Maths (H) Paper 1

Gileadi

whats the thoughts?


was relativly fair i thought until i hit into question 6 and 7

6 (b) wasnt very nice and i wasnt a great fan of the c part 3

and 7 with the newton rapson thing was worded very poorly i thought

Fortinbras'

Gileadi wrote:

whats the thoughts?


was relativly fair i thought until i hit into question 6 and 7

6 (b) wasnt very nice and i wasnt a great fan of the c part 3

and 7 with the newton rapson thing was worded very poorly i thought

I did absoultely terribly cant believe it

kaimera

relax. I felt the exam same the first time I did. I ended up repeated the maths but best decision I ever made.

concentrate on the rest of the exams.

Alan G

Wasn't bad but there were alot of tough bits!!!

deek

Newton raphson Grrrrrrr!!!
Didnt know how to get image of a curve GRRrrrrr!!!
DeMoivre theorem bit GRRRRRRRR!!!!

Apart from that it was pretty run-of-the-mill though think ive prob done grand

randomfella

i left out 5. Surprised myself by doing well with q4.

I felt both differentiation q's were a bit tough especially q7.

q8 i didn't know the proof for a cone. I was delighted to see factor therom.

I think i've upped myself from my d3 in mocks. Prob got a b/c.

Fortinbras'

For that differentiation curve

I got the 1st bit right got the horiz asymptote right, wrote down the eqn for vert. asymptote wrong and got the therefore worng answer using the right method,
drew the same wrong curve and
got the last bit wrong butt attemepted how much marks will I get for that question?

rasher_b2

I though it was a lot harder than the previous 2 years. I don't think I did very well in it

*Angel*

Generally I thought it was tougher than other years but I found it good, the only part I didn't get was a bit in the newton-raphson question. But that was my worst question so it's fine.

Cina

Hard paper I though, much harder than the 2004.

Q1 and Q2 were the usual run of the mill stuff, except for the 2^1/4 yoke in 1 b. 2 c was a very easy piece of maths.

Q3, a and b parts were fine, standard stuff. C part was a little overly difficult I think, De Moivres theorem was too hard for 10 marks and the last part was ridiculous.

Didn't do 4 and 5 but they looked difficult, considering they are sposd to be the easiest questions on the paper.

Q6 and Q7: Hardest differentiation questions I've seen in ages, 6 (b) was very long and very difficult to get into tans at the end. 6 c(iii) was a joke, far too difficult. Q7 a and b were fine, c was hard but it was relatively easy to get attempt marks on the question, but very hard to finish.

Q8: usually the HARDEST question on the paper but it was BY FAR the easiest question on it, usual run of the mill a and b's , c (i) was a complete the square (a hard one but still easy to get some marks on) and c(ii) was the cone yoke, not bad at all.

Overall? Hard paper, easily the hardest in a few years, even harder than 2003, and the questions were so inconsistent throughout, I think I did ok though!

TailFeather

Definitely did rubbish!! Loads of stuff i jus didnt think would come up came up!! I hope they feel sorry for me and throw me a load of attempt marks!!

lauraoaktree

the two diff q's really sucked. was the de moivres part the actual proof??
ie p(0)=............
P k+1...

JackKelly

that was the most unfair paper i've ever seen.
Far too difficult.
Maths is my best and favourite subject, one which i could have got an a1 in , and to be given that paper it a joke.
It was completely different in most parts to anything i've seen before.

So many a parts, were of b-part standard. Take for example, the differenciate by 1st principles x^2. Although its an easy question, usually 1st deriavative come up in (b).
The inverse sin of x/5 in 6a. Also a b part.
And what annoyed me most, i chose not to do binomials and leave out question 5. So why the f*** do i find binomials in both 3 and 4?
The c part to sequences and series was completely algebra. 1 and 2 were long enough. Didnt need another c part of it.an as i said part b was a binomail expansion.
The newton rhaphson question was insane. Never done anything like that before. And i was ALWAYS under the impression that asymbtotes never cross.Even the 6(b) was hard.

I was expecting to be able to handle most a and b parts easy enough, and at least make a positive stab at the c parts, and instead, got completely panicked at the amount of difficulty and left it a mess. So many people have been giving out about this paper. Im annoyed. I went in wanting an A and came out in hope of c.

*Angel*

I think everyone is going to have to realise that just because you found it a hard paper it doesn't mean you won't get the grade you deserve, so many people said it was impossible so obviously they are going to go easy in the marking schemes.

Teslacuted

Newton-Rhapson question was just wrong, and being asked to sketch a graph? They can't spring that sort of thing on us, if enough people make a formal complaint they'll take it into account when marking.

exiztone

I was SO difficult. What was the deal with that Newton-Raphson thing? I just didn't get what they were saying... I hope they won't mark it hard, it was so difficult

I tried my best and did 6 questions, attempted every sub section of them... but still

randomfella

cHilliSheep wrote:

1(c): (x-p)² is factor of x³+qx+r
show that 27r²+4q³=0
express teh roots of 3x²+q=0 in terms of p
hadnt a notion of this!?
Q6b,Q7c[WTF??]

don't forget ur 0xsquared how do u get that small 2?

then u get ur factor which is x + cant remember and u get the rest in terms of p.

Anybody else finding it hard to judge where they are at??

JackKelly

maybe the case, it was still completely unfair. It seemed like whoever wrote it, was trying to catch people out. It is also a total kick in the teeth. I went in full of confidence, ready to tackle most parts well and clean. Came out feeling like not bothering with irish. As i siad, maths is my best subject, and ive spent ALOT of time studying it, and instead of doing well and being rewarded for all my work, i get killed. If i had done no work on maths than grand, but that wasnt the case.

randomfella

Teslacuted wrote:

Newton-Rhapson question was just wrong, and being asked to sketch a graph? They can't spring that sort of thing on us, if enough people make a formal complaint they'll take it into account when marking.

true. i really didn't like this. Completly through me off. i was hoping for a quick part (a) or (b) with the newton rapson method but it wasn't to be

don't forget ur 0xsquared how do u get that small 2?

then u get ur factor which is x + cant remember and u get the rest in terms of p.

Anybody else finding it hard to judge where they are at??

Do your long division and you'll have the first part worked out. For the second part, you sub in what p was in terms of q and you'll see that the roots are x=p and x=-p, if my memory serves me correctly.

JackKelly

LMAO, its getting COMPLETELY slammed all over the place. Radio and news. All saying the same thing. "Hoping for a1, not sure if i passed."

lol please dont start giving out solutions. Make me feel bad

randomfella

TimAy wrote:

maybe the case, it was still completely unfair. It seemed like whoever wrote it, was trying to catch people out. It is also a total kick in the teeth. I went in full of confidence, ready to tackle most parts well and clean. Came out feeling like not bothering with irish. As i siad, maths is my best subject, and ive spent ALOT of time studying it, and instead of doing well and being rewarded for all my work, i get killed. If i had done no work on maths than grand, but that wasnt the case.

don't worry about it too much, i'm sure u will make it up in the paper 2

CoffeeFreak

I thought it was alright, but there were definitely some tricky bits in it...ie. the Newton-Raphson one, that's usually an easy one but I couldn't really understand exactly what they were were looking for . I also didn't know how to get the image of the stupid graph..I'm sure it's really simple, but wouldn't it be in the co-ordinate geometry section? I haven't studied that yet.

randomfella

Deleted User wrote:

Do your long divion and you'll have the first part worked out. For the second part, you sub in what p was in terms of q and you'll see that the roots are x=p and x=-p, if my memory serves me correctly.

you beauty!!! exactly what i got. I have all my answers written down in the booklet. I'll prob go through it someday after the exams.

exiztone

Teslacuted wrote:

Newton-Rhapson question was just wrong, and being asked to sketch a graph? They can't spring that sort of thing on us, if enough people make a formal complaint they'll take it into account when marking.

Oh yeah, that too. I haven't sketched a graph once in LC higher level maths. I honestly didn't know it could come up. I was so shocked when it did, but I used the side of my tables book and drew some crude asymptotes

big_moe

yeah i found the paper quite different to anything in the past papers. q's 1-3 were grand but the diff q's were quite weird. yeah i got a fright when i saw that 2^1/4 but i got it in the end 2^(9/4)... i hope!!!! that question 1 part c was very easy. for the roots i got p/3 and -27p^5 hope they are right!!!!


moe

CoffeeFreak

CoffeeFreak wrote:

I thought it was alright, but there were definitely some tricky bits in it...ie. the Newton-Raphson one, that's usually an easy one but I couldn't really understand exactly what they were were looking for . I also didn't know how to get the image of the stupid graph..I'm sure it's really simple, but wouldn't it be in the co-ordinate geometry section? I haven't studied that yet.

