MEI Numerical Methods 17/05/2013

So, How was the exam for everyone?

I found section A really easy, but section B messed me up big time, especially the last question

Hopyfully, i get a B

also another question, i got 91 ums in c1, if i get like 95+ ums in c2 and 80+ ums in stats 1, can I swap NM module ( further maths ) with stats 1 ( normal maths ) if NM provides enough ums to average out 80ums between C1, C2, NM. So S1 helps me average out 80 UMS in further maths AS.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 1

KiranH

Question 7 was very weird.

In answer to your question, no. There are 7 combinations for A level Mathematics: C1 – C4 plus one of these 7 pairs: M1&M2,
S1&S2, D1&D2, D1&DC, M1&S1, M1&D1, S1&D1. You cannot have NM in there.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2

Budskii

Original post by KiranH

Question 7 was very weird.

Yes, very, made me completely go blank, what do you think the grade boundary for an A will be?

Reply 3

skyblu

what did you get for Question 2^x+3^x=4 using the false method?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4

skyblu

Original post by Budskii

Yes, very, made me completely go blank, what do you think the grade boundary for an A will be?

i think is going to be about 63 marks for A :confused:

Reply 5

Budskii

Original post by skyblu

what did you get for Question 2^x+3^x=4 using the false method?

I ran out of time trying to finish this question, i was only able to do 3 iterations and from these iterations my answer was 0.76

63 for an A O_O! thats very high, definitely no A for me then

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 6

skyblu

Original post by Budskii

I ran out of time trying to finish this question, i was only able to do 3 iterations and from these iterations my answer was 0.76

63 for an A O_O! thats very high, definitely no A for me then

me to, i only did 3 interation because the space for the question was to small

did you also get around 0.59.... for the simpsons rule

Reply 7

Budskii

Original post by skyblu

me to, i only did 3 interation because the space for the question was to small

did you also get around 0.59.... for the simpsons rule

Well, I had plenty of space, working laid out in table.

Are you talking about question 6? If so, i'm pretty sure i got 0.56.... seemed right as the other midpoint and trapezium also gave answers starting with 0.56

Also question 6, part b, said work out two further trapezium rule, midpoint rule, and simpsons rule estimates as efficiently as possible

i worked out successive trapezium rule estimates using T2n = (Tn+Mn)/2

Simpsons rule estimates using Sn = (2Mn + Tn ) / 3

but for mid point rule estimates i manually worked it, was there a better way to do it?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 8

BlueCanary

Original post by Budskii

I don't think there was. That's what I did aswell. I'm 99% certain you/we did the right thing with the double trapezium rule.

This paper was straightforward for me, the only problem I had was question (iv) in 7. The one with the integral and k. I had no idea so I tried the midpoint rule on it at a few different values of h. I'm hoping for a method mark on that one but that's about it.

Reply 9

skyblu

Original post by BlueCanary

did you get 0.001 for the Finite Difference Table?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 10

ZeqiG

I thought the paper was fairly reasonable up to question 6, I had to re-do part (ii) because I made a mistake in the trapezium calculations. What did everyone write about the accuracy of midpoint and trapezium rule?

The first 2 parts of question 7 left me completely clueless, I ended up rambling about rounding errors -_- What estimates did you give for part (ii) about chopping?

Reply 11

Budskii

Original post by skyblu

did you get 0.001 for the Finite Difference Table?

I did, also another question regarding NM Coursework, how is the coursework and the NM exam added together to give a final grade ? How does it work?

Reply 12

Redsox29

Original post by BlueCanary

I disliked that question too! I managed to finish the paper with half an hour to spare and I spent about 20 minutes trying to do that question I just couldn't get it to work :s-smilie: