Higher Level Maths 2009(Paper 1): How was it for you?

orangetictac

That_Guy

orangetictac wrote: »

Good then I take it?

turgon

Orangetictac is living in the past

orangetictac

Ya...the Algebra, Calculus, Complex numbers, Induction/Binomial and S+S were fine.

No i didnt do the paper:o but I am interested in hearing your opinions??

turgon

Whats this, orangetictac with 2 posts in 1 day???!!!

Seriously though, the paper should be here once its uploaded.

That_Guy

orangetictac wrote: »

Ya...the Algebra, Calculus, Complex numbers, Induction/Binomial and S+S were fine.

No i didnt do the paper:o but I am interested in hearing your opinions??

???????? Bloody well confused. Ah well.... I'm off to vote.

turgon

Colm Burke ftw!

orangetictac

No! Kathy Sinnott ftw;) haha.

STAY ON TOPIC :pac:

turgon

Thats back seat modding right there, Ive a right to report you

So ANYONE any feedback? I dont know when the papers online!

That_Guy

turgon wrote: »

Thats back seat modding right there, Ive a right to report you

So ANYONE any feedback? I dont know when the papers online!

Give it about half an hour. They're probably taking their time so that paper 2 doesn't get uploaded instead.

Mongey

Paper was nice, a few odd things in it though. 1 (c) worked out weird. Q 7 (c) (ii) seems to have been a trick question or a typo, it asks you to show that 2< 2.5 basically.

KokaNoodles

It wasn't to bad, although i wuda prefered last years paper 1. All in all i lost about 2 c questions and a b or so .

SarcasticFairy

Failed. Just epically failed.

timmywex

Just back in now, did all the questions,

thought in general it was grand. Few tricky parts.


Question 1 and 2, the very end of them was tricky to get as required.


Made a slip on c part 1 in question 3,


Question 4 part c was tricky enough. Confusingly phrased


Question 5 part c had a complex change of base, i got it but i imagine alot didnt even notice it!.

Question 6 was grand in general

Question 7 was slightly confusing in part c i would think

Question 8 was grand.


Hopefully got an A1 in the paper overall!:cool:

whadabouchasir

Mongey wrote: »

Q 7 (c) (ii) seems to have been a trick question or a typo, it asks you to show that 2< 2.5 basically.

All you had to do was to show that the root is between 2 and 2.5 . Exactly the same as part(i) you just use 2.5 instead of 3.

Delta Kilo

I thought it was brilliant! Delighted with it. Question 3 part b was the only bit that was kinda hard. Plenty of time to do everything.

For the newton raphson bit, I got 2.667 for Annes, but it says show it is less than 2.5. I only thought afterwards that maybe you had to get a 3rd approximation?? Either way it was slightly confusing. Everything else was perfect. Everything worked out grand and was straightforward!

Loved it!

Acid_Violet

I'm 100% certain that there was a mistake made in 7c. 100%. Hopefully we'll get 20/20 for that.

2c was tricky.

Know I made too many slips, but such is life.......

Crocodilius

Just finished it there, did 1,2,3,6,7,8

Q1 was nice enough, but i'd like to see answers for b(ii) and c.

Q2 C(ii) was awkward and I din't get an answer for it. anyone recall what it worked out as?

Q3 - I didn't know they could ask integration in the complex numbers question???

Q6 - Our class skipped Rates of Change - hadn't a clue. I'd say lotd of people were expectin Sin x or Cos x for first principles instead of root x.

Q7 - C was awkward. (i) and (ii) very confusing and easily misunderstood. (iii) was nice because you didn't have to get (i) and (ii) out to do it.

Q8 - B(ii) caused a slip-up for me. didn't know e^ln8 = 8, i'd say lots fell down there.

Can anyone remember the answers they got? i wanna cross reference ot get an idea of how i did.


-Edit-
Why are you 100% certain that there was a mistake? It didn't seem right either, and if they were asking you to do the same in part (i) as part (ii) then i find that very odd - they don't like testing the same skill twice.

~Candy~

it was ok overall...a few thicky bits there alrite...

not much a fan of Q6,Q7 partCs...like Q7 partC was :eek:

i made some stupid error is Q3 ..grr...and i hated the Q1

but yea...its alrite, i didn't do fab not bad ither...

whadabouchasir

Acid_Violet wrote: »

2c was tricky.

did anyone get 2c out?

~Candy~

Acid_Violet wrote: »

I'm 100% certain that there was a mistake made in 7c. 100%. Hopefully we'll get 20/20 for that.

2c was tricky.

Know I made too many slips, but such is life.......

lol...i was thinking of that in the exam too..

but meh i think i went wrong ..altho i checked in Ntimes..still got the same answer..

papu

whadabouchasir wrote: »

did anyone get 2c out?

I tried my best anyway =]

paper was alright , couple of odd questions tho... dont feel i did brilliant in it but sure moving on.. english tomorrow =[[[

shanethemofo

Not great. Not terrible.

Need to do much better in paper 2 though.

~Candy~

whadabouchasir wrote: »

did anyone get 2c out?

i think i got my answer in terms of alphas.. =O

i got 2 values but a set of values

timmywex

Just thinking about 7 c again now,

Itll probably be marked

10
5
5

So if you got the first one, and attempted parts 2 and 3 your on the way already!


Anyway, whatever it is, ill worry about it in august!

Davidius

I tried to get as much as the paper done as I could but I think I pretty much ****ed myself over with my indecision.

Q1 was grand.

Q2 was grand for the most part, I was spending too long trying to weasle it out in c(ii) so I dropped it.

Q3 was a good question.

Q4, only did part a and b(i) before I decided it was going to take to much of my time. I attempted it near last.

Q5 (a) and (b) were alright. I forgot everything I knew about changing bases in logs so I couldn't do anything with c.

Q6 Great Question

Q7 was grand except (c). I completely neglected that section which is a complete shame because it looked like a simple question.

Q8 Grand except (c). Mind fart, kept using y^2 = l^2-x^2 for about several pages. Then I realised I was supposed to use y=mx when it was too late.

I really fecked up on the c parts. Don't think there's even a chance of getting an A1 now.

straight_As

Seeing as the SEC are yet to post the paper on their interwebz site fosho, anyone up for scanning up a few pages of it?

Just for funsies.

SligoBrewer

Heartbroken.

Question 3c. Like wtf? :eek:

There was no typo in Question 7c. It was 100% perfect. A similar q was up in 2003 afair.

The Maverick

I thought it was alright,there were a good few tricky bits.Messed up on Q3c,dam my lack of knowledge De Moivre's.I think everyone found the Newton Raphson bit strange.Overall I say I did ok,not great but not bad either.

Acid_Violet

~Candy~ wrote: »

i think i got my answer in terms of alphas.. =O

i got 2 values but a set of values

Yeah I'm pretty sure I could've figured out 2c in terms of alphas but they said 'values', not in terms of alphas.... I think the problem with that question was the wording.

The maths genius' in my year (and trust me, they're genius'!) had the same problems in 2c and 7c. If the A1 standard students made these mistakes (or were put off by these questions for whatever reason), I suppose there marking scheme is going to HAVE to reflect this.

Delta Kilo

whadabouchasir wrote: »

did anyone get 2c out?

I used the minus b formula and let one root equal n times the other root and tried to solve. Got down a good bit but I couldn't finish it outright. I'd say I got most of the attempt marks:o

challengemaster

was nice enough alright - all I can say is, fcuking simultanious logs!

I managed to get 2c out fully, if its right or not is another question

From what I can recall, my answer to c (i) was r = (q²-4q²n²p³) / 2n²p² or along those lines. Tbh, my brain is half-fried lol.

Elli-May

whadabouchasir wrote: »

All you had to do was to show that the root is between 2 and 2.5 . Exactly the same as part(i) you just use 2.5 instead of 3.

I did that!
I was all confused coz I thought you had to use the newton raphson method

Fair paper all in all I think

How did you guys show that the tangents couldn't be perpendicular

whadabouchasir

Delta Kilo wrote: »

I used the minus b formula and let one root equal n times the other root and tried to solve.

I tried that too,but it just ended up in a big mess,sum and product simultaneous equations didn't give me much joy either.

Fringe

Did really good. It was tricky but I made it. Definitely got an A.

2(c) was a stupid question. Ended up with something ridiculous. I figured out how to do (ii) but I wasn't bothered since it was the seventh question I was doing. I think you get r, put n and p in. Then you say sqrt(q^2 - 4r) > 0. Sub in r and you can then get the range of values for q. I didn't get a nice quadratic though so I moved on.

4(c) was also really tricky. It was a nice question though.

5(c) was very awkward. Took me so long to figure out how to change the base9. I ended up messing with logs for a good while until I got it.

7(c) was badly phrased. They added way too much information to make it seem cool and trendy like all the cool kids use Newton-Raphson today. Turns out it was much easier than it appeared to be.