I'm pretty sure I got the Newton-Raphson thing and the graph right. But I just realised that it did something stupid with De Moivre's theorem, and I'm not going to embarrass myself and say what it was.

fletch

deek wrote:

Newton raphson Grrrrrrr!!!
Didnt know how to get image of a curve GRRrrrrr!!!
DeMoivre theorem bit GRRRRRRRR!!!!

Apart from that it was pretty run-of-the-mill though think ive prob done grand

Oh god I remember that Newton Raphson method....AFIAR it was a handy one to pick up the marks....was jus a bit laborious

exiztone

Oh, also, did anyone think it was weird the way they added that algebra stuff into the question 4? :eek: I was expecting general sequence and series only!

nobodythere

Forget about it, nothing that you do now will have consequence. On with paper 2... at least people will probably be more prepared for it

big_moe

big_moe wrote:

yeah i found the paper quite different to anything in the past papers. q's 1-3 were grand but the diff q's were quite weird. yeah i got a fright when i saw that 2^1/4 but i got it in the end 2^(9/4)... i hope!!!! that question 1 part c was very easy. for the roots i got p/3 and -27p^5 hope they are right!!!!


moe

Your first thing is right, but when I did the long division I got q=-3p^2. So when you put that in the equation in place of q you get 3x^2-3p^2=o, which is the same as x^2-p^2, which is equal to (x-p)(x+p). So the answer is p and -p, if I did it right that is.

dimerocks

binomial, complex numbers were harder than normal and they were my bankers!oh for **** sake, integration was a pile of piss however, average mark was a d2 last year and the examiner was told to bring it up so i got the drop on it. the rest of the papper alas dropped me

big_moe

feck. for some reason i used alpha and beta as the roots and cant remember what i did to get my answer!! question 2 part c (ii) very quick and handy to get out. a bit of an easy part c IMO

Teslacuted

What did people thing of the DeMoivres? I think I got it out, I expanded the bracket they gave in terms of Z and then subbed cos0 + isin0 in for Z and did the usual Demoivres thing and the only thing that worries me is that I got +6 aswell as the answer they wanted.

randomfella

differentiation had always been one of the easier questions for me but it really threw me off and i know other lads who were banking on them. I did 7 of them and messed up part c's on the last 3 q's.

not fair in that way, but the question 4 was a beauty prob because it was mainly algebra.

defiantshrimp

I agree totally with TimAy, math is my favourite subject and one of my best but this paper totally threw me. It is unfair to give us a paper so out of tune with the last 10 years just to try catch us out. Question 4 was really unfair. The binomial was totally out of place and part (c) was weird and again totally unfair. A lot of the part c’s were weird especially the final part of Q 6. Too many people drop honours maths and yet they feel the need to needlessly mix things up and change it from the year before. Sure they can make the papers harder if they want but when they mix things up like today it only makes people panic (well me anyway). I think I may have scraped the A though, so hopefully paper two goes well!

TimAy wrote:

And i was ALWAYS under the impression that asymbtotes never cross.Even the 6(b) was hard.

And just a quick pedantic note (sad I know) but asymptotes for a rational function have to cross! One is a line on the x axis and one is a line on the y axis, they would have to be parallel not to cross!

Beno

There is gonna be a whole load of people repeatin next year......

Scarinae

That was such an awful paper for me. I worked out my marks, I should have about 20% more on that paper than I did on my mocks, but I was hoping for way more of a leap because I have worked so hard on Maths, I've studied it way more than any of my other subjects. I just hope paper 2 is nice

I'm surprised that people weren't happy to see a graph tbh. It looked really easy when I first looked at it and it was even easier when I did it! Afaik there are 2 ways to do (c).

Translate the graph through the point where the asymptotes intersect (1,1), and see if it's the same.

Or check to see if the imaged graph has the same asymptotes, which it did.

I think we were suppose to do it the second way, seen as how it was a differentiation question. But I don't know how many people knew about that. I don't think it's in the books.

TimAy

TimAy wrote:

And i was ALWAYS under the impression that asymbtotes never cross.Even the 6(b) was hard.

