don't have time to go over them all...

    And finally, was the difference equation proof up in recent years? Is it due?

    DAMN PROOFS!


  • Options
    #21
    Cokehead Mother
    Closed Accounts Posts: 773 ✭✭✭Cokehead Mother


    Tan inverse was last up in 2002. The difference equations proof was up last year.

    I would love parts and max/min as the Q8 (b) and (c). Don't think it'll happen this year somehow. :(


  • Advertisement
Advertisement