Search results

nice work spice girl! :)

I wouldn't worry too much too much about it, we finished the 4u course a whole term early and we weren't rushing or anything, so it's not very long. They shouldn't have taken out matrices!

I can't speak for anyone else but I can verify that it was extremely effective for me. And even if it's not as effective a study technique when your aim is just to get good marks, I'm more concerned about giving myself skills that will help me later on.

ok thanks I haven't tried emailing them. Back on topic, I finally worked out how come I seem to do well in maths without studying: It's because I actually do quite a lot of study, I just don't think of it that way. Instead of reading textbooks or doing past exams, I tend to spend my spare...

Ok I can't wait any longer (low self-control strikes again!), so... (Warning: Minor spoiler ahead) You're getting warmer, but still not high enough yet!

yeah I got a 42 as well (2 qns wrong from being an idiot, 1 from running out of time), but I've been trying unsuccessfully for the last few months to find out how many people I tied with! Does anybody know? sorry for clogging up the thread with more topics, but I'm really curious!

this is just to let you know I added some stuff to the end of the opening post... something for people who find this question too daunting, and a clarification.

The most obvious thing would be that he got confused and meant 16 hours pw total for all subjects, which is about 3 hours per subject. It still seems like a lot to me but it's much more realistic! :)

lol yes my physics teacher did seem to be the master of tall stories! ... and not so good at maths :D

Woah I had no idea the UAIs at JR and selective schools were so high! I go to a somewhat rural school, and I'd say 5-10% get above 90, and I think the highest UAI in the history of the school was like 98.45! I spent so much time on these boards, I didn't think 96.45 (my uai) was all that...

Didn't you know? The true measure of someone's mathematical ability is the number of mistakes they make -- the more mistakes, the better they are :p

I'll let you think about it for a while longer before I say anything about your guess, but I think that recurrence would be X(N) = 7/18 x 3^N + 1/2. (blech!) and while we're defining functions, how about we number coins 1,2,3,... and use 1,2,3 / 4,5,6 to mean weigh 1,2, and 3 against 4,5...

yeah I figured you probably were thinking of just your standard "one coin is heavier" problem. Just to clarify, just cause I said you can do 9 for N=3 doesn't mean it's the maximum.

it has to be 4u maths, because a) it's a lot more intersting than 2u and 3u b) it's scaled up so high it's not funny c) you get 4 units for the price of 2! (unlike english :p) who could resist? I agree ultimate, self teaching is the best way to learn (for me at least). I managed to be...

I couldn't send it to you because your mailbox was full. I've sent it now though.

When I woke up this afternoon at 3pm (gotta love those byron bay NYE parties!) I realised there was a flaw in the proof I used when I said "if you can do more than 4.5 coins in 2 weighings then my idea of the basic laws of maths needs some very severe overhauling!". But I made a new proof that...

Hint: X is more than 8 when N = 3

it's not X = 2^N, but you've got the right idea. I found it more fun to work at the problem from a practical perspective first though, rather than going straight for the formula :) Umm... I haven't looked at this problem for a few months so I could be wrong, but I'm 99% sure I proved that...

Yes you're right, I didn't mean to sound as harsh as I did. The people who read the posts are responsible for what they make of it, it's up to everyone to use their own judgement.

Here's one of my favourite questions that I've ever solved -- it lasted for weeks of a few minutes a day! It's actually a modified (by me!) version of a very well known type of question, the "find the counterfeit coin in x weighings with a balance scale" question. I found it in a puzzle...