1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Harvard Entrance Exam 1869

Discussion in 'Mathematics' started by Polecat, Dec 19, 2011.

  1. Makes interesting reading. I've got some entrance papers for Oxbridge colleges from about the same period, and they are comparable. The maths looks to be pretty useful stuff and not to be scoffed at. Nothing like those dreadful STEP papers that some kids are forced to take now.
     
  2. Sarcasm?
     
  3. Thanks Karvol!
     
  4. I find the History and Geography paper the most interesting, and challenging!
    I like the advice given to candidates in the mathematics section about how to set out their work.
    I'm wondering how the 'Applicants for Advanced Standing' were supposed to do Arithmetic Q4 given that this was not in the Logarithms and Trigonometry section. I know of classical methods to find approximations to cube roots, but would these have been known to such applicants?
     
  5. 0.0093^(1/3)

    =1/100 * (21^3+39) ^(1/3)

    = 21 / 100 *( 1+ 13 / 3087 ) ^ (1/3)

    Which is near enough

    = 21 / 100 * (1 + 42 / 10000 ) ^ ( 1 / 3 )

    and a couple of terms of the binomial expansion suffice to give 0.210294.

    This would probably be a fail as I can't guarantee the accuracy.

    Does anyone know what sort of method they would have used?
     
  6. DM

    DM New commenter

    Two applications of Newton's method with a first guess of 0.2 would give you the answer to 5 s.f. and the arithmetic isn't ridiculous.
    x1 = 0.2
    x2 = (0.0093*25 + 0.4)/3 = 253/1200
    x3 = (93*144/64009 + 253/600)/3 = 0.2102957483
     
  7. OK, I can see that 9300 = 21^3 + 39, as a first step in a trial and
    improvement approach.
    Then I suppose 13/3087 is approximately 42/10000 by long division.
    But, as you say Null, the accuracy to 5 dps is an issue.
    I can think of Heron's method and Newton's, but neither look good in this situation.
    Must be missing something.
     
  8. Yes DM, but sadly the final sf or dp is wrong. It needs one more iteration.
     
  9. DM

    DM New commenter

    I didn't read the question so didn't realise it specified a certain accuracy.
    I suspect the candidates were supposed to use this algorithm then as it works to whatever accuracy you need.
    http://xlinux.nist.gov/dads//HTML/cubeRoot.html
     
  10. DM

    DM New commenter

    To follow the algorithm you will probably find it easier to find the cube root of 9800 and then divide the answer by 100.
     
  11. DM

    DM New commenter

    Because it says "Mark off triples of digits, starting from the decimal point and working left." I thought this might defeat some people who wanted to give it a go.
     
  12. Co blimey, luv a duck, you must be joking.
    I think they must have had access to 7 figure log tables, like we all used to have in the old days.
     
  13. DM

    DM New commenter

    My memory of 1869 is a little hazy.
     
  14. but mine is as clear as the day is young.
    Yes we did have 7 figure tables, blast you ...
     

Share This Page