The Student Room Group

Old further maths special papers

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by atsruser
Here's my solution which seems to disagree with the result expected in the question.

Spoiler




Original post by TeeEm
I cannot see anything wrong with your solution, so

either
there is a mistake (in those days I remember occasionally inside the papers where errata slips which of course has not survived to my hands)

or there is a silly mistake made and we both cannot see it

I will attempt the question from scratch later to see

thanks for pointing it out.


It is correct

I will write 2 questions for my own resources tonight in neat and I will try to post the solution as soon as possible

(you are making a simple modelling error I think.)
Reply 21
Original post by atsruser
Here's my attempt at part (i). I'll put up part (ii) tomorrow:

Spoiler



I am sure many students are grateful to you, particularly because I have no marking schemes for pre 1987 and I am too busy to write solutions at present.
Original post by TeeEm
I am sure many students are grateful to you, particularly because I have no marking schemes for pre 1987 and I am too busy to write solutions at present.


They won't be too grateful if I'm getting the answers wrong :-)

So where did I screw up in the mechanics question? I'm keen to see where my reasoning went wrong.
Reply 23
Original post by atsruser
They won't be too grateful if I'm getting the answers wrong :-)

So where did I screw up in the mechanics question? I'm keen to see where my reasoning went wrong.


I hope it is not me I am making the mistake!

I am writing the question now (with a twist and full solution)

on line in about 11 once I format it
Original post by TeeEm
Special Further Pure Maths Paper 1987, Q1

SPECIAL FURTHER PURE MATHS PAPER 1987, Q1.pdf


My solution to part (i):

Spoiler

(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 25
Original post by atsruser
They won't be too grateful if I'm getting the answers wrong :-)

So where did I screw up in the mechanics question? I'm keen to see where my reasoning went wrong.


there is my version of the question

part (a) I suspect is what you modelled

part (b) is Q16, I think


(please let me know of any obvious errors or typos)

Question.pdf
Original post by TeeEm
Special Further Pure Maths Paper 1987, Q1


SPECIAL FURTHER PURE MATHS PAPER 1987, Q1.pdf


My solution to part (ii):

Spoiler

Original post by TeeEm

(please let me know of any obvious errors or typos)

Question.pdf


You're right. I was wrong. I failed to take into account that u=v+aωu=v+a\omega. This was rather obvious in retrospect. I get the same result as you when I make that change. I'll delete my original post as it may be misleading.
Reply 28
Original post by atsruser
You're right. I was wrong. I failed to take into account that u=v+aωu=v+a\omega. This was rather obvious in retrospect. I get the same result as you when I make that change. I'll delete my original post as it may be misleading.


no worries
Original post by TeeEm
Special Further Maths Paper 1987, Q4

SPECIAL FURTHER MATHS PAPER 1987, Q4.pdf


My solution (first part)

Spoiler


Parts (a) and (b)

Spoiler

(edited 9 years ago)
This is interesting. Can I post solutions to some of the questions if I have them?
Reply 31
Original post by simonli2575
This is interesting. Can I post solutions to some of the questions if I have them?


naturally
Original post by TeeEm
Special Further Pure Maths Paper 1986, Q9



SPECIAL FURTHER PURE MATHS PAPER 1986, Q9.pdf


I had a go at doing 1986 Q2, and after using the substitution given (y=vex y = ve^x ), where v is a function of x,

I've arrived at

ex(2xv+v)=0    2xv+v=0 e^x \left(2xv'' + v' \right) = 0 \implies 2xv'' + v' = 0

I have not seen this form of 2nd Order ODE before, but is it possible to solve it with what I already know from FP2 Differential Equations?
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 33
Original post by ThatPerson
I had a go at doing 1986 Q2, and after using the substitution given (y=vex y = ve^x ), where v is a function of x,

I've arrived at

ex(2xv+v)=0    2xv+v=0 e^x \left(2xv'' + v' \right) = 0 \implies 2xv'' + v' = 0

I have not seen this form of 2nd Order ODE before, but is it possible to solve it with what I already know from FP2 Differential Equations?


I haven't looked at this question at all or checked your working, but note that if you define w = v' then you have a new 1st order DE 2xw' + w = 0 which you can solve using your standard integrating factor technique :smile:
Original post by davros
I haven't looked at this question at all or checked your working, but note that if you define w = v' then you have a new 1st order DE 2xw' + w = 0 which you can solve using your standard integrating factor technique :smile:


Thank you, I solved it (and my answer agrees with WolframAlpha). I should've seen that substitution.
Reply 35
Original post by ThatPerson
I had a go at doing 1986 Q2, and after using the substitution given (y=vex y = ve^x ), where v is a function of x,

I've arrived at

ex(2xv+v)=0    2xv+v=0 e^x \left(2xv'' + v' \right) = 0 \implies 2xv'' + v' = 0

I have not seen this form of 2nd Order ODE before, but is it possible to solve it with what I already know from FP2 Differential Equations?


sorry I just came back from work.

The problem is very standard and Davros gave you the correct answer.
Ooh. Thanks for the uploads.
Original post by TeeEm
Special Further Maths Paper 1989, Q6


SPECIAL FURTHER MATHS 1989, Q6.pdf


Is it possible for you to compile all these questions into one document ? Thanks for what you are doing btw.
Original post by TeeEm
I am afraid I cannot

the papers have been scanned into very large PDFs of around 5 Mb, and that is why I upload question by question.


Could you please email them to me ? I will send you my email on PM.
Teeem, how old are your cats?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending