Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So in some questions they want you to get the are under the curve. And because we still live in the dark ages, we're supposed to do that by counting squares, and definitely NOT by the trapezium rule we learned in A level maths, because GOD FORBID we integrate (pun unintended) that into the Physics A level, it's waaaayyy too hard for physics examiners to understand. I'm sorry for that mini-rant, a level physics made me hate physics, which used to be my favorite subject.

    Now on with the question lol,
    Name:  Capture d’écran 2016-06-01 à 18.42.03.png
Views: 43
Size:  48.3 KB
    like how would you even count those?? There isn't enough time in the world? Also what the hell is the mark scheme (attached) talking about?
    Attachment 541691541693
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gagafacea1)
    So in some questions they want you to get the are under the curve. And because we still live in the dark ages, we're supposed to do that by counting squares, and definitely NOT by the trapezium rule we learned in A level maths, because GOD FORBID we integrate (pun unintended) that into the Physics A level, it's waaaayyy too hard for physics examiners to understand. I'm sorry for that mini-rant, a level physics made me hate physics, which used to be my favorite subject.

    Now on with the question lol,
    Name:  Capture d’écran 2016-06-01 à 18.42.03.png
Views: 43
Size:  48.3 KB
    like how would you even count those?? There isn't enough time in the world? Also what the hell is the mark scheme (attached) talking about?
    Attachment 541691541693
    Um, you can't use the trapezium rule without a function that defines the graph. Otherwise you'd just draw some random convenient trapezia and estimate the area that way, which is probably a worse estimate than simply counting the squares.

    Even if you did have a function you could (almost certainly) integrate it between the required limits to get the exact area (by definition of area under a curve).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Um, you can't use the trapezium rule without a function that defines the graph. Otherwise you'd just draw some random convenient trapezia and estimate the area that way, which is probably a worse estimate than simply counting the squares.

    Even if you did have a function you could (almost certainly) integrate it between the required limits to get the exact area (by definition of area under a curve).
    You don't need to know the function, the trapezium rule requires the y-values, which can effortlessly be gotten from the graph.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gagafacea1)
    You don't need to know the function, the trapezium rule requires the y-values, which can effortlessly be gotten from the graph.
    Yes, but then you only get estimates from the points. Trapezium rule is redundant anyway when you have the graph with points plotted. You'd just draw convenient trapezia (not necessarily with a fixed step length) and that's normal estimating.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Yes, but then you only get estimates from the points. Trapezium rule is redundant anyway when you have the graph with points plotted. You'd just draw convenient trapezia (not necessarily with a fixed step length) and that's normal estimating.
    The trapezium rule only makes it so that it's faster to do the estimation. It's kind of an algorithm for me to follow. But the thing is my answer is always out of the wanted range for some reason. Apparently the trapezium rule doesn't give a good estimation, but counting squares does. Which I still don't know how the hell would it be done??
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gagafacea1)
    The trapezium rule only makes it so that it's faster to do the estimation. It's kind of an algorithm for me to follow. But the thing is my answer is always out of the wanted range for some reason. Apparently the trapezium rule doesn't give a good estimation, but counting squares does. Which I still don't know how the hell would it be done??
    Well I have to agree it looks pretty tedious but you can make a chunk of the work a lot easier by working out the area of the central rectangle and only then counting the rest of the squares.
    But yeah counting squares is a lot more accurate.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.