Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

May 03, 2024, 01:21:21 am

Author Topic: Maths advice for 2016 graduates-to-be  (Read 3634 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

zsteve

  • ATAR Notes VIC MVP - 2016
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want - Ps. 23
  • Respect: +218
Maths advice for 2016 graduates-to-be
« on: November 12, 2015, 09:32:05 pm »
+17
Seeing that the class of 2016 is taking over the forums, I thought I'd summarise what I've learned in terms of studying for VCE Mathematics subjects - I'm trying not to repeat what's been said before, but here a few things that really helped me throughout year 12 (and the rest of what I've learned in recent years really) which I think I'd like to share. My personal experience has been in Methods and Spesh, although I guess this would be applicable to Further (it's still maths, albeit easier)
Conceptual understanding
I cannot stress enough the importance of conceptually understanding every detail when studying mathematics. The basis of topics in maths, unlike the other sciences, are largely accessible in their entirety to the VCE student. This is in contrast to chemistry and to some degree physics, where you need to see with 'only one eye open' (or else do uni extension subject haha).

Conceptually understanding a formula, rule or interpretation in maths for me often involved understanding the proof. Proofs are a very important part of mathematics, and sadly neglected in much of VCE maths. For instance, why is the derivative of sin(x) = cos(x)? What is the geometric meaning of a vector derivative? How is it derived? What about a definite vector integral? What does a limit actually mean? Why does Euler's formula work, and what factors may affect its accuracy? And how exactly does a Markov chain work? In terms of the derivative expression, why does a maximum correspond to a minimum on a reciprocal graph?
These are the questions which you need to ask yourself when studying mathematics - it is NOT SIMPLY A FORMULA! (exception: probability - this can be very tricky, and the 'logical', conceptual conclusion may be different from the correct conclusion)

So in general, look for a geometric and algebraic interpretation for each topic you learn, be it functions and transformations, or differential equations. Geometric interpretations can be key to solving complex extended-response questions at VCAA level, such as the interpretation of a vector derivative  (which is in a way a tangent of a space curve)- or the geometric parallels between complex numbers and vectors. It would be beneficial to read broadly (Paul's Maths Notes, and Khan Academy to a certain extent, but I definitely would recommend David Guichard - Single Variable Calculus (lyryx) (a free open e-textbook, google it)
The VCE level textbooks tend to be dry and uninteresting, and Essentials is probably the best. However, the above (Guichard, Single Variable Calculus) covers most requirements of Methods and Specialist comprehensively, with interesting extras - you may even be able to substitute reading it instead of your textbook! These higher-level textbooks in general give far more insight than say the Heinemann books (or maybe MathQuest)

That said, however, don't go off on a massive tangent unless you have time (e.g. during holidays). Your Year 12 SACs and assessments obviously take priority. I did nevertheless go off on a wild mathematical adventure during Term 1 holidays and learn about separable, first order homogeneous, first order linear, second order linear homogeneous and second order linear inhomogeneous differential equations - the terminology was a mouthful already!.

Write down what you learn
I never felt comfortable learning stuff unless I had A4 loose leaf lined paper and a binder to write it down on. And I didn't make random unstructured notes - I organised my binder from A-Z and grouped topics that I covered. Personally, I need to write down stuff I learn - and it assists with learning and conceptual understanding too.
I'd include worked examples on my own notes, less for future reference (I rarely forgot stuff I learned this way) but more for getting a hang of how to solve the problem/use the formula/use the concept. I would attempt the textbook's worked solutions first without reading their solutions (or with reading) and then compare mine with theirs (or just check the answer at times). This was like 'training wheels' before launching into doing actual questions w/o solutions.