Actually it's quite the opposite: they ALWAYS INTERSECT. Even if you didn't know that, then just plain logic would have told you: If there is a HORIZONTAL and a VERTICAL asymptote, the surely they must cross?

edibility

big_moe wrote:

yeah i found the paper quite different to anything in the past papers. q's 1-3 were grand but the diff q's were quite weird. yeah i got a fright when i saw that 2^1/4 but i got it in the end 2^(9/4)... i hope!!!! that question 1 part c was very easy. for the roots i got p/3 and -27p^5 hope they are right!!!!


moe

The roots were -p and +p. The 2^1/4 was ok though I thought?


2^1/4 + 2^1/4 + 2^1/4 + 2^1/4
4(2^1/4)
2x2x(2^1/4)
2^9/4 (add the indices)

Scarinae

Deleted User wrote:

But I don't know how many people knew about that. I don't think it's in the books.

Well that's kinda the problem, isn't it? If it's not in the books, how are people meant to know about it? I know some teachers are pretty sound and they teach without really relying on the books, but we were taught straight out of the book and so anything that wasn't in the book, we didn't know

Fishie

Fishie wrote:

Well that's kinda the problem, isn't it? If it's not in the books, how are people meant to know about it? I know some teachers are pretty sound and they teach without really relying on the books, but we were taught straight out of the book and so anything that wasn't in the book, we didn't know

I didn't know it either, as I did both methods, and noticed when I drew the imaged graph that it had the exact same asymptotes, so I assumed it was a rule or something.

edibility

Fishie wrote:

Well that's kinda the problem, isn't it? If it's not in the books, how are people meant to know about it? I know some teachers are pretty sound and they teach without really relying on the books, but we were taught straight out of the book and so anything that wasn't in the book, we didn't know

Twas in my book! A whole section, if I remember rightly.

Teslacuted

Deleted User wrote:

I'm surprised that people weren't happy to see a graph tbh. It looked really easy when I first looked at it and it was even easier when I did it! Afaik there are 2 ways to do (c).

I wasn't ready for the graph, no pencil, no ruler and I was half way through plotting 10 points between 1 and 50 to get the graph shape when I realised the asymptote wouldn't let them go past one...would a 'sketch' (eg a squiggle to just show the shape) get the marks? I still don't agree with it, caught way too many people out. The test is supposed to allow you to tell the examiner what you know, it feels like that juicy fruit ad with the bear trap, the examiners are standing back and laughing.

Digi_Tilmitt

Omg I got completely tr0wned by that exam. I walked in thinking right Seán you've done the work and you know going on the last few papers that you should nail that A1! Afer about 2 questions my confidence had been destroyed it was just so hard and Maths is one of my best subjects and I worked for it and had the past papers mastered. I'd be very lucky if i got a B3 I'm really down I wanted and had it in me to do well but it all just fell apart over that paper.

And wtf were they smoking when they asked to prove that curve was under symettry through the asymtotes!!???! If ANYONE IN IRELAND knew how to do that they should be given an honory docterate.

Digi_Tilmitt

Digi_Tilmitt wrote:

If ANYONE IN IRELAND knew how to do that they should be given an honory docterate.

I knew two ways of doing it. What do I get? :rolleyes:

edibility

Er. People. They asked for a "sketch". Hence all they wanted was a sketch. And I knew two too, can we share the cert Aristotle? :P

*Angel*

Deleted User wrote:

I didn't know it either, as I did both methods, and noticed when I drew the imaged graph that it had the exact same asymptotes, so I assumed it was a rule or something.

Well it was kinda obvious that if you used the intersection of asymptotes for the point through which central symmetry was done that to prove 'the curve is its own image' that it would have the same asymptotes.

*Angel*

*Angel* wrote:

Well it was kinda obvious that if you used the intersection of asymptotes for the point through which central symmetry was done that to prove 'the curve is its own image' that it would have the same asymptotes.

Exactly! Why are people finding that so hard to understand?

Maybe it's the kinda thing that comes up on OL, and we're trying to make it look as complicated as possible.

edibility

edibility wrote:

Er. People. They asked for a "sketch". Hence all they wanted was a sketch. And I knew two too, can we share the cert Aristotle? :P

Ok. I'll let you have it on weekends.