VCE English/Physics/Methods/PE Lectures (5 hours for $42): THIS WEEK

[Andiio]

@rohitpi:
Hello! I'm the author of those methods notes. You said that the given solution to 2x^2-4>0, which was -root(2)>x>root(2) was incorrect. If you split up the inequality, looking at the first half only, it reads: -root(2)>x, that is: x is an element of (-infinity, -root2]. The second component, x>root(2) is the interval: [root2, infinity). When you put the two intervals together, the inequality is equivalent to the interval (-infinity, -root2]U[root2, infinity).

If we have a look at your proposed alternative, -root2<x<root2, it reads:
x is greater than -root2 and x is less than root 2. That is the interval [-root2, root2]. In short, I think you're incorrect, but thanks for raising it anyway!

Haha, I get you wording now, its a bit confusing though. I didn't propose , I was sticking to , just thought it was a bit confusing how that also equaled to (I don't think that's common methods notation, as it reads which doesn't make sense, or as we've been taught at methods level anyway).

Looks like we're on the same page though

Technically it should remain correct though, your proposal is pretty much the same as what Abes' wrote, and the notation still gives a correct interpretation of what the inequality is implying anyways!

[abeybaby]

@rohitpi:
Hello! I'm the author of those methods notes. You said that the given solution to 2x^2-4>0, which was -root(2)>x>root(2) was incorrect. If you split up the inequality, looking at the first half only, it reads: -root(2)>x, that is: x is an element of (-infinity, -root2]. The second component, x>root(2) is the interval: [root2, infinity). When you put the two intervals together, the inequality is equivalent to the interval (-infinity, -root2]U[root2, infinity).

If we have a look at your proposed alternative, -root2<x<root2, it reads:
x is greater than -root2 and x is less than root 2. That is the interval [-root2, root2]. In short, I think you're incorrect, but thanks for raising it anyway!

Haha, I get you wording now, its a bit confusing though. I didn't propose , I was sticking to , just thought it was a bit confusing how that also equaled to (I don't think that's common methods notation, as it reads which doesn't make sense, or as we've been taught at methods level anyway).

Looks like we're on the same page though

Technically it should remain correct though, your proposal is pretty much the same as what Abes' wrote, and the notation still gives a correct interpretation of what the inequality is implying anyways!

Yep, the inequality and the interval are both the same thing

[pi]

Technically it should remain correct though, your proposal is pretty much the same as what Abes' wrote, and the notation still gives a correct interpretation of what the inequality is implying anyways!

I know it's the same ("Looks like we're on the same page though "), its just that I can see a lot of people who aren't so mathsy being confused. Most textbooks would not write it that way.



Just a question about the notes (in general), do they have questions in them? Or are they just notes with worked examples?

[abeybaby]

Technically it should remain correct though, your proposal is pretty much the same as what Abes' wrote, and the notation still gives a correct interpretation of what the inequality is implying anyways!

I know it's the same ("Looks like we're on the same page though "), its just that I can see a lot of people who aren't so mathsy being confused. Most textbooks would not write it that way.



Just a question about the notes (in general), do they have questions in them? Or are they just notes with worked examples?

When you say questions, I'm guessing you mean extended response like questions. There aren't any extended response type questions, they're are only worked examples of the content in unit 3. But I think that's something I'll take on board, and add to them soon

[brightsky]

@rohitpi:
Hello! I'm the author of those methods notes. You said that the given solution to 2x^2-4>0, which was -root(2)>x>root(2) was incorrect. If you split up the inequality, looking at the first half only, it reads: -root(2)>x, that is: x is an element of (-infinity, -root2]. The second component, x>root(2) is the interval: [root2, infinity). When you put the two intervals together, the inequality is equivalent to the interval (-infinity, -root2]U[root2, infinity).

If we have a look at your proposed alternative, -root2<x<root2, it reads:
x is greater than -root2 and x is less than root 2. That is the interval [-root2, root2]. In short, I think you're incorrect, but thanks for raising it anyway!

Haha, I get you wording now, its a bit confusing though. I didn't propose , I was sticking to , just thought it was a bit confusing how that also equaled to (I don't think that's common methods notation, as it reads which doesn't make sense, or as we've been taught at methods level anyway).

Looks like we're on the same page though

Technically it should remain correct though, your proposal is pretty much the same as what Abes' wrote, and the notation still gives a correct interpretation of what the inequality is implying anyways!

Yep, the inequality and the interval are both the same thing

haven't looked at the book, but drawing from what rohitpi wrote, i think i agree with him; i think the correct notation should be written as: "x =< -2 or x => 2". as rohitpi alluded to earlier, your notation implies that there exists a number that is simultaneously less than -2 and more than 2.

but anyway...

[Deadshot]

I took the English one today.

WOW

What a magnificent day. The lecture was perfect. Clear and concise.

The information was conveyed, explained and was well receive.

Well done and looking forward to the exam session.

ENDORSED

[abeybaby]

@rohitpi:
Hello! I'm the author of those methods notes. You said that the given solution to 2x^2-4>0, which was -root(2)>x>root(2) was incorrect. If you split up the inequality, looking at the first half only, it reads: -root(2)>x, that is: x is an element of (-infinity, -root2]. The second component, x>root(2) is the interval: [root2, infinity). When you put the two intervals together, the inequality is equivalent to the interval (-infinity, -root2]U[root2, infinity).

If we have a look at your proposed alternative, -root2<x<root2, it reads:
x is greater than -root2 and x is less than root 2. That is the interval [-root2, root2]. In short, I think you're incorrect, but thanks for raising it anyway!

Haha, I get you wording now, its a bit confusing though. I didn't propose , I was sticking to , just thought it was a bit confusing how that also equaled to (I don't think that's common methods notation, as it reads which doesn't make sense, or as we've been taught at methods level anyway).

Looks like we're on the same page though

Technically it should remain correct though, your proposal is pretty much the same as what Abes' wrote, and the notation still gives a correct interpretation of what the inequality is implying anyways!

Yep, the inequality and the interval are both the same thing

haven't looked at the book, but drawing from what rohitpi wrote, i think i agree with him; i think the correct notation should be written as: "x =< -2 or x => 2". as rohitpi alluded to earlier, your notation implies that there exists a number that is simultaneously less than -2 and more than 2.

but anyway...

That's fair enough, I think I might have to look into whether or not that notation works...