| FRIMATH-4 | |||
| XII-STANDARD(CBSE), MATHEMATICS | |||
| SRI VIGNESH VIDYALAYA | |||
| Applications of Derivatives | |||
| ROLL NO | NAMES | Marks obtained out of 30 | Grade point |
| 12001 | S. SURYA PRAKASH | 4 | 1.33 |
| 12002 | E. HARI PERIASWAMI | 16.5 | 5.50 |
| 12003 | M. KARTHIKEYAN | 2 | 0.67 |
| 12004 | D.HARI PRASATH | 10.5 | 3.50 |
| 12005 | R. RAJ PRASANNA KUMARAN | 2 | 0.67 |
| 12006 | A. GIBBSON | 3 | 1.00 |
| 12007 | P. SURYA | 10 | 3.33 |
| 12008 | R. KARRTHIK | 5 | 1.67 |
| 12009 | L. AARTHI | 5.5 | 1.83 |
| 12010 | R. SHISHIRA | 23 | 7.67 |
| 12011 | S.R.NAARAYANI | 3.5 | 1.17 |
| 12012 | S. JANANI | 0.5 | 0.17 |
| 12013 | S. MOHAMED HASIF | 6 | 2.00 |
| 12014 | M. BHARATH VISHAL | 6 | 2.00 |
| 12015 | S. RAGUNATH | 17 | 5.67 |
| 12016 | R.SARATH JYOTSNA | 12.5 | 4.17 |
| 12017 | K. MARY JAYAMANI | 2 | 0.67 |
| 12018 | S. SOBITHA | 3.5 | 1.17 |
| 12019 | K. AHAMED NISHA | 8 | 2.67 |
| 12020 | V.S. SOWPARNICA | 10.5 | 3.50 |
| 12021 | K. DHARANI | 0 | 0.00 |
| 12022 | P. KIRUTHIKA | 6 | 2.00 |
| 12023 | R.V. INDHU | 1 | 0.33 |
| 12024 | K.R. MONISHA | 3.5 | 1.17 |
Thursday, 3 September 2015
Frimath-4 Results for XII STANDARD (SVV) (Applications of Derivatives)
Friday, 28 August 2015
Results on Cracking Ability Test on Applications on Derivatives
Dear Students, here by the results for the "Cracking Ability Test on Applications of Derivatives" has been Published. The problems which we have given in the question paper are very important. Kindly go with the problems again and try to find the solutions. Have group discussions.
| CONTINUOUS INTERNAL ASSESSMENT | ||||
| XII-STANDARD(CBSE), MATHEMATICS | ||||
| SRI VIGNESH VIDYALAYA | ||||
| Cracking Ability Test (Applications of Derivative) | ||||
| ROLL NO | NAMES | Correct Answers | Wrong Answers | Marks obtained out of 80 |
| 12013 | S. MOHAMED HASIF | 7 | 1 | 27 |
| 12004 | D.HARI PRASATH | 7 | 3 | 25 |
| 12003 | M. KARTHIKEYAN | 7 | 4 | 24 |
| 12016 | R.SARATH JYOTSNA | 7 | 4 | 24 |
| 12006 | A. GIBBSON | 6 | 3 | 21 |
| 12020 | V.S. SOWPARNICA | 6 | 4 | 20 |
| 12007 | P. SURYA | 5 | 2 | 18 |
| 12002 | E. HARI PERIASWAMI | 5 | 3 | 17 |
| 12015 | S. RAGUNATH | 4 | 2 | 14 |
| 12001 | S. SURYA PRAKASH | 4 | 3 | 13 |
| 12010 | R. SHISHIRA | 3 | 3 | 9 |
| 12012 | S. JANANI | 3 | 3 | 9 |
| 12024 | K.R. MONISHA | 3 | 3 | 9 |
| 12005 | R. RAJ PRASANNA KUMARAN | 3 | 4 | 8 |
| 12021 | K. DHARANI | 1 | 4 | 8 |
| 12022 | P. KIRUTHIKA | 1 | 4 | 8 |
| 12023 | R.V. INDHU | 1 | 4 | 8 |
| 12017 | K. MARY JAYAMANI | 3 | 5 | 7 |
| 12009 | L. AARTHI | 3 | 6 | 6 |
| 12011 | S.R.NAARAYANI | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| 12018 | S. SOBITHA | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| 12008 | R. KARRTHIK | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| 12014 | M. BHARATH VISHAL | a | a | 0 |
| 12019 | K. AHAMED NISHA | a | a | 0 |
| TUTOR: M. DAVID RAJ | ||||
The Mathematics of Love
Finding the right mate is no cakewalk — but is it even mathematically likely? In a charming talk, mathematician Hannah Fry shows patterns in how we look for love, and gives her top three tips (verified by math!) for finding that special someone.
