<p>
</p>
<p>How is this question even doable? How do you get rid of the 2y??</p>
<p>dy/2y= -5sin(x) dx</p>
<p>integrate both sides</p>
<p>The Differential Equation is possible, HINT: This is the general equation of a diffy equation
dy/dx + P(x)<em>y = Q(x). Now the general solution to this equation is going to be the following: y = [1/u(x)]</em>∫Q(x)*u(x) dx. (where u(x)=e^[∫P(x)dx]) I know its hard but its definitely doable. </p>
<p>note: you can’t integrate both sides, theres a minus sign seperating the y-term from the x-term.</p>
<p>oops my bad, I thought they were multiplied together</p>
<p>We’ve been doing series for so long i forgot all of the other parts of Calc BC, but we skipped ahead and already did polar parametrics too so we just have the small part of 1 chapter left and then it’s about a month of review. Here’s my problem for you all</p>
<p>Find the power series for the function </p>
<p>f(x)= 3/(5x-2)</p>
<p>centered at c = 3</p>
<p>then determine the interval of convergence</p>
<p>Just show me the answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Integration by parts is certainly fair game, as is partial fractions (but only with non-repeated linear factors). I’ve not seen a trig substitution question where you have to identify the substitution, but I have seen one question where they suggest the substitution u = {trig function} and ask what the ensuing integral looks like. I’ve not seen trig with powers on the exam (with the exception of sin^2 and cos^2, which can be evaluated using double angle identities).</p>
<p>Any of these are fair game for the free-response, but wouldn’t show up on the calculator active section. Integration by parts showed up in 2008 #5 and 2007 #4. To be honest, the others haven’t shown up in the last ten years in the free response, but I know there’s almost always a partial fractions question on the multiple choice (of the released versions I’ve seen).</p>
<p>This is some what off-topic but are the Princeton Review Problem Sets & Practice tests anything like the real BC exam? Doing the reviews, they seem quite easy and doable but Calc BC is known to be the hardest AP exam (I never taken an ap exam before) so I’m kind of worried, especially since I’m self-studying calc (with teacher that doesn’t know any BC + textbook).</p>
<p>I’m using Princeton Review to review for AP Calculus and from what I’ve heard it’s pretty much dead on with how difficult the actual exam is.</p>
<p>dont buy princeton review; personally i think their free response sections for both AB and BC are very much underestimating the real exam.</p>
<p>MrWheezy regardless of your calculus background (that is, whether you took AB before or not), i strongly recommend Barron’s AP Calculus. This is arguably the most comprehensive review I have ever seen before. The princeton review is good in content but its difficulty on model test is very dubious - i have never seen any collegeboard-released exam having the same calibre. Barron’s Calculus is an overkill on exams, but you wont regret taking those after you are done reviewing. Kaplan’s Calculus AB & BC 2010 is a bit too dependent on calculators.</p>
<p>either get Arco’s or Barron’s for AP Calc</p>
<p>PR’s book for the free response section differs from the real thing. Their multiple choice section is good though. If go to the AP central exam questions site, you’ll see that the real FRQs are a bit harder than PR’s.</p>
<p>PR’s MC and past FRQs from the real exams is a good way to study. That’s what I’ve been doing.</p>
<p>xxsteelxx//multiple choice sections DO slightly underestimate CR’s. FRQ’s happen to be insanely hard when it is compared with the real deal for AP Calc BC. And go figure… The Princeton’s Review Practice Exams for all prep guides… AP… subject tests… SAT… generally tend to underestimate their real CB counterparts. I believe it’s better to overkill, expecting for the worst scenario, no?</p>
<p>Hmm so Princeton Review is good in terms of content but poor in FRQ? As along as the MCs and content are good I’m satisfied. I can get the previous FRQs from CB’s website so that’s good. </p>
<p>I already have PR, as I’ve said before, hence the content seems somewhat easy but lacking… I mean this can’t be everything that the AP exam tests for… There’s so much more to calculus o.O</p>
<p>MrWheezy//well, I’d have to admit that TPR covers topics that are not really introduced in Barron’s, etc. For example they talk about how you can take the derivative of x^x or x^sin(x), etc and they give you a brief explanation about Shell method and epsilon-delta proofs which are concepts that are never covered in Barron’s (Both tpr and Barron’s are 2009 Editions). But I really have to conclude that TPR, although covering a wider range, does not go DEEP ENOUGH. </p>
<p>When it boils down to AP Calc I believe the concepts are fairly easy. It is, according to CB, the fundamental concepts needed… (yet I strongly disagree about this because there is a LOT more to actual Calc I and Calc II, (see Are AP exams harder than college courses (or sth like that) thread) and a few of the omitted topics may actually bump out… ;)</p>
<p>Yeah I got ARCO and PR in my arsenal now and I have to admit that PR skips a few topics lol.</p>
<p>They forgot about logistic growth in the book lol. Peterson’s is good.</p>
<p>Multiple Choice huh? <a href=“http://asmsa.org/math/marizza/Calculus/APTEST/ap04_calcmc_collection_final_4_12_05.pdf[/url]”>http://asmsa.org/math/marizza/Calculus/APTEST/ap04_calcmc_collection_final_4_12_05.pdf</a></p>
<p>I hope you all get fives!!</p>
<p>xxsteelxx, thank you… VERY much :)</p>
<p>Hmm well I guess it’s time for me to go out and buy ARCOs/Barrons/Petersons. Which do you guys recommend? I mean I only have like a month to prepare…</p>