Students helping students, join us in improving Bored of Studies by donating and supporting future students!
No like you have to prove it somehow. You don't just show it, you have to prove something from part "a".. But I dunno what exactly to prove.isn't that just a simple factorisation?
well the normals at p is:No like you have to prove it somehow. You don't just show it, you have to prove something from part "a".. But I dunno what exactly to prove.![]()
that's okay. Ok now I feel like an idiot, I think I'm overthinking it hahawell the normals at p is:
and at q is:
[simple derivations]
i was thinking solving them simataneoulsy or something, but that got me nowhere
EDIT: thats all i got lol, soz
i doubt something like this would be asked in the HSCthat's okay. Ok now I feel like an idiot, I think I'm overthinking it haha
It is. That is a well-known identity, and it doesn't matter whether or not p & q have anything to do with a parabola.isn't that just a simple factorisation?
Hmm ok, thank you.It is. That is a well-known identity, and doesn't matter whether or not p & q have anything to do with a parabola.
You don't know that t=p+q. She (he?) is saying that the answer you will get after doing the algebra is [2a(p+q), a(p+q)^2].How do you know t = p + q?
You know too much.She (he?)