>> Depends what you mean by 'school'. Derivatives (including the chain 
>> rule!),
>> integrals, and even differential equations were all on the maths A-level
>> syllabus that I did (I would hope that they still are!).
> 
> They were when I did my maths A levels (1999).

I don't *have* any A-levels, so I wouldn't know what is or isn't 
included there.

(You get to choose which ones you want to do though, right?)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Depends what you mean by 'school'. Derivatives (including the chain
> >> rule!),
> >> integrals, and even differential equations were all on the maths A-level
> >> syllabus that I did (I would hope that they still are!).
> >
> > They were when I did my maths A levels (1999).
>
> I don't *have* any A-levels, so I wouldn't know what is or isn't
> included there.
>
> (You get to choose which ones you want to do though, right?)

Yep. As scott said, any education beyond 16 is optional in the UK. If you were
so inclined, there'd be nothing to stop you doing a maths A-level now - many
people do. I suspect you'd find much of it relatively easy, and you'd definitely
find the calculus interesting and useful! No idea what it might cost tho.

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Depends what you mean by 'school'. Derivatives (including the chain
> > rule!),
> > integrals, and even differential equations were all on the maths A-level
> > syllabus that I did (I would hope that they still are!).
>
> They were when I did my maths A levels (1999).

I think the structure of A-levels changed in 2000 (more continuous assessment
instead of oodles of exams after 2 years), but I expect it's broadly the same.

> Hehe yes, I went to a sixth form college to do my A levels because schools
> in my area tended to finish at 16 and not offer A levels at all.  Then I
> left this college at 18 to go to another college, which was part of a
> university - grande confusione!

Indeed. And of course many universities have the word 'college' in their names,
especially the younger ex-polytechnics, confusing the issue still further!

Post a reply to this message

>>>> Depends what you mean by 'school'. Derivatives (including the chain
>>>> rule!),
>>>> integrals, and even differential equations were all on the maths A-level
>>>> syllabus that I did (I would hope that they still are!).
>>> They were when I did my maths A levels (1999).
>> I don't *have* any A-levels, so I wouldn't know what is or isn't
>> included there.
>>
>> (You get to choose which ones you want to do though, right?)
> 
> Yep. As scott said, any education beyond 16 is optional in the UK. If you were
> so inclined, there'd be nothing to stop you doing a maths A-level now - many
> people do. I suspect you'd find much of it relatively easy, and you'd definitely
> find the calculus interesting and useful! No idea what it might cost tho.

...all of which seems to support my assessment of "calculus is no longer 
part of standard school education".

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> What the hell is the derivative of f(f(x))?

LMATFY

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+of+f(f(x))

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> Except that it is the wrong answer, or rather the wrong question. 
> Wolfram thought you meant (f <dot> f)(x), when what you actually meant 
> was (f <circle> f)(x).

Which just goes to show the problem I have with 90% of all matehmatical 
notation. It's so utterly inconsistent that even something like (f(f(x))) is 
ambiguous.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> What the hell is the derivative of f(f(x))?
> 
> LMATFY
> 
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+of+f(f(x))

FAIL.

The correct query is of course

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+of+f[f[x]]

Nice try tho. :-P

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Which just goes to show the problem I have with 90% of all matehmatical 
> notation. It's so utterly inconsistent that even something like 
> (f(f(x))) is ambiguous.

Several millennia of mathematical discoveries, all made by different 
people in different places, and apparently several of them discovered 
the same or similar things, but gave them different names - or gave them 
names which clash with existing but inrelated things they didn't know about.

Just for giggles: how many meanings can you find for "normal"?

There's the normal distribution, normal vectors, a normed space...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> What the hell is the derivative of f(f(x))?
>>
>> LMATFY
>>
>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+of+f(f(x))
> 
> FAIL.

Yes. I didn't see there were 50 responses before I posted that. :-)

> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+of+f[f[x]]

Apparently so. One of the reasons I hate mathematical notation.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

>> FAIL.
> 
> Yes. I didn't see there were 50 responses before I posted that. :-)
> 
>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+of+f[f[x]]
> 
> Apparently so. One of the reasons I hate mathematical notation.

Wolfram at least have come up with a consistent, non-ambiguous notation. 
In their notation, a(b)c unambiguously means the product a*b*c, and 
a[b]c unambiguously means that b is the argument of function a, 
multiplied by c. This is partly how Mathematica is able to determine 
precisely what you meant.

Of course, nobody else uses this notation. And while *Mathematica* 
rigorously follows it, *Alpha* attempts to "guess" what you mean. So in 
the case above, it takes "f(f(x))" and guessees that you maybe mean "f * 
f[x]", which isn't quite right. (This is what happens when computers try 
to guess things...)

Post a reply to this message