So i was wondering if tonight's test screwed over anyone else or am I just incredibly stupid?

Ha, Calc 1. Those were the days...

no, it wasn't bad at all. some of the questions were either directly related or were questions from the pretest. the only problem i had was #4. i know it's easy to find that stuff but for some damn reason it was teasing me. if you have Le, he checks everyones paper before you turn it in, but i try not to abuse the privalege (sp?) of allowing him check my paper.

the only problem i had was in the newtons approximation diagrame.that problem sucked.

Being in the Price section of CS53, I've worked A LOT with Newton's Method for finding the square root (which I have neamed a FUCKING WASTE OF TIME!). That one wasn't too hard. And ya, Le'll point out if you've goofed, but I figure if I don't know it the first time, how can I know it after he TELLS me I don't know it? I just turn it in, and he usually thanks me, because there are some people who'll stand up there for 10 minutes trying to figure out what they're doing wrong. Spooty people.

I actually thought that test was hella easy. The only problem I ran into was the aforementioned Newton's method problem. I totally breezed through the first two and the last pages. That third page sucked, though if you didn't see that box problem ending up on the test, you probably deserved to fail.

the newton one was easy if you went to todays recitation (also on the pre-exam). you just draw a basic curve and plot your root. then you pick your x1 and that point is now (x1, f(x1)). the tangent of that point now runs through the x axis at x2. we now have to find the eq. of that tangent line. as we know f prime of (x) is the slope, i.e. =f(x1)/(x1-x2) .just solve for x2 and that's the answer. i suck at explaining but hopefully that helps explain it a bit.

Be thankfull, he is the best intro teacher there is.

Computers gotta find it someway; might as well be this.

That being said, yea, I doubt you'll ever use it.

True, computer do have to have some way to find it. That's why we #include<cmath> and use the sqrt(num, root) shit instead. I mean, someone sat down and made this, and yet, why are we not giving them credit and using their work, instead of trying to recreate it? Is like, let's redefine the quadatric equation instead of using the one already there.

And I don't have Price, I have MiKey. It is split up into 2 main groups, A and B, and then C and D. Price has A, and MiKey has B. They go by the same lesson plans and all that. MiKey's just so fucking funny at times. There was, for about a week, a message on one of the boards, saying something about finding some lost gloves. He got tired of seeing that twice a day, and erased it, writing up instead, 'All your gloves are belong to ME!' How many other profs (well, grad student, but you get the gist of it) out there would do that?

Mikey's cool, I had him last semester. The problem is that Price makes the homework assignments, and every single one of them deal with math. Leopold has her class write stuff like craps games and sports statistics programs.

Don't eeeeeeven get me started on the homework assignments. He thinks we have all been using C++ our entire lives, and know everything all ready. Wish they'd explain some on the programs, just how the fuck yer supposed to do some of this stuff. But oh well