Maths is Forever
Theorems are more powerful than the diamonds.
Do hear what the Spaniard says ...
Subtitles and Transcript
Select language
Translated by Tomás Guarna
Reviewed by Sebastian Betti
0:12
Imagine you're in a bar, or a club, and you start talking, and after a while, the question comes up, "So, what do you do for work?" And since you think your job is interesting, you say, "I'm a mathematician." (Laughter) And inevitably, during that conversation one of these two phrases come up: A) "I was terrible at math, but it wasn't my fault. It's because the teacher was awful." (Laughter) Or B) "But what is math really for?" (Laughter) I'll now address Case B. (Laughter)
0:51
When someone asks you what math is for, they're not asking you about applications of mathematical science. They're asking you, why did I have to study that bullshit I never used in my life again? (Laughter) That's what they're actually asking. So when mathematicians are asked what math is for, they tend to fall into two groups: 54.51 percent of mathematicians will assume an attacking position, and 44.77 percent of mathematicians will take a defensive position. There's a strange 0.8 percent, among which I include myself.
1:28
Who are the ones that attack? The attacking ones are mathematicians who would tell you this question makes no sense, because mathematics have a meaning all their own -- a beautiful edifice with its own logic -- and that there's no point in constantly searching for all possible applications. What's the use of poetry? What's the use of love? What's the use of life itself? What kind of question is that? (Laughter) Hardy, for instance, was a model of this type of attack.
1:55
And those who stand in defense tell you, "Even if you don't realize it, friend, math is behind everything." (Laughter) Those guys, they always bring up bridges and computers. "If you don't know math, your bridge will collapse." (Laughter) It's true, computers are all about math. And now these guys have also started saying that behind information security and credit cards are prime numbers. These are the answers your math teacher would give you if you asked him. He's one of the defensive ones.
2:30
Okay, but who's right then? Those who say that math doesn't need to have a purpose, or those who say that math is behind everything we do? Actually, both are right. But remember I told you I belong to that strange 0.8 percent claiming something else? So, go ahead, ask me what math is for.
2:47
Audience: What is math for?
2:50
Eduardo Sáenz de Cabezón: Okay, 76.34 percent of you asked the question, 23.41 percent didn't say anything, and the 0.8 percent -- I'm not sure what those guys are doing. Well, to my dear 76.31 percent -- it's true that math doesn't need to serve a purpose, it's true that it's a beautiful structure, a logical one, probably one of the greatest collective efforts ever achieved in human history. But it's also true that there, where scientists and technicians are looking for mathematical theories that allow them to advance, they're within the structure of math, which permeates everything.
3:31
It's true that we have to go somewhat deeper, to see what's behind science. Science operates on intuition, creativity. Math controls intuition and tames creativity. Almost everyone who hasn't heard this before is surprised when they hear that if you take a 0.1 millimeter thick sheet of paper, the size we normally use, and, if it were big enough, fold it 50 times, its thickness would extend almost the distance from the Earth to the sun. Your intuition tells you it's impossible. Do the math and you'll see it's right. That's what math is for.
4:11
It's true that science, all types of science, only makes sense because it makes us better understand this beautiful world we live in. And in doing that, it helps us avoid the pitfalls of this painful world we live in. There are sciences that help us in this way quite directly. Oncological science, for example. And there are others we look at from afar, with envy sometimes, but knowing that we are what supports them. All the basic sciences support them, including math. All that makes science, science is the rigor of math. And that rigor factors in because its results are eternal.
4:48
You probably said or were told at some point that diamonds are forever, right? That depends on your definition of forever! A theorem -- that really is forever. (Laughter) The Pythagorean theorem is still true even though Pythagoras is dead, I assure you it's true. (Laughter) Even if the world collapsed the Pythagorean theorem would still be true. Wherever any two triangle sides and a good hypotenuse get together (Laughter) the Pythagorean theorem goes all out. It works like crazy. (Applause)
5:26
Well, we mathematicians devote ourselves to come up with theorems. Eternal truths. But it isn't always easy to know the difference between an eternal truth, or theorem, and a mere conjecture. You need proof. For example, let's say I have a big, enormous, infinite field. I want to cover it with equal pieces, without leaving any gaps. I could use squares, right? I could use triangles. Not circles, those leave little gaps. Which is the best shape to use? One that covers the same surface, but has a smaller border. In the year 300, Pappus of Alexandria said the best is to use hexagons, just like bees do. But he didn't prove it. The guy said, "Hexagons, great! Let's go with hexagons!" He didn't prove it, it remained a conjecture. "Hexagons!" And the world, as you know, split into Pappists and anti-Pappists, until 1700 years later when in 1999, Thomas Hales proved that Pappus and the bees were right -- the best shape to use was the hexagon. And that became a theorem, the honeycomb theorem, that will be true forever and ever, for longer than any diamond you may have. (Laughter)
6:47
But what happens if we go to three dimensions? If I want to fill the space with equal pieces, without leaving any gaps, I can use cubes, right? Not spheres, those leave little gaps. (Laughter) What is the best shape to use? Lord Kelvin, of the famous Kelvin degrees and all, said that the best was to use a truncated octahedron which, as you all know -- (Laughter) -- is this thing here! (Applause) Come on. Who doesn't have a truncated octahedron at home? (Laughter) Even a plastic one. "Honey, get the truncated octahedron, we're having guests." Everybody has one! (Laughter)
7:37
But Kelvin didn't prove it. It remained a conjecture -- Kelvin's conjecture. The world, as you know, then split into Kelvinists and anti-Kelvinists (Laughter) until a hundred or so years later, someone found a better structure. Weaire and Phelan found this little thing over here -- (Laughter) -- this structure to which they gave the very clever name "the Weaire-€“Phelan structure." (Laughter) It looks like a strange object, but it isn't so strange, it also exists in nature. It's very interesting that this structure, because of its geometric properties, was used to build the Aquatics Center for the Beijing Olympic Games.
8:31
There, Michael Phelps won eight gold medals, and became the best swimmer of all time. Well, until someone better comes along, right? As may happen with the Weaire-€“Phelan structure. It's the best until something better shows up. But be careful, because this one really stands a chance that in a hundred or so years, or even if it's in 1700 years, that someone proves it's the best possible shape for the job. It will then become a theorem, a truth, forever and ever. For longer than any diamond.
9:09
So, if you want to tell someone that you will love them forever you can give them a diamond. But if you want to tell them that you'll love them forever and ever, give them a theorem! (Laughter) But hang on a minute! You'll have to prove it, so your love doesn't remain a conjecture.
9:35
(Applause)
Do hear what the Spaniard says ...
Subtitles and Transcript
Select language
Translated by Tomás Guarna
Reviewed by Sebastian Betti
0:12
Imagine you're in a bar, or a club, and you start talking, and after a while, the question comes up, "So, what do you do for work?" And since you think your job is interesting, you say, "I'm a mathematician." (Laughter) And inevitably, during that conversation one of these two phrases come up: A) "I was terrible at math, but it wasn't my fault. It's because the teacher was awful." (Laughter) Or B) "But what is math really for?" (Laughter) I'll now address Case B. (Laughter)
0:51
When someone asks you what math is for, they're not asking you about applications of mathematical science. They're asking you, why did I have to study that bullshit I never used in my life again? (Laughter) That's what they're actually asking. So when mathematicians are asked what math is for, they tend to fall into two groups: 54.51 percent of mathematicians will assume an attacking position, and 44.77 percent of mathematicians will take a defensive position. There's a strange 0.8 percent, among which I include myself.
1:28
Who are the ones that attack? The attacking ones are mathematicians who would tell you this question makes no sense, because mathematics have a meaning all their own -- a beautiful edifice with its own logic -- and that there's no point in constantly searching for all possible applications. What's the use of poetry? What's the use of love? What's the use of life itself? What kind of question is that? (Laughter) Hardy, for instance, was a model of this type of attack.
