Was this Maths Question Poorly Worded?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter uart
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the clarity of a mathematics exam question regarding simple harmonic motion (SHM). The question presented was "A particle moves in a straight line with its position at time t being given by x = 4 \sin(2t + \pi/3). Show that the particle is undergoing simple harmonic motion." Participants debated whether the requirement to demonstrate that acceleration is proportional to the negative of displacement was a more fundamental definition of SHM than the sinusoidal time function itself. Ultimately, it was concluded that the exam's wording aligns with the specific syllabus definitions of SHM, which may differ from general interpretations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of simple harmonic motion (SHM) principles
  • Familiarity with sinusoidal functions and their properties
  • Knowledge of differential equations related to motion
  • Awareness of exam syllabus standards in mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the definitions and properties of simple harmonic motion
  • Study the relationship between displacement, velocity, and acceleration in SHM
  • Explore different mathematical representations of SHM, including sine and cosine functions
  • Examine how exam questions are structured to align with specific educational syllabi
USEFUL FOR

Students preparing for mathematics exams, educators designing exam questions, and anyone interested in the nuances of defining physical concepts like simple harmonic motion.

uart
Science Advisor
Messages
2,797
Reaction score
21
I was going through a previous years maths test and came up against one particular question in which I couldn't quite figure out exactly what was being asked.

The question was worded exactly as follows :
"A particle moves in a straight line with it's position at time [tex]t[/tex] being given by [tex]x = 4 \sin(2t + \pi/3)[/tex]. Show that the particle is undergoing simple harmonic motion."

To me the most fundamental definition of SHM is that the displacement is a sinusoidal time function, so the question seemed kind of pointless, or at best trivial. Apparently the examiner wanted you to show that acceleration is proportion to the negative of the displacement and say "therefore it's SHM". That's fine, I agree that the this also implies SHM, but isn't the sinusoidal time function even more fundamental?

Does anyone else think this was a badly worded exam question?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Not at all, in my experience the definition of SHM *is* that acceleration is -kx for some positive k and x the displacement. It is not sinusoidal by definition, it is merely that sin is the function that will satisfy that differential equation (or cos, or a combination of both depending on initial conditions)

and remember that an exam is written to test an syllabus that will state what *their* definition of SHM will be for that course.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K