The 2012 STEP Results Discussion Thread
Maths exam discussion - share revision tips in preparation for GCSE, A Level and other maths exams and discuss how they went afterwards.
-
View Poll Results: Should we include the AEA in this thread?
Yes 53 33.76% No 104 66.24%
-
Re: The 2012 STEP Prep Thread!Spoiler:ShowI meant geometric

-
Re: The 2012 STEP Prep Thread!(Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
Barring the small sign error (which I assume is a typo), that would be a good idea.
(Original post by hassi94)
Yep that's right. Bit extra;Spoiler:ShowWhat can you say the coefficient of a^k is for the first integral then?
and a tad more:Spoiler:ShowAnd how does this compare to the second?
Ermmm.... Equating the coefficients of alpha to the k.


-
Re: The 2012 STEP Prep Thread!I don't see the problem really. Okay some implication signs would be nice but it seems pretty clear to me.(Original post by ben-smith)
as a marker, I would struggle to understand what is going on here.
to be clear, where has the second equality come from in the last step? -
Re: The 2012 STEP Prep Thread!There doesn't appear to be too many issues IMO, except the implication signs. You shouldn't need to explain why n!(n+1) = (n+1)!.(Original post by ben-smith)
as a marker, I would struggle to understand what is going on here.
to be clear, where has the second equality come from in the last step? -
Re: The 2012 STEP Prep Thread!I'm seriously not on it today! I thought he was making a stronger statement on the last line because, as you say, I didn't see why he had the n!(n+1) = (n+1)! bit at the end. My apologies.(Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
There doesn't appear to be too many issues IMO, except the implication signs. You shouldn't need to explain why n!(n+1) = (n+1)!. -
Re: The 2012 STEP Prep Thread!(Original post by hassi94)
I don't see the problem really. Okay some implication signs would be nice but it seems pretty clear to me.
(Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
There doesn't appear to be too many issues IMO, except the implication signs. You shouldn't need to explain why n!(n+1) = (n+1)!.
I do put the implications in the written working but Latex becomes cumbersome.(Original post by ben-smith)
I'm seriously not on it today! I thought he was making a stronger statement on the last line because, as you say, I didn't see why he had the n!(n+1) = (n+1)! bit at the end. My apologies. -
Re: The 2012 STEP Prep Thread!Happens. No need to apologise.(Original post by ben-smith)
I'm seriously not on it today! I thought he was making a stronger statement on the last line because, as you say, I didn't see why he had the n!(n+1) = (n+1)! bit at the end. My apologies.
-
Re: The 2012 STEP Prep Thread!That's what I assumed to be honest; I do the same(Original post by wcp100)
I do put the implications in the written working but Latex becomes cumbersome.
-
Re: The 2012 STEP Prep Thread!Love what you did here! Seems like you were ignored, but it does indeed work for(Original post by gff)
I may claim it works for
. 
(Assume we'll add the proper constant of integration this time)
. Very nicely done 
Last edited by Xero Xenith; 23-04-2012 at 14:37. -
Re: The 2012 STEP Prep Thread!Excuse my ignorance but I'm pretty confused here(Original post by Xero Xenith)
Love what you did here! Seems like you were ignored, but it does indeed work for
. Very nicely done 
Why does it work for n = -1? That would say that the integral of 1/x = 0/0 surely?
I don't know much about L'hopital's Rule but I don't see the relevance? -
Re: The 2012 STEP Prep Thread!Here's the argument, as best I understand it. Please forgive the terrible TeX...(Original post by hassi94)
Excuse my ignorance but I'm pretty confused here
Why does it work for n = -1? That would say that the integral of 1/x = 0/0 surely?
I don't know much about L'hopital's Rule but I don't see the relevance?
L'Hopital's Rule is beyond both A-level and STEP. It says that if the top and the bottom of a limit come out the same - infinity or zero - then you can differentiate the top and the bottom, with respect to the 'limit variable' (in this case a), and the limit stays the same.
The thing that seems bad to me is that you've essentially added a constant into the limit which equals negative infinity (
).
Last edited by Xero Xenith; 23-04-2012 at 14:52. -
Re: The 2012 STEP Prep Thread!Ah okay I see thanks. Is that sort of logic allowed where instead of taking a=0 (which it is) we take a tending to zero (which technically it is not)?(Original post by Xero Xenith)
Here's the argument, as best I understand it. Please forgive the terrible TeX...
L'Hopital's Rule is beyond both A-level and STEP. It says that if the top and the bottom of a limit come out the same - infinity or zero - then you can differentiate the top and the bottom, with respect to the 'limit variable' (in this case a), and the limit stays the same.
The thing that seems bad to me is that you've essentially added a constant into the limit which equals negative infinity (
).
Last edited by Intriguing Alias; 23-04-2012 at 14:57. -
Re: The 2012 STEP Prep Thread!There are some caveats to this though e.g. lim[g'(x)/f'(x)] must exist for the rule to apply.(Original post by Xero Xenith)
Here's the argument, as best I understand it. Please forgive the terrible TeX...
L'Hopital's Rule is beyond both A-level and STEP. It says that if the top and the bottom of a limit come out the same - infinity or zero - then you can differentiate the top and the bottom, with respect to the 'limit variable' (in this case a), and the limit stays the same.
The thing that seems bad to me is that you've essentially added a constant into the limit which equals negative infinity (
).