I've actually made a scanned copy of my notes binder - it contains everything I've learnt about maths (except from Uni maths) and is over 200 pages. (for your reference, I hope it helps). And I'd strongly encourage you to work on your own.
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=2692D5EC8060E581!6573&authkey=!AO6WU14SZcjoQeQ&ithint=file%2cpdf


WORK HARD and START EARLY
Edit: yes, as Eulerfan pointed out, this may not work for everybody. My post is reflective of what worked for me, so take it as a suggestion of one thing which worked for one guy. It is definitely not the only way, but it is one. The above (conceptual understanding) however is probably the only way though :P

There is no substitute for hard work. I personally started studying for my VCE subjects (all of them but englang :D) in November 2014. For Methods and Spesh, I spent roughly 1.5 hours a day each, sometimes 2 each. For Methods, I believe I covered most if not all of Unit 3 material before starting term (can't really remember, I think I was up to differentiation). However, note that I had covered most of this stuff in random places before (before VCE), so it was mainly review. Specialist much the same, was up to Chapter 6 of Essentials by February. Starting this early proved to be a massive advantage (I stayed months if not terms ahead of my class throughout most of the year, although stuff caught up to some extent towards the end).
For Specialist and Methods, I finished the course roughly in late July/early August, and yes, I did 95% of the textbook exercises (all except for the really stupid ones.

Might add some more stuff to this later on, but I hope this gives some guidance as to how to study for VCE maths (and maths/stuff in general, not just VCE)
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 09:57:29 pm by zsteve »
~~ rarely checking these forums these days ~~

2015: Specialist [47] | Methods [48] | Chemistry [50] | Physics [48] | English Language [46] | UMEP Mathematics [5.0] | ATAR - 99.95
Premier's Award Recipient 2016: Top All-Round VCE High Achiever
2016-2019: University of Melbourne : Bachelor of Science (Biochemistry & Molecular Biology), Diploma in Mathematics (Applied)
2019-: University of British Columbia

keltingmeith

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 5493
  • he/him - they is also fine
  • Respect: +1292
Re: Maths advice for 2016 graduates-to-be
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2015, 09:48:28 pm »
0
As a strong contended for contextual understanding, this advice obviously has my vote of approval. :P (but, note: starting early =/= doing well, and likewise doing well =/= starting early. Plenty of people have started early and crumbled, and plenty of people have started with everyone else [or even later than everyone else] and done brilliantly.

Having said that, there was also a lot of people who started early and did well, as this obviously worked for zsteve. Don't think that his method of doing well is the /only/ method. Do what works for you, all of this is a matter of opinions and case studies, remember)

(exception: probability - this can be very tricky, and the 'logical', conceptual conclusion may be different from the correct conclusion)

I do draw a differing of opinion here, though. Maybe I'm a little biased given this is my speciality, however I believe that the probability done in methods is very intuitive (the new stats stuff, not so much, that's rather black box because unfortunately you don't know enough in VCE to intuitively understand it. :S More on that after I finish my exams LOL). I can understand if you struggle with it a bit, given that it's not as definitive as most other parts of VCE maths (eg: if the volume of water in a cone is given by V=x^3, you know that at x=2, V will always be 8. Probability does not work like this), however all of the formulas can be rationalised if you spend enough time thinking about them.

zsteve

  • ATAR Notes VIC MVP - 2016
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want - Ps. 23
  • Respect: +218
Re: Maths advice for 2016 graduates-to-be
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2015, 10:16:46 pm »
+1
I do draw a differing of opinion here, though
I admit some of the stuff is intuitive as well, but in particular I had in mind:
- what is the physical/logical reason the probability of an exact value is zero for continuous pdf? After some thinking, my opinion was that it was 'physically' (if I may describe it that way) impossible to randomly select exact values. E.g. it is impossible to devise a method to randomly select an element from the real numbers. Hence Pr(exact value) = 0.
Is this correct, Eulerfan?
- the practical meaning of independent events can be misleading - it's usually the safest way to use the rule Pr(A and B) = Pr(A)*Pr(B) to check for independence than using the qualitative rule "the probability of one occurring is not affected by the other's occurrence"
~~ rarely checking these forums these days ~~

2015: Specialist [47] | Methods [48] | Chemistry [50] | Physics [48] | English Language [46] | UMEP Mathematics [5.0] | ATAR - 99.95
Premier's Award Recipient 2016: Top All-Round VCE High Achiever
2016-2019: University of Melbourne : Bachelor of Science (Biochemistry & Molecular Biology), Diploma in Mathematics (Applied)
2019-: University of British Columbia

keltingmeith

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 5493
  • he/him - they is also fine
  • Respect: +1292
Re: Maths advice for 2016 graduates-to-be
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2015, 11:02:42 pm »
+1
I admit some of the stuff is intuitive as well, but in particular I had in mind:
- what is the physical/logical reason the probability of an exact value is zero for continuous pdf? After some thinking, my opinion was that it was 'physically' (if I may describe it that way) impossible to randomly select exact values. E.g. it is impossible to devise a method to randomly select an element from the real numbers. Hence Pr(exact value) = 0.

