<p>@tetratic:</p>
<p>can you explain the similar cones problem? why is it wrong to assume that the cone has the same radius?? </p>
<p>I got 2 as my answer</p>
<p>for the cone question both the height and radius changed by the same factor right? i think i got that one right</p>
<p>@diddly123 6 was the correct answer. I’m pretty sure that the problem did not state that the cones were similar, it just said what the height should be if the volume was half the original volume. Therefore 2 should be the right answer.</p>
<p>i agree with alyssa… it didn’t say the cone changed. cones can be similar with the same radii</p>
<p>What was the answer to the least number of real roots??</p>
<p>the one with Ax^5… I think I put 1 because the maximum number of imaginary roots out of 5 is 4 right (they come in pairs)?</p>
<p>i interpreted it as surfaces, so i put down that the intersection could either be a circle or a point. i’m pretty sure it has something to do with degenerative conics but i’ve forgotten most of it, so it was more of an educated guess. yikes! </p>
<p>also, was the answer for the cone question really 2? i put down 2 as well but i keep hearing 3.2 on here. i hope we’re right :P</p>
<p>someone remind me of the cone problem and i’ll solve it</p>
<p>@alyssa it was 1.
@purplepigeon, i got that too! i think it’s right. and i really think it is 2, i honestly don’t get how people are getting 3.2</p>
<p>what was the letter of the answer for the hill question!?</p>
<p>@diddly123 i put 2 for the cone, however it is possible that i got it wrong, since i see the logic behind the “similar cone” argument people have used for the 3.something answer</p>
<p>If all the problem stated was that the new cone could hold half the volume of the original cone, then the answer could literally be anything. There has to be another parameter (aka the cones are similar) so there is only one answer. I’m sticking with 3.2 as the correct answer.</p>
<p>This question can be cleared up if someone remembers the original wording.</p>
<p>But the cone problem only asked for the new height though…Nothing about similiar cones</p>
<p>btw what was the answer with the parametrics?
@darkjoker thats why i thought of just changing the volume and finding the new height. i looked specifically for info about changing the radius in the problem and it was not there, guaranteed</p>
<p>@diddly123</p>
<p>remind me of the problem and i’ll solve it</p>
<p>parametrics was an ellipse with fractional coefficients</p>
<p>For the least number of real roots, I said 0, because it said that the coefficients had to be rational, so they could be zero? So then that could take out the Ax^2? Was I thinking about it in the wrong way?</p>
<p>I mean the term Ax^5 could be taken out</p>
<p>@tetratic kk good. idk what the exact question was, i just remember getting a fraction with x + a fraction with y = 1</p>
<p>@loveart, correct me if im wrong, but didnt it say that the coefficients were distinct? so they all couldnt be 0 then?</p>
<p>If anyone is still unsure of the 2 spheres question, this is from Wikipedia</p>
<p>“In the theory of analytic geometry for real three-dimensional space, the intersection between two spheres can be a circle, a point, the empty set, or a sphere (only if the two spheres are identical).”</p>
<p>Since they were 2 different spheres, its a circle and a point</p>
<p>I would also like to know the parametric problem.
it was like
y = 5sin( ()T )
x =3cos( ()T )<br>
~~ () means theta
<p>@kwkingdom123. So if the bigger one ate the little one, it doesnt count as a sphere?</p><p>@loveartforever</p>
<p>'twas 1. for polynomials with real coefficients, complex roots come in pairs.</p>
<p>@hellow504jr</p>
<p>solve for theta from one of the equations and plug that into the other.</p>