if you got v^2 you rearranged it wrong at the start :P.
I said that since velocity is ds/dt, then v^2 is d^2s/dt^2 which equals acceleration. And dv/dt is also acceleration. At the time, i thought it made sense. Although....yeah, when i left the exam hall, i felt that maybe it wasn't correct. Urgghghghghghghghghghg
Need more opinions on the ar^n ar^n-1 thing. My logic was that if n is the number of bounces, after 1 bounces where n=1, the ball would reach a height of 3.8 not 4, so it works in a similar way to compound interest.
Initially I assumed that 4 being the first term would equal 4*0.95^(1-1)=4. But if n represents bounces (what else could it represent :P), then after the first bounce the ball wouldn't come back to a height of 4m, it would reach 3.8m sincd the question said 0.95 of the previous height- so I used ar^n instead......... I'm worried about this question now
Need more opinions on the ar^n ar^n-1 thing. My logic was that if n is the number of bounces, after 1 bounces where n=1, the ball would reach a height of 3.8 not 4, so it works in a similar way to compound interest.
Initially I assumed that 4 being the first term would equal 4*0.95^(1-1)=4. But if n represents bounces (what else could it represent :P), then after the first bounce the ball wouldn't come back to a height of 4m, it would reach 3.8m sincd the question said 0.95 of the previous height- so I used ar^n instead......... I'm worried about this question now
No, wait. Actually, I remember putting 3.8 down after the first bounce since it makes absolute sense that the ball loses energy after the first bounce, and therefore reaches a lower height. Because it will never equal 4.