Maths Extension 2 Predictions/Thoughts (34 Viewers)

[killer queen]

depends on the marker really, sometimes u could get marks if the marker isn't a retard.

the only place where they should deduct marks for using hopital is when it says to use their method

i don't see why they would deduct marks otherwise, as L' Hopital is an actual rule

WAIT THIS WHOLE TIME I THOUGHT L'HOPITAL WAS A MEME OMG IT'S REAL I'M SO STUPID

 

[coolcat6778]

Anyway I should be good for a raw at around 68. Hopefully Wednesday is a good day and I push this into the 70s to e4

this is so unlucky for exam halls without AC

 

[v.tex]

I don't get why we don't just sit the exam at the same time as standard and advanced

 

[RedDragonStar1]

View attachment 49674
this is so unlucky for exam halls without AC

Sike I get to be in a classroom instead of hall (only 2 ppl taking 4u at my school)

 

[C2H6O]

Sike I get to be in a classroom instead of hall (only 2 ppl taking 4u at my school)

my cohort’s so small all the exams are in a classroom

 

[C_master]

View attachment 49674
this is so unlucky for exam halls without AC

the way it conveniently peaks at the same time we sit our 4u

 

[academicalwizard101]

are hsc markers ok if I do partial fraction by inspection if they don't specify to put in form A/x+1+B/x+2 or whatever?

 

[RedDragonStar1]

are hsc markers ok if I do partial fraction by inspection if they don't specify to put in form A/x+1+B/x+2 or whatever?

I feel like it might depend on how many people end up doing by inspection, but it's probably safer to just do PFD the proper way since it'll only cost like 1 or 2 mins max (unless it's long, but then you probably aren't doing it by inspection if it is)

tl;dr: probably won't be decided until after the test is long over.

 

[academicalwizard101]

inspection is so good once you get used to all the forms though so i save a lot of time but yea its prob best to do proper way

 

[Trebla]

are hsc markers ok if I do partial fraction by inspection if they don't specify to put in form A/x+1+B/x+2 or whatever?

If the answer is right then you could probably get away with it, but if you get the answer wrong then there might not be any marks to give for working so do it at your own risk

 

[lawfirm]

and sorry to spam, can you just quote or must it be derived

 

[coolcat6778]

and sorry to spam, can you just quote or must it be derived

definitely can just quote it. the fact that it's not on the formula sheet is fucking retarded, though.

if they wanted u to derive, this subject would be fucking shit. why are they testing how you can derive something you probably derived all the time when doing excercises? they literally get nothing from testing kids if they know how to derive a well known formula, it's literally just rewarding rote learning if they do.

 

[coolcat6778]

and sorry to spam, can you just quote or must it be derived

there are many other idenities NOT present on the formula sheet but you don't have to prove at all. Notable examples include Sin2a = 2sinacosa, cos2a = (cosx)^2 - (sinx)^2, tan2a = 2tan/1 - (tanx)^2 . Projection formula. This isn't HSC physics, this is 4u maths.

 

[lawfirm]

definitely can just quote it. the fact that it's not on the formula sheet is fucking retarded, though.

if they wanted u to derive, this subject would be fucking shit. why are they testing how you can derive something you probably derived all the time when doing excercises? they literally get nothing from testing kids if they know how to derive a well known formula, it's literally just rewarding rote learning if they do.

yeah true. At least that, and projection formula, are in the new syllabus formula sheet but bit too late for us. I swear the formula sheet was made by an English teacher at this point.

 

[lawfirm]

there are many idenities NOT present on the formula sheet but you don't have to show at all. Notable examples include Sin2a = 2sinacosa, cos2a = (cosx)^2 - (sinx)^2, tan2a = 2tan/1 - (tanx)^2 . Projection formula. This isn't HSC physics, this is 4u maths.

Yeah ig in my head the difference is that double angle is just straight from the formula where you let a be theta, whereas there are some that are completely unrelated/can't be derived easily. thanks tho

 

[tywebb]

and sorry to spam, can you just quote or must it be derived

this is quite a contentious issue.

the syllabus, cambridge and steve howard texts say it should be derived, not quoted.

yet in nesa's 2021 hsc solution they just quoted it without derivation

it's a bit silly to have to derive every time

it's a bit like using pythagoras theorem. it's a well known formula, very silly to have to prove it every time you use it.

fair enough if it is a more esoteric formula hardly anyone knows about, better to derive it.

but for more well-known results it's a waste of time deriving it.

 

[lawfirm]

this is quite a contentious issue.

the syllabus, cambridge and steve howard texts say it should be derived, not quoted.

yet in nesa's 2021 hsc solution they just quoted it without derivation

it's a bit silly to have to derive every time

it's a bit like using pythagoras theorem. it's a well known formula, very silly to have to prove it every time you use it.

fair enough if it is a more esoteric formula hardly anyone knows about, better to derive it.

but for more well-known results it's a waste of time deriving it.

Yeah what I might do is quote it then leave space to derive with extra time at the end... just to cover all bases

 

[coolcat6778]

this is quite a contentious issue.

the syllabus, cambridge and steve howard texts say it should be derived, not quoted.

yet in nesa's 2021 hsc solution they just quoted it without derivation

it's a bit silly to have to derive every time

it's a bit like using pythagoras theorem. it's a well known formula, very silly to have to prove it every time you use it.

fair enough if it is a more esoteric formula hardly anyone knows about, better to derive it.

but for more well-known results it's a waste of time deriving it.

It's literally a WELL KNOWN physics formula lol. Do we have to derive F = ma since that's not on the formula sheet either?

 

[v.tex]

21 exam was a god tier exam

 

[lawfirm]

this is quite a contentious issue.

the syllabus, cambridge and steve howard texts say it should be derived, not quoted.

yet in nesa's 2021 hsc solution they just quoted it without derivation

it's a bit silly to have to derive every time

it's a bit like using pythagoras theorem. it's a well known formula, very silly to have to prove it every time you use it.

fair enough if it is a more esoteric formula hardly anyone knows about, better to derive it.

but for more well-known results it's a waste of time deriving it.

and conveniently in the marking feedback for the cohort they left that question so who knows if they specified that "better students just wrote the formula"