Or connect using:
 Land of the pi eaters.... [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Unofficial Murderous Maths Forum on LJ

 [ official MM site | official MM site ] [ userinfo | userinfo ] [ archive | archive ]

*RoOTs* [May. 17th, 2009|03:32 pm]
Unofficial Murderous Maths Forum on LJ
 yayworthy
 [ Mood | cheerful ]

[or should that be Revival of Old Comm?]

Fun problem, yoinked from somewhere...

Arrange the numbers 1 to 32 in a circle such that adjacent numbers sum to a square number.

Took me an hour and a lot of scribbles, which may also have contained proof the solution is unique. [Sadly, this was only by exhaustion.]

Have fun :)

I Liked This [Feb. 19th, 2008|06:32 pm]
Unofficial Murderous Maths Forum on LJ
 yayworthy
 [ Mood | content ]

Seen in Daily Mail puzzle section yesterday:

What is the next number in the sequence
3941, 564, 95, 20, 6

Well, I enjoyed it. :P

[Hi all... it's been a while.]

I Have Lost Faith [Sep. 28th, 2007|06:14 pm]
Unofficial Murderous Maths Forum on LJ
 yayworthy
 [ Mood | disillusioned ]

So, regular maths today [ie AS level maths class, not AS further maths], the following is observed:

*teacher has written most of a worked example*
"... and that leaves us with x2 = -1 or 1/9. Now, we know we can't solve x2 = -1, so we'll just cross it out and focus on the 1/9"

HANGONJUSTAMINUTE.

We'll just cross it out?!

I put my hand up in protest. "Eh? Surely there is at least one answer involving i?"

"Well yes there is, and we'll be coming onto that in further maths this term".

"So, are we not going to cover imaginary numbers in A level maths? At all?"

"No."

I am now once again disgusted with the state of the education system in this country.

So [Sep. 12th, 2007|05:39 pm]
Unofficial Murderous Maths Forum on LJ
 yayworthy
Is Pure Maths better than Applied Maths ???

Discuss.

*prods community* [Sep. 7th, 2007|09:25 pm]
Unofficial Murderous Maths Forum on LJ
 yayworthy
 [ Mood | bouncy ]

Hello all, long time no post; so I thought I'd just say "yay further maths!".

And that will be all for now. :)

More Thoughts On Recurring Decimals [May. 15th, 2007|05:29 pm]
Unofficial Murderous Maths Forum on LJ
 yayworthy
So Chunk was pestering me for a really hard "convert this recurring decimal into a fraction question", so I said ok fine... um... 0.574372924679 and the 9 at the end recurs.

He sat there for a while puzzling and then wondered what 0.000000000009999999... was. I didn't know. [Help much? See below.]

Chunk decided to take an easier version of the problem and go from there and I realised I'd walked him into the 0.9999999.... = 1 idea

He then stumbled upon the proof for this:
0.99999... = n
9.99999... = 10n
9 = 9n
1 = n

So, following this, does 0.000000000009999999... = 0.00000000000.1?

[And on a sidenote, the main irritating thing was once again, McMaffs dismissing non syllabus mathematics, and blatantly NOT GIVING US THE RIGHT ANSWER. She took a look as far as 9 = 9n and concluded that n must be 1/9. >_< GAHCK! What? You call that maths?!?!?]

Briefly accidentally posted to . Sorry if you were friendlist spammed at this time.

Happy Forumversary All! [Apr. 24th, 2007|05:59 pm]
Unofficial Murderous Maths Forum on LJ
 yayworthy
 [ Mood | bouncy ]

I hope everyone is having an enjoyable day, this of course being UMMF's 2nd birthday! :) And of course, since the UMMF spawned this place, I thought it was only appropriate to make a post about thereof [did that last bit make sense?]. p2tp!

Updates / GCSE Maths Revision [Apr. 3rd, 2007|02:46 pm]
Unofficial Murderous Maths Forum on LJ
 yayworthy
 [ Mood | curious ]

This place is suffering from a little bit of deadness, which I now hope to rectify.

Firstly, the following changes have occured to the links list found on the userinfo page:
1) the maths fanlisting has moved to here.
2) there is now a pi fanlisting [yay!] which can be viewed here.

Secondly, and I've probably asked over on UMMF before but can't remember where, it's exam time again, and as usual, I have no idea how to revise for maths. Tips?

On a very related subject, I've scoured the internet for past papers, and all OCR's website could offer was one specimen paper. If anyone can find some terminal papers for the OCR Mathematics C specification higher tier, much pi would be sent in your direction. Thanking you. Also, would it be a bad move to find past papers from different specifications/boards? [In this I am assuming most GCSE maths exams cover similar topics].

p2tp! :)

Urgum the Axeman [Feb. 5th, 2007|02:51 pm]
Unofficial Murderous Maths Forum on LJ
 stephib
 [ Location | School - IT ]

Beka found Urgum the Axeman yesterday finally!

Yay!

Another Maths Lesson [Jan. 31st, 2007|04:16 pm]
Unofficial Murderous Maths Forum on LJ
 yayworthy
 [ Mood | curious ]

Today we learnt about recurring decimals. Such as 0.444444... being 4/9 and so on. Me and Chunk were finding this easy, so he challenged me to find the equivalent fraction of 0.58666666... which at first I thought, is there such a fraction? Are there any decimal numbers which do not have an equivalent fraction? [Pi does spring to mind, but are there others?].

Following some thought I figured the answer would be 58/100 + 6.66/999 [which Chunk found was equal to 6/900]. Adding these gives 44/75. McMaffs then introduced such problems anyway with a different method:
let 0.5866666... = N
then 100N = 58.666666...
99N = 58.08
9900N = 5808
N = 5808/9900 = 44/75.

McMaffs then posed the problem 0.87444444....
Her solution was:
Let N = 0.8744444
then 100N = 87.444444
99N = 86.57
9900N = 8657
N = 8657/9900

Chunk then said "oh I have another method" and she let him go to the board to explain.
He said 0.874444 = 87/100 + whatever 0.004444444.... is.
He then said this was equal to 4/900.
McMaffs asked him to explain why.
He didn't know, neither do I, so this is my second question.
Chunk continues his working by adding the fractions and got:
783/900 + 4/900 = 787/900
At first McMaffs thought this was wrong until I pointed out it was equivalent to 8657/9900 [both numerator and denominator are 11 times smaller by the "Chunk theorem" method].

So yeah, this is the main point. Why is it 900? I assumed it would be like other recurring decimals [like 0.42424242... = 42/99] and feature denominators with all 9s, thats how I came up with 6.66/999 for the first problem in the first place. It did also occur to me that it was because it was like the normal ones [ie 4/9] but 100 times smaller, as its two decimal places to the right from where it should be, but I couldn't really explain it.
In other news, maths challenge tomorrow!