In #MathsToday, I have beef with the AQA formula book.
Why is the quotient rule in terms of f(x) and g(x) (which then leads to the obvious use of f and g for the product rule, too, for consistency) but integration by parts is in terms of u and v? When IBP can be derived from the product rule?
Why is the quotient rule in terms of f(x) and g(x) (which then leads to the obvious use of f and g for the product rule, too, for consistency) but integration by parts is in terms of u and v? When IBP can be derived from the product rule?
Comments
They just look at the table of values, and h is the difference between a pair of consecutive x values
I refuse to let mine even look at the formula
Are there any other parts of the A Level formula sheets that throw you off like this? #ALevelMaths
Hmm trying to think of other things that seem inconsistent.
In our further maths booklet, it always surprises me that the formula for the approximate chi squared statistic is given, but the alternative for Yates' Correction isn't.
h=f/g becomes hg=f.
I did not realize this.
Cross multiply, product rule, solve for h', substitute, rationalize.
There is probably some tangent I go off on in between too.
Of course, it is what they should meet *first*.
Also, the needless ambiguity of using a dot as a multiplication in 1.2