Yawn

A busy week caught up with me today, and I ended up resting and sleeping for most of the day. I didn’t make another attempt on the first chapter of my calc book, but I did read some of The Mathematical Tourist, my light reading book.

American Pi

Happy Pi Day, readers! Don’t forget also to celebrate International Pi Approximation Day, which falls on the 22nd of July. (That’s 22/7, according to the more common method of abbreviating dates.)

Today I started reading the first chapter of my calculus book, which provides a review of functions. I struggled badly to concentrate on today’s reading, for reasons I’m not sure of. Possibly it is just that I slept poorly last night. Better luck in the morning, I hope.

Experimental Mathematics

I spent most of my study time today conducting experiments with shadows, inspired by the trigonometry problems I discussed yesterday. In the two OpenStax exercises, the only measurement that could conceivably be related to the angle of the spotlight was the height of the shadow. Yet it seemed to me that the height of the shadow was determined by the other measurements. Since those were clearly independent of the angle of the spotlight, I suspected that the height of the shadow was as well.

I decided to test this experimentally. As shown in the photos below, I glued a small upright representing a human to the floor of a box and cut an aperture at floor level in front of it. I then shone a light through the aperture to cast the upright’s shadow on the opposite wall of the box.

Upstage
Downstage

The tools I had for my experiments were imperfect, but after multiple trials with different light sources, I am nearly certain that the height of the shadow cast by the upright is independent of the angle of the light. Below are two photos. The first was taken with the light at a low angle and the second with it at a high angle. As you can see, the height of the shadow is unchanged.

Low Angle Shadow
High Angle Shadow

The only thing that changed the shadow was moving the light source. This led to some difficulty, since with the tools I had, it was hard to change the angle of the light without also changing its location. (For instance, in this video, in which I tilt a phone light from zero to about 45 degrees and back, I attribute the slight changes in the shadow to changes in the distance of the light from the aperture.) Still, this gives insight into how the problem I brought up at the end of yesterday’s post differs from the ones I was confused by. The “angle” of the sun depends on its position, while the angle of the spotlight does not.

Should I contact OpenStax about this issue? Let me know what you think.

Trig Trouble

Today I worked on some of the applied problems from the OpenStax textbook Algebra and Trigonometry. Among them were the two pictured below.

Questions In Question

These questions made me uneasy as soon as I started working on them. Clearly, how tall the human is and how close the human stands to the spotlight are not enough to determine the angle of the spotlight. Of course, we are given another pair of measurements. Yet, in the context of the problem, these are really the same measurements. The ratio between the height of the human and the distance of the human from the spotlight must always be the same as that between the height of the shadow and the distance of the wall from the spotlight. Since it’s those ratios that ought to be giving us the angle of the spotlight, I don’t see how the problems can be done.

Person With Spotlight

(If $H$ is the height of the human and $S$ is the height of the shadow, the ratio between $S-H$ and the distance of the human from the wall will be the same as the other two ratios, also. Note the similar triangles in the diagram.)

Person With Sun

On the other hand, in the situation illustrated above, the height of the human and the length of the shadow are sufficient to calculate the angle of the sun. This makes me wonder if I’m missing something in the textbook’s problems.

A Little Math Music

Today was busy, and I only fit in about an hour of study, which I dedicated to the next video in 3Blue1Brown’s Lockdown Math series. It turned out not to be closely related to the previous three videos. Instead, it was about the silly idea of an imaginary interest rate and its relationship to a real application in physics. I didn’t find the discussion as enlightening as the previous ones, and I’m afraid my mind wandered. I did learn a bit, though.

For dessert, I watched the video below, an old favorite of mine that I recently rediscovered. I think it’s delightful.

Parabola-a-Go-Go, Part 4

Today I watched more of 3Blue1Brown’s Lockdown Math series. (See the new Resources tab for a link.) It turns out that the subseries I was following has four installments, not three, so I may be spending another day on it. I’ve enjoyed the primer on complex numbers 3Blue1Brown provides. Although they cropped up occasionally in my mathematical education, I never learned about them in any depth. I had certainly never understood their connection to trigonometry before.

Now it is time for the proofs of the two remaining cases of the proposition that is the focus of the Parabola-a-Go-Go series. (You will find links to the rest of the series under the new Highlights tab.)


Proposition: Consider the parabola $x^2=4py$, where $0<p$. Let $a$ be a real number. Let $A$ be the vertical line $x=a$. Let $B$ be the line through $F=(0, p)$, the focus of the parabola, and $R=(a,\frac{a^2}{4p})$, the point where $A$ intersects the parabola. Let $C$ be the line tangent to the parabola at $R$. Then, for all $a$, the acute or right angle formed by $A$ and $C$ is equal to the acute or right angle formed by $B$ and $C$.

As noted in Parabola-a-Go-Go, Part 2, the equation of the parabola can be written as $y=\frac{1}{4p}x^2$ and, using calculus, $y’=(\frac{1}{4p})2x=\frac{1}{2p}x$.

Thus, the slope of $C$, the line tangent to the parabola at $R=(a,\frac{a^2}{4p})$, is $\frac{a}{2p}$.

Furthermore, the slope of $B$, the line through $F=(0, p)$ and $R=(a,\frac{a^2}{4p})$ is $$\frac{\frac{a^2}{4p}-p}{a-0}=\frac{a}{4p}-\frac{p}{a}=\frac{a^2-4p^2}{4ap}\text{.}$$


Now suppose that $a>2p$.

In that case, the slopes of $B$ and $C$ are both positive. Note that the slope of $C$ is greater than the slope of $B$, since $\frac{a}{2p}=\frac{2a^2}{4ap}$ and $2a^2>a^2-4p^2$. It follows that the lines intersect one another, line $A$, and the x-axis as shown in the diagram below.

A Greater Than 2p Annotated 1

In this diagram, $\alpha$ is the angle formed by $A$ and $C$ and $\beta$ is the angle formed by $B$ and $C$.

Consider the right triangle formed by $A$, $C$, and the x-axis. Note that one of its vertecies is vertical to $\alpha$. Note also that the ratio of its vertical leg to its horizontal leg is equal to the slope of $C$. It follows that the ratio of its horizontal leg to its vertical leg is the reciprocal of the slope of $C$. Yet that ratio is also the tangent of the angle that is vertical to $\alpha$.

Therefore, $$\alpha = \arctan\frac{2p}{a}\text{.}$$

Consider instead the right triangle formed by $A$, $B$, and the x-axis. By similar reasoning we see that the tangent of $\beta+\alpha$ is the reciprocal of the slope of $B$.

Thus, $$\beta+\alpha=\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}$$$$\beta=\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}-\alpha=\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}-\arctan\frac{2p}{a}\text{.}$$

Since $a>2p$, $(\frac{2p}{a})^2<1$. Therefore, by the lemma from Parabola-a-Go-Go, Part 3, $$2\arctan\frac{2p}{a}=\arctan\frac{2(\frac{2p}{a})}{1-(\frac{2p}{a})^2}=\arctan\frac{\frac{4p}{a}}{1-\frac{4p^2}{a^2}}=\arctan\frac{\frac{4ap}{a^2}}{\frac{a^2-4p^2}{a^2}}=\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\text{.}$$

It follows that $\arctan\frac{2p}{a}=\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}-\arctan\frac{2p}{a}$ and thence that $\alpha=\beta$.

Thus the proposition holds when $a>2p$.


Suppose instead that $0<a<2p$.

In that case, the slope of $B$ is negative and the slope of $C$ is positive. It follows that the lines intersect one another, line $A$, and the x-axis as shown in the diagram below.

A Less Than 2p Annotated 2

In this diagram, $\alpha$ is the angle formed by $A$ and $C$ and $\beta$ is the angle formed by $B$ and $C$. An additional angle is labeled $\gamma$ and has the property that $\alpha+\beta+\gamma=\pi$.

Considering the two right triangles formed by the lines $A$, $B$, and $C$ with the x-axis, we see that the tangent of $\alpha$ is the reciprocal of the slope of $C$ and the tangent of $\gamma$ is the absolute value of the reciprocal of the slope of $B$.

Thus, $\alpha = \arctan\frac{2p}{a}$ and $\gamma=\arctan\left|\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\right|$.

Since the $0<a<2p$, $\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}$ is negative. Thus $\left|\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\right|=\frac{-4ap}{a^2-4p^2}$.

