Jump to content

Math HL P1


Nishad Potdar

Recommended Posts

Anyone write TZ1?

what do you guys think of it?

I am TZ1, I found Paper 1 fine. The first 3 parts of the last question were taken from a past exam, and it made that question easier than usual. So I figured that question out. There were some tricky questions, but overall I found it fine. However, some of my classmates thought that this exam was pretty hard and very time consuming.

Anyone else from TZ1??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had TZ2 and thought it was manageable. Guess I agree that the questions were rather tough, but not undoable. It was just too much for 2 hours... Didn't finish everything I would have liked to, even though I am rather good at math... Hm...

Anyways, how did you do that weird probability question with the broken DVD's? Started it a bit, but then I got mixed up and decided to skip it for now. But in the end I didn't have enough time to revisit it..

Did the DVD question have anything to do with Binomial distrubition? But then I stumped, because I thought that the numbers were too nasty for a non-calculator paper... Was there a trick to it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had TZ2 and thought it was manageable. Guess I agree that the questions were rather tough, but not undoable. It was just too much for 2 hours... Didn't finish everything I would have liked to, even though I am rather good at math... Hm...

Anyways, how did you do that weird probability question with the broken DVD's? Started it a bit, but then I got mixed up and decided to skip it for now. But in the end I didn't have enough time to revisit it..

Did the DVD question have anything to do with Binomial distrubition? But then I stumped, because I thought that the numbers were too nasty for a non-calculator paper... Was there a trick to it?

Don't think it had anything to do with binomial, because there was no replacement and yes it should have been done with combinations, but didn't get it in the exam though :sadnod: . It actually has its own name it's called the hyper-geometric distribution, but it's essentially just conditional probability with combinations (you learn this stuff when your revising for stat and prob paper 3) :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, part (a) of the disk question was hyper-geometric distribution, and part (b) was negative binomial distribution. I did part (b) correct, but for part (a), I accidentally mixed 2 parameters up in the calculations. Does anyone know how many points (out of 4) I will lose for that?

I was so annoyed when I finished because it's such an easy question, and I still failed to do it. Oh well :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think it had anything to do with binomial, because there was no replacement and yes it should have been done with combinations, but didn't get it in the exam though :sadnod: . It actually has its own name it's called the hyper-geometric distribution, but it's essentially just conditional probability with combinations (you learn this stuff when your revising for stat and prob paper 3) :blink:

Now that you say say, I remember.. I did the statistics option.. Geez, such a nasty thing to identify that it's choice without replacement.. But oh well, statistics has never been my strong part..

Now that I think about it, is hyper-geometric distribution in the Maths HL core syllabus? Or would they consider it barely acceptable, because as you said it's essentially a complicated form of conditions with combinations.. But come on, something like that for ~6 points?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Red XII

I did TZ1 and this was definitely the hardest Paper 1 I've taken. I filled in probably around half of the test that I'm actually confident about, plus some partial credit on the problems I wasn't able to finish. Hopefully the boundaries are low enough that that'll turn out to be a 5 or a 6. I think I made up some of my losses on P2 and I'm studying for P3 to make up some more there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to the boundaries supposedly theyre going to make it even lower than last year, like around 60% a 7. My physics teacher, also ib coordinator, told me this and that even though we all thought we messed it up and **** we should still come out with decent grades. im praying like mad that this will happen cause that was indeed the hardest papers ive ever seen and i did all of the past papers since 2007. :(

I really hope that happens. It was much harder than May 2010 paper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh for the xf(x) question that everyone's complaining about......couldn't you just substitute values of x and multiply it with the f(x) value you have from the original graph for different values of x?

So I had a graph that was below the y-axis when x<0, passed through the origin when x=0 (since xf(x) = 0 when x = 0) and then went above the y-axis to simulate the original curve when x>0 only it rose much faster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time was definitely an issue and the tough questions just made it virtually impossible to finish.

I remember leaving the last couple parts of the final question.

Yeah, I expect (I hope) the level 7 boundary will be somewhere around the 80 mark for this paper.

Any guesses for the overall boundaries?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh for the xf(x) question that everyone's complaining about......couldn't you just substitute values of x and multiply it with the f(x) value you have from the original graph for different values of x?

So I had a graph that was below the y-axis when x<0, passed through the origin when x=0 (since xf(x) = 0 when x = 0) and then went above the y-axis to simulate the original curve when x>0 only it rose much faster.

Yeah that was exactly what I did, seemed pretty simple to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh for the xf(x) question that everyone's complaining about......couldn't you just substitute values of x and multiply it with the f(x) value you have from the original graph for different values of x?

So I had a graph that was below the y-axis when x<0, passed through the origin when x=0 (since xf(x) = 0 when x = 0) and then went above the y-axis to simulate the original curve when x>0 only it rose much faster.

Yeah that was exactly what I did, seemed pretty simple to me.

Took the words right out of my mouth (or keyboard, perhaps): "That was exactly what I did."

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...