Blog

Work Smart

Today I finished reading a section of my calculus book and worked on some of the associated exercises. I’ve decided not to skip section exercises entirely, but to be selective with them. It still feels hard to know which exercises will be most instructive, without doing them. Yet trying to evaluate that might be a useful exercise in itself. One thing that is important in tutoring is the ability to look at a problem and quickly outline the steps to its solution in your mind so that you can guide the student.

One of the problems I worked on today was finding the equation for a parabola given three points on that parabola. I made a start on it, but I think a different approach may be needed. In particular, I think the simultaneous equations involved will probably be easier to solve if I couch them in the $y=ax^2+bx+c$ form rather than the $(y-k)=a(x-h)^2$ one (or the $(x-h)^2=4p(y-k)$ one). Tomorrow I’m going to think a bit about how these relate to one another. For instance, where does the $p$, so useful in finding the focus and directrix, end up in $y=ax^2+bx+c$?

Fun with Logarithms

My concentration is better today, and I spent three and a half hours ironing out the wrinkles in my logarithm proof. I’ve had the general outline written down for some time, but there turned out to be a lot of details that needed attention, so that I think I’m justified in counting the effort as my study for the day, even though I don’t usually include time spent blogging.

The proof uses several supporting facts that I’ve listed below as Notions 1-3. I haven’t decided yet whether I want to prove them, but I may at some point.1 I’ve also stated and used the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic without proving it. The course I took my first semester at college in which we developed the tools to prove that theorem, was one of the turning points in my life. I can no longer remember how it’s done, however.

I’m not entirely happy with this proof. I think it’s sound, but unclear in places. I had fun making it, though, and I hope someone enjoys it.


Definition: Two integers are relatively prime if they have no common factors besides $1$.

Notion 1: Every rational number can be written as the ratio of two integers that are relatively prime and at least one of which is positive.

Notion 2: If $a>1$, then $a^n>1$ if and only if $n$ is positive.

Notion 3: If $a$ divides $bc$ and $a$ and $b$ are relatively prime, then $a$ divides $c$.


The Fun(damental) Theorem of Arithmetic: Every integer greater then $1$ can be expressed as a product of primes in exactly one way, ignoring order.


Proposition: Given two natural numbers $a$ and $b$ that are both greater than $1$, if $\log_a b$ is rational, then both $a$ and $b$ are powers of a natural number $c$.

Suppose that $a$ and $b$ are natural numbers greater than $1$ and that $\log_a b$ is rational.

Then, using Notion 1, there exist integers $n$ and $m$ such that $a^{\frac{n}{m}}=b$, $n$ and $m$ are relatively prime, and $n$ or $m$ is positive.

A bit of algebra yields $a^n=b^m$.

Since both $a$ and $b$ are greater than $1$ and $n$ or $m$ is positive, the equal expressions $a^n$ and $b^m$ are both greater than $1$ by Notion 2. It follows, again by Notion 2, that both $n$ and $m$ are positive.

Consequently, because the integers are closed under multiplication, the value $a^n=b^m$ is an integer.

Let it be called $d$.

By the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, $a$, $b$, and $d$ can all be expressed as a product of primes in exactly one way.

If the prime factorization of $a$ is $(a_1)(a_2)…(a_i)$, with some values possibly equal, then since $d=a^n$, the prime factorization of $d$ is $(a_1)^n(a_2)^n…(a_i)^n$.

Likewise, if the prime factorization of $b$ is $(b_1)(b_2)…(b_j)$, then since $d=b^m$, the prime factorization of $d$ is $(b_1)^m(b_2)^m…(b_j)^m$.

Notice that the prime factorization of $d$ contains the same factors as the prime factorization of $a$ and that the prime factorization of $d$ also contains the same factors as the prime factorization of $b$. It follows that the prime factorizations of $a$ and $b$ contain the same factors as one another, as well, though not necessarily the same number of times.

[This relationship between $a$ and $b$ is one I found very early on. I thought there was probably a name for it, but inquiries on Math Stack Exchange only turned up the notion of a radical, which is the product of one copy of every one of an integer’s prime factors. In those terms, what I’m saying is that $a$ and $b$ have the same radical.]

Now consider $p$, an arbitrary prime factor of $a$, $b$, and $d$. Let the number of occurrences of $p$ in the prime factorizations of each number be called $O_{a,p}$, $O_{b,p}$, and $O_{d,p}$, respectively.

Because an exponent represents repeated multiplication by the same value, it multiplies the number of occurrences of each factor. Thus, the relationships among $a$, $b$, and $d$ mean that $(O_{a,p})(n)=O_{d,p}=(O_{b,p})(m)$.

