/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8680965
>finding antiderivatives are easy for most functions

hahahaha

Calc II is going to quadruple the size of your asshole if you act like that. Yes, simple indefinite integrals are simple to find. I don't know about Calc BC but in Calc II the first thing you do is a myriad of tough integration techniques

>>8681043
Kinda misleading
They're not exactly tough if you can easily recognize patterns, but most people make some small mistakes or caveats which leads them to a wrong answer.

>>8680965
I recommend doing AP FRQs at least 2 or 3 times a week and really drill in Integration techniques into your skull. Use Paul's Online Math Notes when you're stuck and just practice.
Some things you should know is that there will always be a Riemann sum FRQ (AB question) and a Series/Sequences FRQ
60% of the test is still AB content, so you can still get credit for a year in Calculus even if you fail the BC section.
The test will be relatively easy if you just do these few things. You can certainly get a 5 my dude.

>>8680965
BRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPP

>>8681043
The integration aspect of calc II can be as easy or as difficult as the prof wants to make it.

Most professors will not give you more than one nasty tricky integral to solve on an exam; you'll either have been shown the method for the form before, or it'll be simple.

That said you can crank up the difficulty on integrals virtually indefinitely until they're Cambridge tripos-level material and then even further to the shit that the integration genies over on stackexchange spend days communally working on

>>8680965
>Finding antiderivatives are easy for most functions
try:
[math]e^{(x^2)}[/math]
If you are not a brainlet it is easy.

There is a fundamental problem with calculus ii

Teaching time consuming integration methods don't really increase your understanding of the underlying concepts. It's just memorization, which I don't like

>>8681483
I solved it, where is my prize?

I will not share my solution unless you pay up front.

>>8681057
Yeah part of the reason I'm taking it is because it still gives an AB subscore. So how much time to you think is enough prep time? In my calc class we are in our second week of integrals and also just started scope field graphs (which btw will probably become useful later on but for now are retarded and look like an autistic 3 year olds doodle work), given an hour or two of studying I remember all my rules for finding derivatives, plus trig functions derivatives, and really old stuff about finding limits and different rules for limits, so I'm sure I'll be fine on that. The test is May 9th, which is 2 months and 20 days away. I remember doing SAT prep on Khan academy and that was about 3 weeks of prep but about 2 hours a day and I still imrpoved my score by about 150 points or so. So I figure if I stick to a 1 or 2 hour a day study time I can pass it. But the tricky part is I have other AP classes I want to do the test for. One of which is AP chem. I HATE AP chem, with a passion. However I figure the techniques it teaches me are useful, and my teacher was a former professor at UB so he runs his class in preparation for an actual college course, so I figure I put in all this work I should take that AP exam as well. Do you have expirience with multiple AP test and preparation for them? I mean last year I took AP English and APUSH in the same year but honestly that's history and English quite a bit easier than science and math

>>8680965
brap

>>8680965
>finding antiderivatives are easy for most functions

You obviously haven't seen many functions

>>8680965
"most" elementary functions do not have elementary antiderivatives.

>>8683033
Well for functions I've seen so far. I worded that in kind of an arrogant way. It's easy for any function where the x^n+1 /n+1 rule can be applied

For the BC portion just do the problems from the Barron's AP Calculus prep book. It should be relatively easy up to the chapter on series. The exam should not be that hard since I think about half of those who have taken the exam score a 5.

>>8683382
>about half of people get a 5
holy shit, I didn't think you were serious, 48.5% of people last year got a 5. The real question is why only 4.6% of people got a 5 on the physics 1 exam when it's just basic algebra

>>8684275
Do you know the scored 5 percentage on the AP Chem test?

>>8684275
I took the physics 1 exam and it's no joke. You actually have to have a solid background in physics concepts. Even with lots of studying I still received a 4.

>>8685239
What's it like?

>>8685302
You actually have to have good reading comprehension during the test and be able to show your methods as well as your thinking. I know on the open ended portion I had to write a procedure on how to determine the speed of sound in the air at room temperature using tuning forks and eight chimes. Also, you'll see very few problems that ask you to outright solve formulas. There is a big difference between understanding math and understanding physics. That's why I believe that you should learn calculus before doing physics because calculus was specifically made to make physics more manageable and in a way, easier to understand.

>>8685559
Taking AP physics online next year? Am I gonna kill myself and be prepared for the AP test. I've already taken AP Calc AB

>>8685577
I wouldn't recommend taking AP physics 1. Many colleges don't even accept credit for it and it's extremely difficult to get a 5 on. You're much better off studying physics C mechanics since you already know the calculus. I don't think there is any BC knowledge in the mechanics exam.

>>8685614
That's the thing. The only Physics class they offer at my shitty school is AP Physics 1 Online.

I definitely want to take the class I just might not attempt the test as If it's that hard regularly then I'm sure it's next to impossible with an online class.