It is a property of arctangent that $\arctan (-x)=-\arctan x$. (I forgot to write up a proof of this, but the proof is simple. “Left to the reader as an exercise.”) Thus $$\gamma=\arctan\left|\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\right|=\arctan\frac{-4ap}{a^2-4p^2}=-\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\text{.}$$

It follows that $$\beta =\pi – \arctan\frac{2p}{a} -\left(-\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\right)=\pi – \arctan\frac{2p}{a} +\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\text{.}$$

Since $0<a<2p$, $(\frac{2p}{a})^2>1$. Thus, by the lemma, $$2\arctan\frac{2p}{a}=\pi+\arctan\frac{2(\frac{2p}{a})}{1-(\frac{2p}{a})^2}=\pi+\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\text{.}$$

It follows that $\arctan\frac{2p}{a}=\pi-\arctan\frac{2p}{a}+\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}$ and thence that $\alpha=\beta$.

Therefore the proposition holds for $0<a<2p$ and holds in general.


This gnarly argument was fun to work out, and I got to practice all the things I’ve been reviewing: algebra, analytic geometry, conics, and trig, plus some basic geometry. That said, if you want to see a really good proof of this theorem, check out this page. I looked this up sometime after I finished my own proof, and I’ll admit I was a little discouraged to find there was a way to do the problem that was so much better. (And this definitely is. It uses the definition of the object involved directly, requires less advanced concepts, and doesn’t rely on cases.) Not everyone can be optimally clever all the time, though—one is lucky if one can be optimally clever any of the time—and, as I said, doing it my way was fun and educational. I’m not sure whether either approach can be adapted to ellipses. That is a project for the future.

For those wondering, the diagrams for the Parabola-a-Go-Go series are based on images from the graphing program Desmos. I added additional details in GIMP and, in some cases, annotated the results by hand using a stylus and the photo app of my tablet. Most of my diagrams (the ones with the cream quad-ruled backgrounds) are made on my tablet using the stylus and a freehand note-taking app.

I know this series of posts was not very accessible. I want to explain more of what I do in a way non-specialists can understand; that’s a task that has always appealed to me. After doing my study each day, though, I only have so much energy and time left for the blog, and it tends to be more efficient to write at a higher level. Perhaps some of the competition problems I hope to try will have fairly short solutions that lend themselves to more complete explanations.

Parabola-a-Go-Go, Part 3

This is my 50th daily post! Thanks for reading, everyone.

Today I watched the second and third episodes of the Lockdown Math series by 3blue1brown. They are the first two parts of a three-part subseries dedicated to the connections between trigonometry and complex numbers.

This evening I am finally ready to continue my exposition of the parabola problem. Below are two inverse trigonometric identities needed for the proof of the two remaining cases. I found these in an online table of identities, but I proved them myself.


Lemma: When $xy<1$, $$\arctan x + \arctan y = \arctan \frac{x+y}{1-xy}\text{,}$$ and when $xy>1$, $$\arctan x + \arctan y = \pi + \arctan \frac{x+y}{1-xy}\text{.}$$

Proof: Let us take as given the sum formula for tangent that is found in every trigonometry textbook: $$\tan (a+b)=\frac{\tan a + \tan b}{1-\tan a\tan b}\text{ when }\tan a \tan b\neq 1\text{.}$$

Using $\arctan x$ and $\arctan y$ as the two angles being added, it follows that $$\tan(\arctan x + \arctan y)=\frac{\tan(\arctan x)+\tan(\arctan y)}{1-\tan(\arctan x)\tan(\arctan y)}=\frac{x+y}{1-xy}\text{ when }xy\neq 1\text{.}$$

According to the definitions of the tangent, sine, and cosine functions, this implies that, when $xy\neq 1$, $\sin(\arctan x + \arctan y)=\frac{x+y}{h}$ and $\cos(\arctan x + \arctan y)=\frac{1-xy}{h}$ for some $h>0$.

Range Of Artangent

Now consider the range of the arctangent function, shown in red above. It dictates that $\frac{-\pi}{2}<\arctan x<\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\frac{-\pi}{2}<\arctan y<\frac{\pi}{2}$ and therefore that $-\pi<\arctan x+\arctan y<\pi$.

Given any non-zero tangent $t$, there are two angles on the interval $(-\pi,\pi)$ with tangent $t$, $\theta$ and $\theta +\pi$, as shown below. Only one of these, however, is within the range of the arctangent function, and it is that one that will be found when the arctangent of $t$ is taken.

Angles With Same Tangent

Since $\cos(\arctan x + \arctan y)=\frac{1-xy}{h}$ for some $h>0$, $\cos(\arctan x+\arctan y)$ is positive when $xy<1$ and $\cos(\arctan x+\arctan y)$ is negative when $xy>1$. Notice that a positive cosine corresponds to being within the range of the arctangent function, while a negative cosine corresponds to being outside it.

It follows that, when $xy<1$, $\arctan x+\arctan y$ will be the angle found by taking the arctangent of $\frac{x+y}{1-xy}$, while when $xy>1$, the angle found will be $(\arctan x+\arctan y)-\pi$.

Thus, when $xy<1$, $$\arctan x + \arctan y = \arctan \frac{x+y}{1-xy}\text{,}$$ and when $xy>1$, $$\arctan x + \arctan y = \pi + \arctan \frac{x+y}{1-xy}\text{.}$$


Addendum: Apropos of the identity at the beginning of this proof, note that when $\tan a \tan b=1$ is when $a+b=\pm\frac{\pi}{2}$, the points at which tangent is undefined.

When $\tan a \tan b=1$, $\tan a$ and $\tan b$ are reciprocals. Since tangent can be interpreted as the slope of the terminal side of an angle, this means that the terminal sides of $a$ and $b$ are either the reflections of one another across the line $x=1$ or else a terminal side and the “other end” of its reflection, which is the reflection rotated by $\pi$. The diagram below shows the two cases.

Reciprocal Pairs 2

That they sum to $\pm\frac{\pi}{2}$ can be shown algebraically:
$a-\frac{\pi}{4}=\frac{\pi}{4}-b$ or $a-\frac{\pi}{4}=(\frac{\pi}{4}-b)+\pi$
$a+b=2(\frac{\pi}{4})=\frac{\pi}{2}$ or $a+b=2(\frac{\pi}{4})+\pi=\frac{3\pi}{2}=-\frac{\pi}{2}$

Big Plans

I’m feeling much better today. I studied for two hours and finished the trigonometry review exercises from the appendix of Stewart’s Single Variable Calculus. I still want to try a few of the applied problems in the OpenStax text Algebra and Trigonometry, though, so I haven’t quite finished with the topic. Once I do, I will be ready to move on to the main body of the calculus book. Very exciting. Yet I think I may pause after the first chapter (which contains more review) and focus on working through Analysis with an Introduction to Proof until I reach the point where it introduces limits, the first calculus concept in Single Variable Calculus. While I do that, I will keep developing my high school math skills by working on some of the competition problems provided on the Art of Problem Solving wiki.

(Expect another installment of Parabola-a-Go-Go tomorrow. I was working on it for tonight, but it was taking too long.)

Computer-Assisted Post

Today I spent an hour on trigonometry exercises and another half hour reading The Mathematical Tourist by Ivars Peterson, which I’m considering as my next light reading book. It’s an explanation for the lay reader of some of the developments in mathematics current in the mid 1980s. Its first section is about the proof of the four-color theorem in 1976, which was controversial because it was one of the first proofs to be partly generated by computer. Proofs of this kind are less controversial now; the proof of the ternary Goldbach conjecture that I mentioned a few weeks ago is another example. A little outside reading suggests there is still some dissent, though, regarding whether proofs that cannot be fully verified by a human being should be considered valid.

Repairs are Ongoing

The depressive episode I started yesterday persists, but has been much less severe today. This afternoon I finished the last few chapters of The Joy of X without too much struggle. Now I will have to find a new book for my light math reading. I have several options in my library already, but I would welcome recommendations, as well.

The final chapter of The Joy of X was about infinity and included a treatment of Cantor’s diagonal argument that the set of real numbers is uncountable. (I’m sorry, non-specialist readers, but I’m not up to explaining what that is right now, though it is fairly accessible.) The Joy of X did not account in any way for the fact that some numbers have more than one decimal representation (e.g. that $0.1\overline{0}=0.0\overline{9}$). I’m sure a more formal presentation of the argument would have. I intend to think for a while about how I would do it before looking up the accepted method. Not today, though.1

  1. To do. ↩︎