The Student Room Group

OCR (non mei) FP2 Monday 27th June 2016

Scroll to see replies

Original post by TheNicholas
Thanks! My answers are the same except I got a different alpha value, think I just mistyped it into my calculator when typing in all my answers, do you happen to remember the questions? Something -e^x =0?


(2x-1)^2-e^x=0
Original post by Sid1234
did something similar to this, but didnt use a/b just said is rational. did I(1) as it was easier


I did that at the start and it worked, but then saw that n>1 so did 2 instead
Reply 162
Original post by Sid1234
1.23 is right, c was 0.15 +2x but you can solve for x and x=0.1, so C was 0.35


Ah cool, I'm pretty confident with the rest of the paper so hopefully not too many dropped there
Original post by Sid1234
(2x-1)^2-e^x=0


Thank you
It asked for n>1. You may have lost a mark

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Mr.Raskolnikov
It asked for n>1. You may have lost a mark

Posted from TSR Mobile


****.
Original post by Sid1234
1: +-ln(1.5+0.5sqrt(5))
2. ln2 - pi/4
3. sketch - one of those ones with a circle ish shape intersecting x axis at 90, then nothing between 2 and 5, then another bit. (0,root2) (0, -root2) A, B, C were coordinates.
4. Beta = 3.733, Alpha = 1.6291
5. Maclaurin : 2x - (8/3)x^3
Pi approx 2/3 which rounds to 3
6. Theta = pi/10
(0.951,0.309)
area pi/20
7. ln(infinity) for first part, 2 is upper limit of second part
8. bunch of show thats, messed up reduction.


I agree with all of them.
Think the main thing you had to show was the square root of 2 became normal 2 as k=multiples of 2. Since k is rational the whole thing must be rational. True for n=2. True for 2k, etc.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Mr.Raskolnikov
Think the main thing you had to show was the square root of 2 became normal 2 as k=multiples of 2. Since k is rational the whole thing must be rational. True for n=2. True for 2k, etc.

Posted from TSR Mobile


yeah i got to (root2)^2k and said that is always rational
Original post by Sid1234
did something similar to this, but didnt use a/b just said is rational. did I(1) as it was easier


I believe, n>1 was stated in the question. I think that we had to prove for even n, though not sure about it.
Original post by tangotangopapa2
I believe, n>1 was stated in the question. I think that we had to prove for even n, though not sure about it.


oh s h i t !
Yes, as if it's odd you'll have root 2 in the expression and the integral is no longer rational. You didn't have to say it was even, but that's why the condition was given

Posted from TSR Mobile
The only thing you had to show was there are no square roots and you get an expression for the integral. As k is an integer and becomes the only variable down to n=2, the integral must be rational

Posted from TSR Mobile
Does anyone remember exact question?
Is the integral from 0 or 1 to infinity. I spent ages trying to figure it out. Can't see how it's from 1 because the rectangle become above the curve

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Mr.Raskolnikov
Is the integral from 0 or 1 to infinity. I spent ages trying to figure it out. Can't see how it's from 1 because the rectangle become above the curve

Posted from TSR Mobile


You have to integrate from one to infinity and add the rectangle at one because you can't integrate from 0 as you would get 1/0
My answer became ln(infinity)<sum<ln(infinity)+1/0
I assumed 1/0 is equal to infinity so my answer became
Infinty<sum<infinity+infinity

Posted from TSR Mobile
ffs, i self-taught this module with no help during my gap year and wanted to do well , think i've just scraped an A -.-
Original post by tobybes
I agree with all of them.


For 1 I had ln(1.5 +/- 0.5rt(5)) is that equivalent?
Come in guys its great if it went well for you personally but please stop scaring peopl

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending