QUESTION 10b) iv) (1 Viewer)

[Mjontrix]

I got theta as 2. Is it sufficient enough that I leave it in that form for one mark?

 

[mitchh81]

i just left theta as 2 aswell ! yew

 

[o_0]

i just left theta as 2 aswell ! yew

i said it equalled 2 rad., and underneath =114' 35'

 

[sinsolja]

i just said 2 radians. :S

 

[someth1ng]

I just said "theta=2"

 

[im_betta_than_u]

WRONG newbs, you needed to put radians

 

[Proteus]

WRONG newbs, you needed to put radians

thankfully i did write theta = 2 radians

I couldn't do the part after though!

 

[elvishtears]

same, just incase hahaha

 

[asianese]

Phew! Theta = 2

I'm surprised they didn't put a bitchy differentiation for Q10...rather a simpler proof that r was between whatsy and whatsy..

 

[Neologism]

Ooooo I GOT TWO TOO! But I thought I was wrong at first... then did more working beneath but then scribbled that out, I think... :|

 

[Sammydubbs]

i said it equalled 2 rad., and underneath =114' 35'

Same!!!!!!! now I feel special

 

[o_0]

hey for the last part of Q10, for the proof,
i wrote since 0< theta < 2pi, ... then went on to prove what it asked

but i looked at the question and it says "explain", so will i lose a mark? is my working out sufficient?

 

[Ferox]

WRONG newbs, you needed to put radians

No you don't. Radians are dimensionless. 2 is just a number; no need to bother writing "rad" or anything like that.

 

[OmmU]

i said it equalled 2 rad., and underneath =114' 35'

Same TGFT!

 

[qawe]

hey for the last part of Q10, for the proof,
i wrote since 0< theta < 2pi, ... then went on to prove what it asked

but i looked at the question and it says "explain", so will i lose a mark? is my working out sufficient?

no, on the contrary, ur solution is excellent and should definitely be awarded full marks.
what is wrong is when people started with the answer and then reached 0<theta<2pi, coz the question says it is "only" possible, this just shows that it is possible
congrats on what i perceive to be an elegant solution