The Student Room Group

Edexcel FP3 June 2015 - Official Thread

Scroll to see replies

I'm pretty sure that it's 2pi for a 360 degree rotation, which would imply pi for a 180 rotation. At least that's what's in the formula booklet.
Reply 81
Original post by H0PEL3SS
I'm pretty sure that it's 2pi for a 360 degree rotation, which would imply pi for a 180 rotation. At least that's what's in the formula booklet.


For 360 rotation, 2pi is surface area, volume of revolution is pi.
Original post by Elcor
For 360 rotation, 2pi is surface area, volume of revolution is pi.


Just noticed, lol :tongue:
My bad.
Hi, could someone please help me? Which formulae do we get in the formulae booklet for the exam? (EDEXCEL) I’ve found the ‘Pearson Edexcel’ booklet but it has loads for FP3 - surely we can’t get all that? Thanks!
Reply 84
Original post by Emmi12345
Hi, could someone please help me? Which formulae do we get in the formulae booklet for the exam? (EDEXCEL) I’ve found the ‘Pearson Edexcel’ booklet but it has loads for FP3 - surely we can’t get all that? Thanks!


We get this http://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A%20Level/Mathematics/2013/Specification%20and%20sample%20assessments/N38210A-GCE-Mathematical-Formulae-Statistical-Tables.pdf


Yeah, that's the one I have, thanks for clarifying! Still can't believe we get all that for conics, and the double-angle formulae for the hyperbolic identities! Guess it still pays to know it off by heart though because it will save time in the exam.
Reply 87
Original post by Emmi12345
Yeah, that's the one I have, thanks for clarifying! Still can't believe we get all that for conics, and the double-angle formulae for the hyperbolic identities! Guess it still pays to know it off by heart though because it will save time in the exam.


I think it's worth really understanding the vector formulae they give you, because the form they give them in is a bit strange.
This exam totally ****ed me up last year but still ended up getting 100 :h:
Original post by Mike_123
This exam totally ****ed me up last year but still ended up getting 100 :h:

Happy days! Boundaries were very low.
Original post by Elcor
I think it's worth really understanding the vector formulae they give you, because the form they give them in is a bit strange.


Well I'm not sure why we're told how to calculate the vector product... surely you shouldn't be sitting the exam if you don't know how to do that?! :K:The conics table is a bit of a giveaway though... I think people should learn the range of eccentricity for each, for example. But, that's just my opinion. Maybe it's to give a chance to all levels of candidates to attempt the questions. :smile:
Reply 91
Original post by Emmi12345
Well I'm not sure why we're told how to calculate the vector product... surely you shouldn't be sitting the exam if you don't know how to do that?! :K:The conics table is a bit of a giveaway though... I think people should learn the range of eccentricity for each, for example. But, that's just my opinion. Maybe it's to give a chance to all levels of candidates to attempt the questions. :smile:


I disagree, I know some fantastic A Level mathematicians who can't remember formulae for the life of them... :smile:
Reply 92
Yeah idk about everyone else but I for one am VERY glad that they give us formulae lol. Particularly for conics :tongue:
Original post by katyhay12
Happy days! Boundaries were very low.


Paper was impossible :tongue:
Original post by Mike_123
Paper was impossible :tongue:


Yet to try it, however one of my friends was telling me the reduction formulae question was a bit tricky and the coordinate systems looked disgusting. Can't wait! That being said 100UMS must've been a nice surprise on results day :smile:.
Original post by Elcor
I disagree, I know some fantastic A Level mathematicians who can't remember formulae for the life of them... :smile:


Very true! It should be more about skill than memory, I suppose :smile: Although it has to be said that often remembering the formulae comes more naturally when you fully understand where it came from... just my two cents, anyway!
Original post by Navo D.
Yeah idk about everyone else but I for one am VERY glad that they give us formulae lol. Particularly for conics :tongue:


heheh me too! I'll probably end up memorising a fair chunk of it anyway by way of revision, but it's very useful to know that it's there to fall back on! :tongue: The huge table for conics is v. satisfying to look at :biggrin:
Original post by Mike_123
This exam totally ****ed me up last year but still ended up getting 100 :h:


well done! :h:
I haven't done any FP3 papers yet so I don't know how this is treated in papers, but I was doing an Integration by Reduction question from the book (Q2 Ex4F) there is a point that I want to clarify.

The first line of the question states that In=1ex(lnx)n dx I_n = \int^{e}_{1} x (\ln x)^n \ dx , nN n \in \mathbb{N} . Now I looked on Edexcel's specification, and their definition of the natural numbers does not include zero ie it is the set {1,2,3,....} \{1,2,3,....\} .

Then in part (a) the reduction formula is In=e22n2In1 I_n = \frac{e^2}{2} - \frac{n}{2} I_{n-1} , with the condition n1 n \geq 1 . My problem is that this allows I0 I_0 , when this isn't allowed by the definition of In I_n . The second part of the question is to find I4 I_4 , and obviously you can find I1 I_1 , but I0 I_0 is preferable. In the solutions they do use the latter. In an exam situation would they always use I1 I_1 , and would you therefore lose marks for using I0 I_0 ?

I might be being unbelievably picky, but I would hate to lose marks for something so minor.

Quick Reply

Latest