By Notion 3, since $(O_{a,p})(n)=(O_{b,p})(m)$ and $n$ and $m$ are relatively prime, $m$ divides $O_{a,p}$ and $n$ divides $O_{b,p}$. Thus, for the arbitrary prime factor $p$, $\frac{O_{a,p}}{m}=\frac{O_{b,p}}{n}$ is an integer. Furthermore, since all values involved are positive, it is a positive integer.

Therefore, it is possible to construct a natural number $c$ such that, for each prime factor $p$ in the prime factorizations of $a$ and $b$, the prime factorization of $c$ contains $\frac{O_{a,p}}{m}=\frac{O_{b,p}}{n}$ occurrences of $p$.

Now, by construction, the prime factorization of $c$ contains the same factors as the prime factorization of $a$.

Furthermore, by the reasoning used above, the prime factorization of $c^m$ contains the same factors as the prime factorization of $c$. Thus the prime factorization of $c^m$ also contains the same factors as the prime factorization of $a$.

Since an exponent multiplies the number of occurrences of each factor, given any prime factor $p$ in the prime factorization of $a$, the number of occurrences of $p$ in the prime factorization of $c^m$ is $\frac{O_{a,p}}{m}(m)=O_{a,p}$.

Recall that this is the number of occurrences of $p$ in the prime factorization of $a$. Hence $c^m$ has the same prime factors as $a$ with the same number of occurrences for each factor. It follows that $c^m=a$.

The same reasoning can be used to show that $c^n=b$, so the proposition is proven.

[Phew.]

  1. To do. ↩︎

Puttering

I’m not sure how long I worked on math today; I puttered on and off all afternoon. I read more in my calculus book, browsed some math study resources, sought advice on Reddit about how to choose textbook exercises, and started writing up my work on the logarithm problem I brought up a while ago. Unfortunately, the last of those tasks proved quite fiddly, and I didn’t finish it for today’s post. Tomorrow, I hope.

How To?

Today I read part of the next section of my calculus text, having finished the exercises from the previous section on Saturday. (I would have liked to read more, but the day was very busy in other ways. Sigh.)

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the best way to organize my calculus review. Continuing to do all of the exercises in every section would be excessive, I think, and it would also take a very long time. I’m not sure of the best alternative. One option is to do all of the odd-numbered exercises in each section. That would be an improvement, but I think it might still be too much. Another idea is to read all of the sections in a chapter, then do the chapter review exercises provided at the end, perhaps going back to the section exercises for more practice on certain concepts. I think this may be what I will try first. I’m also open to suggestions, however.

Day 100

Happy Gif

This is my 100th daily post. Hooray!

Looking back, I have made both less and more progress than I anticipated. Almost all of the calculus review remains to do, and it’s clear that part of the project is going to be a long haul. On the other hand, my work on calculus prerequisites and logic has been fruitful, and quite a bit of geometry knowledge has returned to me without deliberate review. More importantly, my ability to think mathematically and my joy in doing so have both resurged far beyond my expectations. Overall, I think the project has been a success so far.

I plan to keep going as I have been, for the most part. I’ve decided to begin taking Sundays off from blogging, however, and relaxing my study goals for that day. I think a weekly rest will help me sustain the project long term.

So see you on Monday, faithful readers. Thank you for all your support during these first 100 days.

Sphere versus Cube

Today I was able to spend more than an hour on calculus exercises. (Yay!) Now I am pondering the following:

The volume of a sphere of radius $r$ is given by $V=\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3$. The surface area of the same sphere is given by $A=4\pi r^2$, the derivative of the formula for the volume. This makes sense, as a small change in volume involves adding a thin layer to the surface of the sphere. In the limit, that layer will be identical to the sphere’s surface.

On the other hand, the surface area of a cube of side length $x$ is given by $A=6x^2$. This is not the derivative of $V=x^3$, the formula for the cube’s volume. Why?1

  1. To do. ↩︎

Logarithmisches Tafelwerk

I was very busy today, at least for me. I didn’t have time for any study until evening, when I sat down to look at a copy of Gauss’s Fünfstelliges logarithmisches Tafelwerk that I just received.

No, not that Gauss. This Gauss is Friedrich Gustav Gauss (1829-1915), my great-great-great-grandfather. He was a surveyor for the Prussian government (at that time a very mathematical profession) and later an administrator in the same department. He also published several books of logarithmic tables, one of which was republished in the 1970s in the compact edition shown below.

Interior
Fünfstelliges logarithmisches Tafelwerk (Book of Five-digit Logarithmic Tables)

I tried for quite a while to make sense of the tables in this book. Some of them are dedicated the logarithms of integers and others to the logarithms of trigonometric functions evaluated for particular angles, but that’s about as much as I could understand. The actual values tended not to be what I thought they should, so I was clearly missing a lot. The fact that the book was in German was not that great a hindrance, I don’t think. There was not much explanatory material. The publishers clearly expected the book’s users to be familiar with tables of this kind.