Oxford MAT 1999 - check?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Ateo

Original post by baggyyo

But 3-4 doesn't include <2??

Does this help?

Reply 21

Ateo

Original post by baggyyo

...

I agree with you on that the recent papers are harder, I should probably focus on them a bit more. I applied for just maths. Are you applying as well?

Reply 22

ghostwalker

Original post by Ateo

Ok, so when exactly do we use combinations (binomial coefficient) and when permutations (factorials) and when powers as in this question? There is also a similar card question on the 2001 paper and it includes probability. I understand the solution but I am certain I wouldn't be able to come up with it since my knowledge of combinations and permutations is vague. With that said though, I don't think there will be anything to do with probability on this year's paper as its based on C1 and C2. No harm in learning it though, I will have to eventually and it will prepare me better just in case.

Study the book is my best suggestion.

Reply 23

baggyyo

Original post by Ateo

I agree with you on that the recent papers are harder, I should probably focus on them a bit more. I applied for just maths. Are you applying as well?

Yeah for just maths. :smile:

Where else have you applied? Any offers? And good luck.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 24

baggyyo

Original post by Ateo

Does this help?

Don't you get:

x>-1
x>3
x<4
x<2

??

Reply 25

cooldudeman

these older MAT exams are way easier than the recent ones... especially the multiple choice.
i think this is the only exam that you can write with whatever colored pen you want! it doesn't state it in the covers.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 26

baggyyo

Original post by cooldudeman

I was just thinking that! I have started doing the past papers in orange!!

Reply 27

Ateo

Original post by baggyyo

Don't you get:

x>-1
x>3
x<4
x<2

??

No, I got; x>2 , x<4 which implies 2<x<4
and; x<-1 , x>3

These are shown on the number line I posted. You do know that the inequality sign is reversed when you multiply both sides by a negative, right?

Reply 28

baggyyo

Original post by Ateo

Yes, I know that. But I didn't have to multiply by a negative. I see why method was wrong now. It wasn't to do with the negatives. Just being silly. :smile:

Thanks though.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 29

aMathsStudent

Hi, i don't quite see how your question 1 part (J) is correct. F(X) is the integral between 0 and x of a function, f(x). If we say g(x) is the integral of f(x), then F(X) is g(x)-g(0). g(x) will have terms in x and g(0) will be a constant. So, differentiating, g(0) will disappear and we will be left with the differential of g(x), which is f(x).
I might have explained this badly (maybe too many randomly defined functions)... However when we sub in x=0 in the integral of f(x), we will get a constant so it will disappear when we find F'(x). Is this right? I'm taking the MAT on Wednesday so any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Reply 30

Ateo

Original post by aMathsStudent

You are right, my working is wrong. You might want to see this.

Reply 31

aMathsStudent

Original post by Ateo

You are right, my working is wrong. You might want to see this.

thanks, that's a really helpful link.

Reply 32

S.R

What is this for?

EDIT: clicked on it and it says its for entrance to oxford maths. I'm surprised, it's not that hard, If I really tried I think I could get at least 70% in it.