1:55
And those who stand in defense tell you, "Even if you don't realize it, friend, math is behind everything." (Laughter) Those guys, they always bring up bridges and computers. "If you don't know math, your bridge will collapse." (Laughter) It's true, computers are all about math. And now these guys have also started saying that behind information security and credit cards are prime numbers. These are the answers your math teacher would give you if you asked him. He's one of the defensive ones.
2:30
Okay, but who's right then? Those who say that math doesn't need to have a purpose, or those who say that math is behind everything we do? Actually, both are right. But remember I told you I belong to that strange 0.8 percent claiming something else? So, go ahead, ask me what math is for.
2:47
Audience: What is math for?
2:50
Eduardo Sáenz de Cabezón: Okay, 76.34 percent of you asked the question, 23.41 percent didn't say anything, and the 0.8 percent -- I'm not sure what those guys are doing. Well, to my dear 76.31 percent -- it's true that math doesn't need to serve a purpose, it's true that it's a beautiful structure, a logical one, probably one of the greatest collective efforts ever achieved in human history. But it's also true that there, where scientists and technicians are looking for mathematical theories that allow them to advance, they're within the structure of math, which permeates everything.
3:31
It's true that we have to go somewhat deeper, to see what's behind science. Science operates on intuition, creativity. Math controls intuition and tames creativity. Almost everyone who hasn't heard this before is surprised when they hear that if you take a 0.1 millimeter thick sheet of paper, the size we normally use, and, if it were big enough, fold it 50 times, its thickness would extend almost the distance from the Earth to the sun. Your intuition tells you it's impossible. Do the math and you'll see it's right. That's what math is for.
4:11
It's true that science, all types of science, only makes sense because it makes us better understand this beautiful world we live in. And in doing that, it helps us avoid the pitfalls of this painful world we live in. There are sciences that help us in this way quite directly. Oncological science, for example. And there are others we look at from afar, with envy sometimes, but knowing that we are what supports them. All the basic sciences support them, including math. All that makes science, science is the rigor of math. And that rigor factors in because its results are eternal.
4:48
You probably said or were told at some point that diamonds are forever, right? That depends on your definition of forever! A theorem -- that really is forever. (Laughter) The Pythagorean theorem is still true even though Pythagoras is dead, I assure you it's true. (Laughter) Even if the world collapsed the Pythagorean theorem would still be true. Wherever any two triangle sides and a good hypotenuse get together (Laughter) the Pythagorean theorem goes all out. It works like crazy. (Applause)
5:26
Well, we mathematicians devote ourselves to come up with theorems. Eternal truths. But it isn't always easy to know the difference between an eternal truth, or theorem, and a mere conjecture. You need proof. For example, let's say I have a big, enormous, infinite field. I want to cover it with equal pieces, without leaving any gaps. I could use squares, right? I could use triangles. Not circles, those leave little gaps. Which is the best shape to use? One that covers the same surface, but has a smaller border. In the year 300, Pappus of Alexandria said the best is to use hexagons, just like bees do. But he didn't prove it. The guy said, "Hexagons, great! Let's go with hexagons!" He didn't prove it, it remained a conjecture. "Hexagons!" And the world, as you know, split into Pappists and anti-Pappists, until 1700 years later when in 1999, Thomas Hales proved that Pappus and the bees were right -- the best shape to use was the hexagon. And that became a theorem, the honeycomb theorem, that will be true forever and ever, for longer than any diamond you may have. (Laughter)
6:47
But what happens if we go to three dimensions? If I want to fill the space with equal pieces, without leaving any gaps, I can use cubes, right? Not spheres, those leave little gaps. (Laughter) What is the best shape to use? Lord Kelvin, of the famous Kelvin degrees and all, said that the best was to use a truncated octahedron which, as you all know -- (Laughter) -- is this thing here! (Applause) Come on. Who doesn't have a truncated octahedron at home? (Laughter) Even a plastic one. "Honey, get the truncated octahedron, we're having guests." Everybody has one! (Laughter)
7:37
But Kelvin didn't prove it. It remained a conjecture -- Kelvin's conjecture. The world, as you know, then split into Kelvinists and anti-Kelvinists (Laughter) until a hundred or so years later, someone found a better structure. Weaire and Phelan found this little thing over here -- (Laughter) -- this structure to which they gave the very clever name "the Weaire-€“Phelan structure." (Laughter) It looks like a strange object, but it isn't so strange, it also exists in nature. It's very interesting that this structure, because of its geometric properties, was used to build the Aquatics Center for the Beijing Olympic Games.
