u/Local_End_3175

I'm not really sure what a matrix is for. Why can we not just keep the information as a table and manipulate that? I don't understand what a matrix even is for, when we just have a table. Even if we wanted to manipulate data, if we didnt have a calculator, it won't be much different from doing the same processes on a table.. I'm really confused.

Thank you in advance

I'm told i'm improving but at the same time i'm still given like 6 + points to improve on, and my writing never seems to be at the heights i want it to be.

I recently wrote this analytical paragraph analysing the phrase

>'The child stood alone beneath an enormous oak'

This was my analysis:

>The phrase ‘stood alone’ suggests that the child has no one to be with at the moment, where we understand that the word ‘child’  brings connotations of innocence, where a child needs care and protection. The author uses the term ‘alone’ to emphasise that the child does not have any of these necessities at the moment. The author does this to  showcase the child as vulnerable at the moment, where the oak tree can feel dominant compared to the child, reinforcing the emotion of isolation. The term ‘stood’ suggests that the child may be fearful, as they are standing in front of an ‘enormous oak’, which can make him feel puny in comparison to nature. Alternatively, the oak tree may not be that large, but compared to the size of the child, it may feel large to them, reinforcing the sense of innocence of the child.

I'm always told to improve some of the same things, though i feel like i never do, such as making sentences more clear.

How can i improve my analytical writing?

I am struggling to understand why we use n/2 for continuous data. My reasoning behind using (n+1)/2 is that this tells us the position of the median. So even if we have data that we dont know the values to, we already know that 1 value must have a position 1 and another value must have a position 2 and so on. If we had 40 unknown values, that means we have 40 positions. 40+1 is 41, 39+2 is also 41, and so on, all the positions will add to 41, and the middle position would add to itself to make 41, hence why we do (n+1)/2. This same logic can also be put here: number of positions + 1/2. This now tells us where the middle position is. If we have a cumulative frequency diagram, what we can do is see where that number would be, and using the cumulative frequency diagram, we can just estimate using that position. So why, instead of doing that, do we do n/2???

I am struggling to understand n/2 and why we have it. Why dont we use (n+1)/2 for both discrete and continuous data

I am confused of what electrostatic energy is defined as. With some research, i thought that it would be the energy stored that causes charges to repell or to attract, though that definition was wrong... so what is electrostatic energy?

When i try to search up definitions, they basically tell me that it is  energy stored when repelling charges have been moved closer together or when attracting charges have been pulled further apart, but I don't really understand this definition because it seems to be defining kinetic energy.

I am confused between the 2. I understand the reasoning behind using n+1/2 for lists of numbers, and i understand how n+1/2 finds their positions. I am currently revising cumulative frequency diagrams and i am finding it difficult to understand why we now use n/2 for finding the median, and n/4 for finding the lower quartile. Why aren't we using n+1/2?? I dont really understand how one being continuous and another being discrete affects anything. In my reasoning, even though it is grouped data we can still estimate the position. I would add all the frequencies, do n+1/2, find the middle position, and then use that on my graph to estimate

I understand that magnetic and electric fields are closely related. But I am confused on how one propogating makes the other.

What would allow heat to be transferred to a conductor that won't allow heat to be transferred to an insulator?

(I guess the question is kind of vague because lots of different insulators have different properties. What would make wood an insulator and maybe, a metal a conductor?)

I understand that warm air is able to move because it has kinetic energy, and that it is bumping into other particles, and i understand that cooler air is slightly more packed together and have less kinetic energy, but i dont understand how warm air rises. I have hear answers such as 'it is because warm air is less dense', but i do not get that description either, because density is based on/compared with a volume. So if i had a specific volume, then i do understand that, in that case, warm air is less dense, but i do not understand how that relates to that same air rising. In addition, if we were referring to the sky, there is not really a specific volume that you can say that warm air is less dense, and that is in regards to a group of molecules. If i had a singular warm air molecule, and if i had a singular cold air molecule, what would cause that warm molecule to rise and another molecule, of the same mass, to sink? I dont really understand what is meant by density and i'm struggling to understand its significance in this question.

*In this sentence: '*J’adore ce programme radio, c’est très divertissant', why do we use c'est??? shouldn't we use il est?? I am quite confused regarding when to use c'est and il est/elle est

Sorry, as this question may appear a bit broad, but i struggle to understand and speak french without translating in my head. For the words "bonjour" or "ça va," I guess you stop translating because you know it automatically because you use it a lot, but i am not sure how to make speaking and understanding french easier or quicker without translating in my head (feels inevitable!)

Thank you in advance