Search results

i might also point out that no man has ever produced a direct proof of the Steiner-Lehmus Theorem, for Ariel Kellison is a woman. Here she is

i think it is worth pointing out that when the old cambridge 3 unit year 12 text was published in 2000, no direct proof was known for the c.

yeah. it is

There are at least 80 different ways to do c. But it remains the subject of modern research, particularly in regards to establishing a direct proof, that being one not relying on reductio ad absurdum. I attached one such proof, somewhat more modern than the ones i put before. This really...

u know when the proof for c. presented here first appeared? 1880 Journal de mathematiques elementaires et speciales, 1880, p. 538 also attached are 3 articles on c. Hajja, M., A Short Trigonometric Proof of the Steiner-Lehmus Theorem, Forum Geometricorum Volume 8 (2008) 39–42. Sauvé, L...

There was a post on c. before at https://community.boredofstudies.org/threads/steiner-lehmus-theorem.105751/ but it needs to be revamped due to formatting issues \text{Construct }G\text{ such that }AEGD\text{ is a parallelogram.} \therefore AD=BE, \angle CAD=\angle DAB, \angle CBE=\angle EBA...

It is the old Cambridge 3 unit year 12 Ex. 8C Q29 and here is better quality picture \text{a. Area}(\triangle ABC)=\textstyle\frac{1}{2}BC\cdot AD=\frac{1}{2}AC\cdot BE BE=AD\therefore BC=AC\therefore\triangle ABC\text{ is isosceles} \text{b. By Apollonius's theorem, }\textstyle...

englishh is a sumwot slopppi langwij maths is much more precise

needless to say a non-response would get 0 marks, yet in this case a non-response is the correct answer!

would u agree with this: 1\in\Bbb C,2\in\Bbb C, 3\in\Bbb C anyway the original version of the external assessment report has this: and the updated version at https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/mathematics/2022/2022specmaths2-report.docx has this

well consider the example made in the critique: a=1, b=2, c=3

yep and there is more about it at https://mathematicalcrap.com

there were several questions redacted, not just this one. sorry about the deviousness but that pales into insignificance to the horrendous comment attacking one of the authors of the critique i posted earlier "I feel sorry for your daughters if they have you as their father" it was precisely...

none of the options are correct, hence it can't be done those who responded with B got the mark but that is incorrect too.

if only i could but i can't it was in a vce exam but got redacted because it can't be done now if you go to https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/mathematics/2022/2022specmath2-w.pdf it appears as i attached a critique which led to a review resulting it being redacted

see if u can do this 1

To find the macOS full installer links one can run these commands in terminal: Public releases macOS Sequoia for file in $(curl -# https://swscan.apple.com/content/catalogs/others/index-15-1.sucatalog | grep com_apple_MobileAsset_MacSoftwareUpdate.plist | grep -Evw...

\textstyle\text{there is power rule }\frac{d}{dt}t^n=nt^{n-1} \textstyle\frac{d}{dt}t=\frac{d}{dt}t^1=1t^0=1 \textstyle\frac{d}{dt}-t^{-1}=--1t^{-2}=t^{-2} \textstyle\text{so when }u=t-t^{-1}\text{ we have }du=(1+t^{-2})\ \!dt

in the abbotsleigh 2024 trial in resources section we see these proof questions Q1, 7, 11c, 11e, 12a, 13b, 14b, 14ci, 15ci, 16a so without the western maths 2024 paper it is now 602 western maths 2024 is still not up, but when it does it goes up to 609

so in the abbotsleigh ext. 2 q11d u put this one? e^{-\pi/2} or this one? e^{-2\pi n-\pi/2}\forall n\in\Bbb Z proper answer is multi-valued