You are Here: Home >< Maths

# How was edexcel P2 exam????? watch

1. what does everyone think an A will be?
People seem to have found it quite tricky so maybe 58-ish or is that too low? 60-ish possibly?
2. seems it will be low prob 60ish
3. (Original post by Adil Bhai)
seems it will be low prob 60ish
hmm last year edexcel says it was 65, and everyone says it was easy peasy last year so i would have thought it would have gone down alot compared to last yr as people found todays one much trickier...
4. Yeah u could be right, does this mean if u lose a few marks u could theoretically get 100%
5. I messed up
I done well enough on the past papers, just log coming up, combined with crappy graph question.
Also, I messed up questions I know I can do.
Argh.
W.

You say 60/75 is messed up?
I will be lucky to get 20/75
I needed 60
6. (Original post by crana)
I think for iteration one of the Q's was what value of x0 would this formula not be valid for and why, 2 marks I beliecve
I dont think the answer of x0 = -1 is expected because it has already been defined that the iteration is not for xn = -1.

So one of the possibilities is that the result in the square root is negative, i.e. (4x+1)/(x+1) < 0

so x0 = -1/2 is a possible answer
7. btw, can anyone tell me why i cant enter these threads which are "moved"?
http://www.uk-learning.net/t49709.html
http://www.uk-learning.net/t49722.html
http://www.uk-learning.net/t49593.html
8. because they contain content from the discussion about "pete2004" hu had a copy of the exam paper b4 the exam came out
9. I know we are forbidden from discussing the issue, but mods do you know if there have been any developments?
10. does anyone have the solutions?
11. (Original post by keisiuho)
I dont think the answer of x0 = -1 is expected because it has already been defined that the iteration is not for xn = -1.

So one of the possibilities is that the result in the square root is negative, i.e. (4x+1)/(x+1) < 0

so x0 = -1/2 is a possible answer

i see what you mean but maybe they should have phrased the question to include "other than x is not equal to -1 as mentioned in the question", to highlight the fact that we can't use the one mentioned and explain the reasoning behind it, otherwise it's a perfectly valid answer and fits all the requirements demanded by the qu. Seems unfair that they may dock marks when it is a reasonable answer, just because they've used it in the question and not told us to not actually use it.
Thinking about it, I suspect they'll probably accept it if you've explained why it doesn't fit into the eqn, it was probs the whole reason why they asked you to explain "why"....cuz otherwise weaker candidates would just use the value as one that doesnt fit, w/o knowing why it doesnt work.
12. well i also got 5y = 6x + 1 but i made it to y = 6/5 x + 1/5
13. so did i, but i made all my co-efficients non-fractions, ie ur former
14. (Original post by RazMaTaz)
well i also got 5y = 6x + 1 but i made it to y = 6/5 x + 1/5
I left it like the latter also cuz it didnt specify what form the eqn had to be in so y= seems easiest. Hey i forgot what stuff came after this in the same qu, was it the trapezium rule stuff, or that stuff where u had to draw the (yucky) graph?
15. (Original post by crana)
lol, or maybe a noahs arctan, or arcsin?

I think I like arcsin best because it was made to escape the punishment for the sin of everyone else, or someting.
lol, hehe i think ill have to try and modify the "joke" somehow to make it arcsin + c or something. I'm sure ive said it wrong anyway, ill have to ask my maths teacher what it actually is as she was the one who told it to the class....twas quite funny in a mathsy way too! lol

and to whoever said it should be "integrate 1/cabin . d(cabin)"...you're right
16. (Original post by infekt)
yup ...
well nope, soz to piss in ur chips

u show a sign change between f(1.695) and f(1.705), 1.695 and 1.705 both round off to 1.70 to 2dp
17. indeed u do
18. (Original post by visesh)
well nope, soz to piss in ur chips

u show a sign change between f(1.695) and f(1.705), 1.695 and 1.705 both round off to 1.70 to 2dp
actually, 1.705 rounds to 1.71 (2dp)
19. so? its the upper limit
20. (Original post by crana)
actually, 1.705 rounds to 1.71 (2dp)
1.704999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 9999 doesnt, but that approximates to 1.705

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: July 4, 2004
Today on TSR

Get the low down

### University open days

• University of Exeter
Wed, 24 Oct '18
Wed, 24 Oct '18
• Northumbria University
Wed, 24 Oct '18
Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams