complex numbers

[humph]

Not much in spec, but moreso in methods. But it's a technique you're expected to know.

[Damo17]

And of course for small numbers it's much easier to remember the coefficients via Pascal's triangle (though this becomes increasingly impractical for larger numbers).

Well yes, but in a way if it was even I would think that pascal's triangle would be quicker. It would maybe take 5 min to draw it on another page. However it would depend on whether you are using a calculator or not. If so then using with a calculator would be quicker.

combinatorics are easier to remember like this:



on top, starting with 9, count down 3 numbers, on the bottom, starting with 1, count up 3 numbers



makes life so much easier

That is sooo much quicker. I don't think we did that this year.

[hard]

And of course for small numbers it's much easier to remember the coefficients via Pascal's triangle (though this becomes increasingly impractical for larger numbers).

i still don't know any other method other than pascal's triangle

[humph]

And of course for small numbers it's much easier to remember the coefficients via Pascal's triangle (though this becomes increasingly impractical for larger numbers).

Well yes, but in a way if it was even I would think that pascal's triangle would be quicker. It would maybe take 5 min to draw it on another page. However it would depend on whether you are using a calculator or not. If so then using with a calculator would be quicker.

combinatorics are easier to remember like this:



on top, starting with 9, count down 3 numbers, on the bottom, starting with 1, count up 3 numbers



makes life so much easier

That is sooo much quicker. I don't think we did that this year.

Yeah I meant that even with a calculator I find it easier just to use Pascal's triangle for polynomials up to degree six or so (mainly because I pretty much remember all of the coefficients off the top of my head).

[hard]

And of course for small numbers it's much easier to remember the coefficients via Pascal's triangle (though this becomes increasingly impractical for larger numbers).

Well yes, but in a way if it was even I would think that pascal's triangle would be quicker. It would maybe take 5 min to draw it on another page. However it would depend on whether you are using a calculator or not. If so then using with a calculator would be quicker.

combinatorics are easier to remember like this:



on top, starting with 9, count down 3 numbers, on the bottom, starting with 1, count up 3 numbers



makes life so much easier

That is sooo much quicker. I don't think we did that this year.

would this be another method as opposed to pascal's triangle? This looks quite simple and quick to use.

[Damo17]

^ you would use that when using binomial theorem. you use that instead of big factorials.

[humph]

^ you would use that when using binomial theorem. you use that instead of big factorials.

I think hard is saying that he only ever learnt how to calculate combinatorics via Pascal's triangle, as opposed to its formal definition via factorials.

I usually just use factorials as I usually only ever need binomials when dealing with polynomials of degree n, in which case you can't really use Pascal's triangle, and Mao's method is actually less concise.

[hard]

^ you would use that when using binomial theorem. you use that instead of big factorials.

I think hard is saying that he only ever learnt how to calculate combinatorics via Pascal's triangle, as opposed to its formal definition via factorials.

I usually just use factorials as I usually only ever need binomials when dealing with polynomials of degree n, in which case you can't really use Pascal's triangle, and Mao's method is actually less concise.

oh yer fair enough.