• We need YOU to help the next generation of students in the community for the new syllabus!
    Share your notes and trial papers on our Notes & Resources page
  • Like us on facebook here

Q7b(ii) - Fudging it. (1 Viewer)

~ ReNcH ~

!<-- ?(°«°)? -->!
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,502
Location
/**North Shore**\
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
For this question, I didn't have time to actually work it our properly, but I guessed it would be an "equating co-efficients" kind of proof. Was it?
Coz on the actual paper, I just said:
Co-eff. of x^k on LHS = whatever was on the exam paper
Co-eff. of x^k on RHS = <sup>n</sup>C<sub>k</sub>
.'. Equating co-efficients, LHS=RHS.

Was this the right "method". If it was, would my fudging get 1 mark??
 

Rorix

Active Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
1,819
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
it was the correct method, from memory, so you should get the mark
 

Gesus

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
62
Location
Where abouts are you located?
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
hehe i fudged the very last bit, i was actually on track, but running out of time and i had skipped a question, so just wrote out the answer and wrote "As required"
hehe
fingers crossed :)
 

~ ReNcH ~

!<-- ?(°«°)? -->!
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,502
Location
/**North Shore**\
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Rorix said:
it was the correct method, from memory, so you should get the mark
Hehe...hopefully.
Coz I don't think there's any way to tell whether you actually observed the expression first, before writing down the co-efficient on either side unless there's some intermediate step. So since it was only worth 1 mark, I hope I get it :) - to me, 1 mark counts for a lot.
 

mojako

Active Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
1,333
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I used the coeff of x^k but did sumthing wrong in the process.. I said coeff of x^k on the RHS in part (i) was "nCk - 1" and in the LHS its (n-1)C(k-1) + ... + (k)C(k-1). Then said since 1 = (k-1)C(k-1) we can move it to the LHS so we get the required identity in (ii).
.... hopefully they allow this..............
*faint hope...* :(
 

~ ReNcH ~

!<-- ?(°«°)? -->!
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,502
Location
/**North Shore**\
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
mojako said:
I used the coeff of x^k but did sumthing wrong in the process.. I said coeff of x^k on the RHS in part (i) was "nCk - 1" and in the LHS its (n-1)C(k-1) + ... + (k)C(k-1). Then said since 1 = (k-1)C(k-1) we can move it to the LHS so we get the required identity in (ii).
.... hopefully they allow this..............
*faint hope...* :(
Is my proof correct?
Coz I didn't actually look at the expression. I basically just wrote out the expression, and said "equating co-efficients" to make it look like I actually did do something.
 

mojako

Active Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
1,333
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
~ ReNcH ~ said:
Is my proof correct?
Coz I didn't actually look at the expression. I basically just wrote out the expression, and said "equating co-efficients" to make it look like I actually did do something.
yes it is :mad:
u r a very very lucky person

coeff of x^k on the LHS in part (i) is automatically the LHS in part (ii). There's no messing around to get that. So you don't need working. And so you're lucky!!
and I'm not!!

(sounds like I'm emotional :p)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top