Sy123
This too shall pass
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,730
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
Questions
Solution the trial gave.
Now, while I was doing the past paper, the question (b)(iv) I could not solve it. So I looked over the solutions after time finished, and saw the solution...
According to the math past posts in the HSC Marathon:
Also this isnt the only part of the paper where there was a misprint, because while I was doing the past paper, there was another 1 mark question I couldnt do, which was to Show something, except on my paper it asked me to solve an impossible result...
So my question is, is it possible to do iv without resorting to invalid out of the syllabus techniques? (I proved iii using induction)
Thanks.
Solution the trial gave.
Now, while I was doing the past paper, the question (b)(iv) I could not solve it. So I looked over the solutions after time finished, and saw the solution...
According to the math past posts in the HSC Marathon:
A classic fallacious argument in analysis. The number of terms in this series is not fixed, so we cannot simply take the limits of each term individually and add them. If things like this were legit then we would have for example
lim (1+1/n)^n = lim 1^n = 1, as each term in the n-fold product (1+1/n)(1+1/n)...(1+1/n) tends to 1.
So the trial solution is wrong in that regard for (iii) however since they used their solution for (iv). (And moreover if you can see, that they misprinted the question of iv, because in the solution they concluded that the limit to infinity of e is between 2 and 3, while in the question there was only .A little iffy about that question, because the NSW Syllabus only ever defines integral values of n (for the Binomial Expansion)...
Also this isnt the only part of the paper where there was a misprint, because while I was doing the past paper, there was another 1 mark question I couldnt do, which was to Show something, except on my paper it asked me to solve an impossible result...
So my question is, is it possible to do iv without resorting to invalid out of the syllabus techniques? (I proved iii using induction)
Thanks.