This is an interesting one, but it really comes down to properly understanding the difference between discrete and continuous. Discrete means you can /count/ the object - not that it's some number of 1, 2 or 3, but that you can count it. For example, let's consider trying to count a bunch of cake slices. If each cake slice is 1/8 of a cake, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that you can count 5/8 of a cake. This is still discrete, because you can count it.

However, continuous things are measured. For example, my height - am I 170 cm tall? Not exactly, no - this might be what the measuring tape says I approximately am, but that's not my exact height. So, you might guess I'm 170.0 cm tall - but that's still not enough information, because you can get more precise, maybe I'm 170.00 cm tall - and this goes on, and on, and on.

The problem is, numbers don't end, and neither do decimals - you can't say that I'm 170.00........0 cm tall, because I can get even more precise than that by adding another 0. You can't "count" my height, and if you were to try to, you would obtain an infinite amount of numbers to compare it to. Using the probability laws from discrete probability, this would mean that the probability that my height is exactly 170.00.......0 is 1 case out of infinity - 1/infinity. By looking to what happens to 1/x as x goes to infinity, we know that this probability will go to 0, and that's why the probability of a single point on a continuous random variable is always going to be 0.

- the practical meaning of independent events can be misleading - it's usually the safest way to use the rule Pr(A and B) = Pr(A)*Pr(B) to check for independence than using the qualitative rule "the probability of one occurring is not affected by the other's occurrence"

I just reckon this whole thing is shitly taught in general, so let's just go all for it.

The idea of one event, A, being independent of another event, B, is exactly as you first stated - it's that the /knowledge/ of one does not affect the other.

This is pretty obvious for simple cases, of course. If I flip a coin two times, A is the probability of getting heads on the first flip, and B is the probability of getting heads on the second flip, obviously they're independent. It doesn't matter what I get for A - the coin resets when I go to flip it the second time. In this case, the knowledge of A does not affect B. So, let's look at that notationally:

P(B|A)=P(B) - because the probability of B does not change, even though we know what A is. That's how you should think of that conditional sign |. This says, "the probability of B given that we know what A is." Since A and B are independent, the probability of B given that we know A happened - given that we know the first flip was heads - does not affect the probability that the second flip is heads, and so is the probability that B has happened.

THAT equation is truly what independence is all about. The one you're talking about is a result - it is not independence. That does mean it's useless, however - let's say A and B are independent, and put it into the equation we usually use for independence:

P(B|A)=P(BnA)/P(A) <====> P(A)P(B|A)=P(AnB)

But, we know that A and B are independent - as discussed in the previous paragraph, this means that P(B|A)=P(B). So, we substitute this in, and we get:

P(A)P(B|A)=P(AnB) <====> P(A)P(B)=P(AnB)

So, the question is - why do we have this second rule, why is it used so much, when it's not truly what independence is about? Why care about this equation, if the first equation P(B|A)=P(B) is more descriptive and easier to swallow? Because this result is useful when you consider the PDFs and PMFs of multiple random variables. The easiest way to show that two random variables are independent is not to show that P(X=x|Y=y)=P(X=x), but rather to show that P(X=x,Y=x)=P(X=x)P(Y=y), because the first case involves calculus - the second case only requires algebra. (note: this last paragraph is more interest as opposed to helping the contextual learning)

Adequace

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
  • 7-1 never forget.
  • Respect: +12
Re: Maths advice for 2016 graduates-to-be
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2015, 11:11:12 pm »
0
Thanks for this, especially the bound reference.

How much of your bound reference is relevant to methods and spesh units 1&2?

keltingmeith

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 5493
  • he/him - they is also fine
  • Respect: +1292
Re: Maths advice for 2016 graduates-to-be
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2015, 11:18:30 pm »
0
Thanks for this, especially the bound reference.

How much of your bound reference is relevant to methods and spesh units 1&2?

Note: for next year, specialist 1/2 is getting a massive overhaul. Like, a crazy overhaul. An overhaul so big, they're actually going to call it specialist 1/2 instead of GMA!! (/bad jokes is bad, and I apologise) I don't know how much zsteve has looked into the new study design, so I'll leave it to him if he has looked at it, but I doubt the book will relate to specialist 1/2 much at all. (note: I have not had a thorough look through the notes [200 pages?!?! This thing should be a textbook!!], so zsteve is obviously the man with the proper, final answer. Just thought I'd weigh in in case he was unaware, because the changes to 1/2 haven't actually been spoken about too much)

zsteve

  • ATAR Notes VIC MVP - 2016
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want - Ps. 23
  • Respect: +218
Re: Maths advice for 2016 graduates-to-be
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2015, 06:23:32 pm »
0
Yeah the overhaul is crazy crazy crazy. I might find time to upload my UMEP notes for proofs, induction and number theory - I think those are 100% relevant to 1/2 Spesh.
ARC LENGTH IN SPECIALIST 3/4 XD
~~ rarely checking these forums these days ~~

2015: Specialist [47] | Methods [48] | Chemistry [50] | Physics [48] | English Language [46] | UMEP Mathematics [5.0] | ATAR - 99.95
Premier's Award Recipient 2016: Top All-Round VCE High Achiever
2016-2019: University of Melbourne : Bachelor of Science (Biochemistry & Molecular Biology), Diploma in Mathematics (Applied)
2019-: University of British Columbia

nerdgasm

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • Respect: +73
Re: Maths advice for 2016 graduates-to-be
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2015, 07:31:37 pm »
+1
I think the problem with 'randomly' selecting a number from the real numbers (or even an interval such as [0, 1]) is that any such method would require an infinite amount of time. If I asked you to think of a real number, and then I try to guess it, there's a chance that I might guess the number you were thinking of. But this isn't a truly random process - your ability to think of a real number will naturally be weighted towards real numbers with shorter decimal expansions, or perhaps combinations of common surds or transcendental numbers (if you so desire). To inject a bit of morbidity into this discussion, you are also limited by your natural lifetime (or much more likely, your patience and mine) as to what numbers you could possibly think of before you die. Also note that there are (exponentially) more numbers with longer decimal expansion than with shorter - hence, the numbers you can think of make up an infinitely small proportion of all numbers.

I do have a question regarding the interpretation of individual function values in a continuous distribution, however. Say I had a normal distribution (with mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1). It logically follows that there are two x-values where the y-value is 0.4, for example. What kind of interpretation do we attach to this 0.4? Does it have zero intrinsic value, or do we say 'the graph must be 0.4 at those points or else the distribution doesn't work', or something else entirely?

Regarding 'height' and other continuous variables - if we confine our attempts to measure height to the real world, I think there is a natural limit to how accurately we can measure height. My personal guess is that the probability function nature of subatomic particles naturally prevents us from obtaining an 'exact' height, so at best we would be able to come up with a range of heights anyway.

However, this is one area in which I feel maths differs from science - in science, we can't empirically measure it exactly, so we write down our measurements, and report our standard errors and confidence intervals. However, in maths, we have no qualms about dealing with 10 metre trees that cast 7 metre shadows. We implicitly assume the tree is *exactly* 10 metres, and that its shadow is *exactly* 7 metres, and we go off and use our mathematical tools to deduce the information we want. So to me, this means in 'maths-land', we are capable of a precision that is implicitly unattainable in the 'real world'. Do I believe you have an exact height? Yes. Can I ever work out what it is? No. Should I worry about this fact? No. Am I happy to go with a measurement that's close enough in the real world? Yes.

But (assuming my personal belief is right, which it may well not be), does the fact that you have an exact height have value to me? Very much yes. To me, that is what makes mathematics unique - the truth, no matter how 'useless', is valued and sought.

In any case, I personally think arc length is a pretty neat kind of thing to teach in Specialist Maths - who hasn't ever questioned how one calculates the length of a parabola? And if we're getting methods of proof and number theory in Spesh 1/2, I might just squeal a little inside.