Messages
First, I want to remind you that the exam is open-book, and you may bring any printed, photocopied and/or handwritten material.
In case you need last-minute clarifications, then Espen will be available Monday and Tuesday; Nils will be available on Tuesday and to a certain degree on Monday (a couple of appointments scheduled already) - and in case needed, on Sunday as well, please send e-mail.
... if I had, I must confess to have forgotten them. So after the 2013 exam, the agenda is open. I have the time.
... same place (Aud. 3) and time as an ordinary Tuesday lecture. Requests appreciated; I intend to cover the 2013 exam.
- Nils
Go to the old exams folder and search for "m3x13". I suggest that you keep it unseen until you can allocate 3 hrs for a simulated exam.
- Nils
Sorry that the problems are scattered over three different notes. But I think you should find the relevant exercises without problems. I did exercise 6-10 a) one more time since I was quite unprecise at my first attempt during the seminar.
Espen
I have yet to have anyone of you showing up, but from now on I will be available after the Math2 lectures as follows:
in my office Tuesdays from 1215, or contact me in AUD7 Wednesday at 1600 (I will leave right away if nobody there).
- Nils
I have posted a problem set, based on a guess on how far Espen will reach on Thursday. There might be a bit too much work on differential equations problems (though doing them all certainly won't hurt).
Espen may want to make adjustments. Watch the Messages.
- Nils
Note that in exercise 4-08, the answer is 1/2, not -1/2 as in my notes.
Also: to find the exercise that is not in the compendium, see the notes from seminar 6 (first page).
I have received an e-mail indicating that I mixed up two integration constants in the solution of first-order systems. (How the "P" constants for y(t) relate to those for x(t).)
Please compare your notes with the book and make the appropriate corrections.
I am most grateful for e-mails like this one. Please do not be afraid of sending me possible false alarms.
- Nils
... are now published. They might be quite a bit of work, so you should form an opinion on what you want Espen to prioritize.
... were posted yesterday, but I forgot to put up a message on it.
... and a speak of the devil digression: yesterday, when you got the sin function introduced, programmer Bruce Dawson posted this about how even your computer maybe doesn't compute it well enough: http://randomascii.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/intel-underestimates-error-bounds-by-1-3-quintillion/
For all those times you simply cannot live without a quad-precision numerical pi (that happens every day, doesn't it?) - check what CPU you are using :-o
... were posted yesterday, but I forgot to put up a message on it.
... and a speak of the devil digression: yesterday, when you got the sin function introduced, programmer Bruce Dawson posted this about how even your computer maybe doesn't compute it well enough: http://randomascii.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/intel-underestimates-error-bounds-by-1-3-quintillion/
For all those times you simply cannot live without a quad-precision numerical pi (that happens every day, doesn't it?) - check what CPU you are using :-o
I did a mistake when I solved exercise 1-03 a) on the blackboard. I told that you could use two kind of arguments, both using that the dot product of any two vectors are non-zero, or showing that one of the vectors is a linear sum of the other two.
However, my method of using dot product is incorrect! What is true for dot products is that when the dot product is zero, then the vectors are linear independent. But the opposite is not true. That is: it may be that two vectors are linear independent, even though the dot product is not zero. Thus, by showing that the dot product is not zero, I have not proven that the vectors are not linear independent!
Sorry about this confusion!
Espen
- Problems for Monday posted.
- It is not unlikely that I will start on differential equations already on Tuesday, in order to get far enough to assign "proper" problems for the seminar in a week and a half.
Updated. On second thought, some problems for last year's seminar #5 were maybe too hard given that we just started on the eigenvectors. I have replaced them. However, they will be assigned for the subsequent seminar.
The lecture will take place at Harriet Holters hus, in seminarrom 132
Problems: the complete set for Monday is up - the document indicates which ones are new compared to what I announced a week ago.
Schedule: I covered sensitivity, so we are basically done with static optimization - next Tuesday I will cover a few leftovers, and then we will start doing linear algebra - not integration. I will correct the schedule.
Notice that Tuesday's lecture is in a different room, namely auditorium 7.
- Nils
This is just to remind you of the schedule for this week. - Nils
Updated, about 19 hours too late, but the same as in the document I pointed to.
For Monday 22nd (in a week and a half) the nonlinear programming problems will be the same as last year, but we won't get to any new topic.
- Nils
The lecture schedule is updated. Changes:
- Tuesday 16th: moved to Wednesday 17. Note time and room.
- Thursday 18th: cancelled
- Tuesday 23rd: re-inserted, at a different room.
- New lecture October 29th, as Faglig-pedagogisk dag cancels all lectures on the 30th.
Also, I filled in topics and reading list through September.
- Nils
I was a little bit delayed, but the solutions to seminar 2 is now there. Note that one of the exercises is from last week, the one about using Jensen's inequality.
Espen
Some of you might have noticed that I have not updated the lecture schedule. Will do.