8:31
There, Michael Phelps won eight gold medals, and became the best swimmer of all time. Well, until someone better comes along, right? As may happen with the Weaire-€“Phelan structure. It's the best until something better shows up. But be careful, because this one really stands a chance that in a hundred or so years, or even if it's in 1700 years, that someone proves it's the best possible shape for the job. It will then become a theorem, a truth, forever and ever. For longer than any diamond.
9:09
So, if you want to tell someone that you will love them forever you can give them a diamond. But if you want to tell them that you'll love them forever and ever, give them a theorem! (Laughter) But hang on a minute! You'll have to prove it, so your love doesn't remain a conjecture.
9:35
(Applause)
The important Links
- National Entrance Screening Test (NEST) is a compulsory test for students seeking admission to National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER), Bhubaneswar and University of Mumbai - Department of Atomic Energy Centre for Excellence in Basic Sciences (UM-DAE CBS), Mumbai. Both NISER and UM-DAE CBS were set up by Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India in 2007. Their mandate is to train scientific manpower for carrying out cutting edge scientific research and for providing input to scientific programmes of Department of Atomic Energy and other applied science institutions in the country. The test is conducted in around 52 cities [see list] (79 venues) across India. The brochure gives the detailed procedure for applying for the test, syllabus of the test and various dead lines.
- To promote high quality scientific education, research and training, Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, has set up five Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs) at Bhopal, Kolkata, Mohali, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram. A sixth IISER is scheduled to start functioning at Tirupati from August 2015.
- Chennai Mathematical Institute is a centre of excellence for teaching and research in the mathematical sciences. Founded in 1989 as part of the SPIC Science Foundation, it has been an autonomous institute since 1996.All students receive handsome scholarships that meet all expenses. B.Sc. (Hons.) students receive a scholarship of Rs. 4000 per month, M.Sc. students receive a scholarship of Rs. 6000 per month and Ph.D. scholarships start at Rs. 25000 per month. Students of B.Sc. (Hons.) also receive an additional monthly scholarship of Rs. 1000, made possible through generous private donations. Students of M.Sc. and Ph.D. also receive supplementary scholarships made possible through private contributions. For admissions click here.
- Indian Statistical Institute (ISI), a unique
institution devoted to the research, teaching and application of statistics, natural sciences and social sciences. Founded by Professor P.C. Mahalanobis in Kolkata on 17th December, 1931, the institute gained the status of an Institution of National Importance by an act of the Indian Parliament in 1959. The B.Math.(Hons.) degree programme offers comprehensive instruction in basic mathematics along with rudimentary courses in probability, Statistics, Computing and Physics. It is so designed that on successful completion, the students would be able to pursue higher studies in the areas of Mathematics, Statistics, Computer Science, Mathematical Physics or take up a career in applications of Mathematics. The total duration of the B.Math.(Hons.) programme is three years.
Old IITs
- IIT, Kharagpur: http://www.iitkgp.ac.in
- IIT Delhi: http://www.iitd.ac.in
- IIT, Guwahati: http://www.iitg.ac.in
- IIT, Chennai: http://www.iitm.ac.in
- IIT, Kanpur: http://www.iitk.ac.in
- IIT, Mumbai: http://www.iitb.ac.in
- IIT Roorkee: http://www.iitr.ac.in
New IITs
- IIT, Gandhinagar: http://www.iitgn.ac.in
- IIT, Hyderabad : http://www.iith.ac.in
- IIT, Indore : http://www.iiti.ac.in
- IIT, Mandi : http://www.iitmandi.ac.in
- IIT, Patna: http://www.iitp.ac.in
- IIT, Ropar: http://www.iitrpr.ac.in
- IIT Jodhpur: http://www.iitj.ac.in/
Wednesday, 26 August 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)