Search results

for this solution, is it enough to show that the root satisfies the equation and say that the root lies to the right of the min stat point, and therefore it is the greatest root?

Re: HSC 2012 Marathon :) which are? i will add a few more terms if you want

the name is ironic for all of us posting in this thread.

Re: HSC 2012 Marathon :) a lower half of a hemisphere is obtained by rotating x^2+y^2-20y=0 around the x axis, and cutting it through the centre. Water is poured in, Find equations for the volume of the water, and the surface area of the water. lol thats super simple haha ill find a better one...

Re: HSC 2012 Marathon :) ok ill dig through a past cssa paper=

Re: HSC 2012 Marathon :) ok hmmm. a projectile is fired at an angle of 40 degrees to the positive x axis. If the particle just clears a 4m high wall, 5.5m away from the firing spot on its ascent, what initial velocity V is it fired at, and at what distance away would it just clear a 2m high...

Re: HSC 2012 Marathon :) yep lol

P(x,y,z)=2. if it is correct, i will post solution. hmmm my algebra came out as that, but subbing in stuff it doesn't work...must have subben in wrong lol :)

Re: HSC 2012 Marathon :) if sally the problem gambler has 6 dice, all of which are 50% biased to a different number (i.e. for one die, chance of rolling a 1 - 50%, 2,3,4,5,6 - each 10%) if she chooses 2 die at random and rolls them, what is the chance that she rolls a 1 and a 6? If she wanted...

wtf, who removed the comments? it may have been on the first page iirc

it comes from the +ve quadratic solution. So how do we prove for the case where n1=1 then?

yeh i would have made my solution more proper, i just cbfd latexing it lol. well I assumed that the proof would have shown for all n1 > 0, yet carrot had said that I also need to consider the case when n1 = 1, but i don't see why we have to consider that case separately in the proof, and why...

nice name lol

i mean, why was it not for n1 > 0 instead? like why did you have to set the restriction n1 = > 2 ?

why did we have to put the restriction n1 > 1 in the first place?

<a href="http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=for~|z|<r<1\\ \\ |z|<1-|z|^2\\ \\ \therefore 1-\sum_{i=1}^{\infty }|z|^{i}> 1-\sum_{i=1}^{\infty }(1-|z|^2)^{i}\\ \\ taking~the~limiting~sum.\\ \\ 1> \frac{1-|z|^2}{|z|^2}> 0\\ \\ \therefore 1-\sum_{i=1}^{\infty }(1-|z|^2)^{i}> 0\\ \\ \therefore...

that's odd. had you finished the course before the trials?

well done, why are your trials so early?

<a href="http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=given, x@plus;y@plus;z\geq 3\sqrt[3]{xyz}\\ let x=1/a,y=1/b,z=1/c\\ \therefore \frac{1}{a}@plus;\frac{1}{b}@plus;\frac{1}{c}\geq \frac{3}{\sqrt[3]{abc}}\\ now,~(x@plus;y@plus;z)/3\geq \sqrt[3]{xyz}\\ 1/3\geq \sqrt[3]{xyz}\\ 3/\sqrt[3]{xyz}\geq...

i would assume 4%, as real production grew 6%, yet labour grew 2%. the CPI is superfluous in the question. does anyone have any other perspective?