SligoBrewer

Why should 7C be easier marked?

The question was basically spelled out for you.

Fringe

Elli-May wrote: »

I did that!
I was all confused coz I thought you had to use the newton raphson method

Fair paper all in all I think

How did you guys show that the tangents couldn't be perpendicular

Differentiate the equation. You get something like -1/(x-1)^2.
This means that the slope will always be negative so if you multiply them, they'll never equal -1.

Acid_Violet

Fringe wrote: »

5(c) was very awkward. Took me so long to figure out how to change the base9. I ended up messing with logs for a good while until I got it.

How'd ya manage that? What was your answer?

amacachi

For 2cii I got q<0, q>0. Have a feeling that'll be wrong.

Also I decided during the paper that 25+1=24 and only realised when I was in the car home. :mad:
Also I didn't read a question properly and didn't draw a graph, but got the rest right.
Looked over volume of a cone last night but couldn't remember it.

All in all I got 75-80%, no chance of the A1 I pretty much needed now.

Acid_Violet

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Why should 7C be easier marked?

The question was basically spelled out for you.

They asked you that Anne's root is less than 2.5 but it was 2.66, which in turn was greater than Barry's. I know I'd my method right.

ayapatrick

Elli-May wrote: »

I did that!
I was all confused coz I thought you had to use the newton raphson method

Fair paper all in all I think

How did you guys show that the tangents couldn't be perpendicular

i think ya had not sure?
i thin we had to get the second approx for barry which i didnt fekin do:( otherwise think it went well!:D hope fully between 80 and 90 % all goin well! didnt get 2 c though! as someone mentioned i used the -b formula on it!

timmywex

Elli-May wrote: »

I did that!


How did you guys show that the tangents couldn't be perpendicular

I diff'd the formula and got somthing over (x-3)^2


Then i said since a square will be positive, its not possible to get a negative slope, thus its not possible to have m1.m2=-1

amacachi

timmywex wrote: »

I diff'd the formula and got somthing over (x-3)^2


Then i said since a square will be positive, its not possible to get a negative slope, thus its not possible to have m1.m2=-1

I just said dy/dx times dy/dx = whatever it was and it ended up that it couldn't be a negative number.

Fringe

Acid_Violet wrote: »

How'd ya manage that? What was your answer?

I did something weird by reasoning that log9 is 1/2log3. I did it by playing with log10 and log100 and after experimenting, found out.

I only realised now though that an easier way is just to use change of base to get log3 x/log3 9 which is 1/2 log3 x.

Nihilist21

I've approximated that I got in the region of 90%, I can't see how I'd get less than 85% - since I had time to go over all my answers. Anyhoo here's a breakdown of how it was per question.

1 = Got it all except C, which I did via the right method just must have made a slip (so should get most of the marks).

2= All except C (ii), clearly others had problems with this too.

3= All of this right I think, I wasn't sure about C (ii) but my friend and I both did it the same way, using the equation for sin3a in the prior question.

6= All correct, except for perhaps a small slip - unsure.

7= Everything up to C (i) was fine, then (ii) and (iii) I attempted.

8= Everything right, was a lovely integration question. So happy the volume of a cone came up instead of an area question.

Delta Kilo

whadabouchasir wrote: »

I tried that too,but it just ended up in a big mess,sum and product simultaneous equations didn't give me much joy either.

Ya its really annoying when you know you have the correct methods but you end up with a big jungle of letters and your like: Wha?

SligoBrewer

Acid_Violet wrote: »

They asked you that Anne's root is less than 2.5 but it was 2.66, which in turn was greater than Barry's. I know I'd my method right.

There you had to sub in 2.5 into f(x) and prove that the roots crossed before 2.5

What you did there was for part iii

sheehy898

Wasn't too bad, I didn't get an A or anything but maybe a B, at worst a C.I didn't like 4c or 2c:)

kevogy

1a) cross multiplyd got 6x = 9y whatever that ment
1c) divided in in disaster

2b) complete guess
2c) complete guess

3c) the bastards and their de moivre

6) ok
7c) got anne = 2.6667 anthough it wax supposed to b less than 2.5

8) attempted disaster


26 % out the entire maths according to me

Acid_Violet

Hang on..... Maybe I misread 7c(ii)...

Were they looking for you to show that f(2)< 2.5 whilst f(3)>2.5?

whadabouchasir

Fringe wrote: »

Did really good. cool and trendy like all the cool kids use Newton-Raphson today.

Do they not?