The Student Room Group

Edexcel C3,C4 June 2013 Thread

Scroll to see replies

Original post by F1Addict
Yes it should. My mistake. Fixed it now though.

For x+2x2\frac{x+2}{x-2}, you want to write x+2x+2 into something that has x2x-2. You can't do anything with the xx, but you can rewrite the +2+2 differently. Think of two numbers that make +2+2. From the bottom of the fraction you know one number is 2-2. What is the other?

edit: Perhaps a better way to think of it is like this: The aim to to eventually cancel out the x2x-2 on the bottom with x2x-2 on the top to get 11. So you know the top has to be written as: (x2+something)(x-2 + \mathrm{something}), where the something has to be set so that the top is still x+2x+2, but written differently.

The last one follows similarly.

Give this a go too:
2x1x1\dfrac{2x-1}{x-1}

Spoiler



thank youuuu !!!! i think im getting it nowww :biggrin: ... so in what circumstances should i KNOW when to use this method?
Original post by masryboy94
thank youuuu !!!! i think im getting it nowww :biggrin: ... so in what circumstances should i KNOW when to use this method?


When both denominator and numerator are of the same degree and aren't too different? If it looks complicated or the degree of the numerator is higher than the denominator just use long division :smile:
Original post by masryboy94
thank youuuu !!!! i think im getting it nowww :biggrin: ... so in what circumstances should i KNOW when to use this method?

For C4, you can use this when can't integrate a fraction directly. If you look at the examples I gave you, none of them can be integrated directly. You have to split them into partial fractions first. You can use the normal method of partial fractions to work it out, or you can use the method/trick you've just learnt. Sometimes the latter is quicker and requires less work. The trick doesn't work if the 'x' terms don't have the same power on top or bottom as well. When ever you do either method, always check that you've split the fraction correctly by substituting a number for xx and checking that the result from both the original and partial fraction is the same. :wink:
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by F1Addict


Give this a go too:
2x1x1\dfrac{2x-1}{x-1}

Spoiler



is there usually a rule with this method? (making the fractions equal)
i usually just divide the top by the bottom
Original post by justinawe
a3b3=(ab)(a2+ab+b2)a^3 - b^3 = (a-b)(a^2 + ab + b^2 )


Thank you; sorry I forgot to thank you earlier :smile:
Original post by Knoyle quiah
draw the lines intersecting and you can see which angle you have just worked out of 111 between the lines, then you can see there is another angle which is also between the lines but acute


could there be occassions where you have to subtract my 360?
Reply 3986
just did the c4 2012 replacement paper don't understand qu 7a it's basically integrate cosecx and the answer is -ln(cosecx + cotx) - how do you get this? X
Original post by Econ1994
just did the c4 2012 replacement paper don't understand qu 7a it's basically integrate cosecx and the answer is -ln(cosecx + cotx) - how do you get this? X


it's in the databook
Original post by Proflash
is there usually a rule with this method? (making the fractions equal)
i usually just divide the top by the bottom

I'm not quite sure what you mean by making the fractions equal.. The method is just a shortcut of splitting a simple fraction into partial fractions. The general rule is to rewrite the numerator into something which contains the denominator so you can 'cancel' it and thereby splitting the fraction. See my other posts for more detail. :smile:
Original post by Econ1994
just did the c4 2012 replacement paper don't understand qu 7a it's basically integrate cosecx and the answer is -ln(cosecx + cotx) - how do you get this? X


It's in the formula booklet I believe!

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Econ1994
just did the c4 2012 replacement paper don't understand qu 7a it's basically integrate cosecx and the answer is -ln(cosecx + cotx) - how do you get this? X



Its from the formulae sheet :biggrin:
Original post by otrivine
could there be occassions where you have to subtract my 360?


never if asked to find angle between lines intersecting, only minus from 180 to get acute angle, much easier to visualise if drawn
parametric.JPG
For the last part to this question, I understand that the gradient is undefinable. The mark scheme then states that therefore

tan.JPG

What is the singnificance of the x=1?

thank you
where is everyone in terms of revision??
Reply 3994
Original post by Proflash
where is everyone in terms of revision??


Im at the final hurdle , i have done every single solomon press for C4 and every past paper except one... 2005 june
are you rdy for C4?
Original post by überambitious_ox
parametric.JPG
For the last part to this question, I understand that the gradient is undefinable. The mark scheme then states that therefore

tan.JPG

What is the singnificance of the x=1?

thank you


it asks for the equation of the normal when t= Pi/4

if the gradient is 0, the tangent is parallel to the x axis. as they ask for the normal, the line bisects the point of (1,1) and is parallel to the Y AXIS. therefore the equation of the line is x=1
Original post by lewiss111
it asks for the equation of the normal when t= Pi/4

if the gradient is 0, the tangent is parallel to the x axis. as they ask for the normal, the line bisects the point of (1,1) and is parallel to the Y AXIS. therefore the equation of the line is x=1


Thank you for your reply.

I now understand this. Just one question, bit of a silly questions, but just to confirm...as we know that the equation of the tangent is y=1 and the normal goes through the point (1,1) are just using the fact that tangent and normal are pependicular to conclude that the equation of the normal is x=1?
Original post by überambitious_ox
Thank you for your reply.

I now understand this. Just one question, bit of a silly questions, but just to confirm...as we know that the equation of the tangent is y=1 and the normal goes through the point (1,1) are just using the fact that tangent and normal are pependicular to conclude that the equation of the normal is x=1?


yes in short :smile:
Original post by lewiss111
yes in short :smile:


thank you :smile:
Does anyone have a link to the jan 2013 c4 paper? The booklet version not the version on examsolutions? Thanks

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending