I was tired today and took a long nap. My psychiatric medication is part of what makes this project possible, but it also makes me sleep more than normal. I did manage to read a chapter of Steven R. Lay’s Analysis with an Introduction to Proof, another one of my college math textbooks. (I kept them all.) I’ve decided to try to read it in parallel to my review of introductory calculus, since it covers most of the same concepts, but in a more rigorous way.
Blog
Algebra Completion Day
Today I finished the 160 exercises in the review of algebra that I’ve been working through. This is an important achievement for me. Over the years, I’ve made repeated stabs at reviewing math, but I’ve never been able to tolerate it long enough to finish anything. To finish such a marathon problem set is positive proof that this time is different.
There isn’t much to talk about mathematically. One of the final exercises was to prove that $|ab|=|a||b|$, which I was prompted to do using the fact that $|a^b|=|a|^b$.1 Yet surely the latter statement is proven using the former. Isn’t it? In the end, I decided that doing the proof that way would be silly, and opted for a somewhat clunky casewise argument instead.
Anyway, happy Algebra Completion Day, everyone!
- To do (see comments). ↩︎
Exponent Negative
Today I did more than two hours of algebra practice. It was fun, except for the sections devoted to simplifying messes of exponents. There are just too many opportunities for arithmetic errors in problems like that.
I did run into a bit of confusion in another section regarding one of the answers provided in the review materials, but I got help at the Math Help Forum, which is a good resource for those self-studying.
Stewart’s Calculus
Today was better than yesterday, though I was still not at full capacity. I spent about an hour on algebra review, then thought for a while about the decimal representations of rational numbers. I also read the Wikipedia article on long division, which says that the debate about its place in the curriculum actually dates back to the 1980s. There are some interesting examples there of the ways long division problems are written in different countries, as well.
For anyone interested, here is the review of algebra I am using. It’s made available as a supplement by the publishers of Stewart’s calculus textbooks. There are also reviews of analytic geometry and conic sections, which I plan to work through as well, along with the review of trigonometry provided as an appendix to my textbook. (My textbook has reviews of algebra, analytic geometry, and conics, too, but they are not as complete as those offered on the website.)
I have a lot of affection for Stewart’s calculus texts. They were used in both my high school and my college courses, and represent good times to me. A person I met online once asked me to name a book that had changed my life, and Stewart’s Single Variable Calculus was my choice. Had I not enjoyed calculus so much in high school, I would not have been attracted to economics as a college major, would not have been encouraged to minor in math, would not have taken Discrete Math my first semester, and might never have had my love of math kindled such that I am still carrying a torch for it. His discovery of Ramanujan might have been “the one romantic incident” in Hardy’s life, but my encounter with math was mine, and Stewart’s calculus was one of the sign posts on the way.
Still My Life
It seems my life is still my life. I woke up depressed today and have been struggling to do anything. I watched part of a video about quintic equations that I think will be very interesting another day, as well as a little more of the Essence of Calculus series. My concentration is poor, though, and I didn’t learn a lot. Hopefully tomorrow will be better.
About Division
Today’s study time was devoted to more algebra review, including some problems that involved factoring using polynomial division. I have a vague memory of being taught polynomial division around the turn of the millennium, but I had heard the name more recently. There is debate these days about whether, in a society where almost everyone carries a calculator almost everywhere, it is still worth the instructional time to teach students numerical long division. (Eliminating it wouldn’t be unprecedented. I was never taught to compute square roots by hand, as older generations were.) At any rate, one of the arguments in favor of keeping numerical long division in the curriculum is that, without it, students won’t be able to do polynomial division. I’m not sure that would be much of a loss, honestly. It is a fairly niche method of factoring, and I managed to study a lot more math than most people without running into any other application of it. I think the greater drawback to eliminating long division would be that, without that tool to convert one to the other, the connection between fractions and decimals would become something mysterious only the calculator understands.
Speaking of conversion between fractions and decimals, in the portion of The Joy of X that I read last night, Steven Strogatz mentions the fact that the decimal representations of rational numbers always terminate or repeat. Of course, I wondered how one could prove that. I haven’t had time to work on it yet, but I think I can see the vague outline of how it might be done (probably using an argument related to the long division algorithm). The thing I don’t have any ideas about yet is how to prove that a number represented by a repeating decimal must be rational. I may find time to work on both of these tomorrow, but I may decide on more algebra practice instead. I am growing impatient to move on to a new review topic.
Post Notifications Available
There is now a widget in the right column of the blog page where you can sign up to receive an email whenever I make a new post. Hi, Mom!
Squares as Sums of Odd Numbers, Part 2
Here is the promised geometric visualization of the fact that the $n$th square number is the sum of the first $n$ odd numbers. I hope it may be a bit more enjoyable for readers, who I know are mostly Olly well-wishers rather than math enthusiasts.
I actually developed this visualization between the first and second proofs I shared yesterday. As I knew the proof by induction would probably practically write itself, I got it out of the way first. I then moved on to look at the problem geometrically, hoping to gain insight that I could use to write a more illuminating proof. This geometric approach turned out to be more closely related to the proof by induction than to the second proof I came up with later, though.
Claim: The $n$th square number is the sum of the first $n$ odd numbers.
First of all, how would we represent a square number visually? One way is as a collection of dots arranged in a square, as shown below.

Second, how can we represent an odd number visually? Well, every odd number is one more than an even number, and any even number, being divisible by 2, can be represented as two rows of the same number of dots. Thus, an odd number can be represented as two rows of the same number of dots, plus one more. (Except for 1, which is simply 1 dot.)

Now imagine rearranging each odd number into an L shape as shown below. These L-shaped figures also have two rows of the same number of dots, plus one more.

Next, notice how the series of L-shaped figures representing the odd numbers nest together to form a square.

Thus, the claim holds at least up to $n=5$. To draw a square representing the next square number, you would add a row and a column to this square, which you can see would be the same as adding another L-shaped figure representing the next largest odd number. So the claim must hold for each higher $n$ as well.
I also played around with a similar visualization using even numbers. The L-shaped figures representing odd numbers can be adapted to instead represent even numbers by removing the dot in the corner. When you do that, the nested figures look like this:

The center diagonal is missing from each square. Since it contains a number of dots equal to the side length of the square, the number of dots left in the $n$th square is $n^2-n$.
Accounting for the fact that the first even number, 2, corresponds to the second square, this leads to the formula
$$\sum_{i=1}^n2i=(n+1)^2-(n+1)=(n+1)[(n+1)-1]=(n+1)(n)\text{.}$$
This is what you would expect given the well known formula for the sum of the first $n$ natural numbers and can also be proven by induction. I also checked the sum of this formula and the one from yesterday. The sum of the first $n$ odd natural numbers plus the sum of the first $n$ even natural numbers should equal the sum of the first $2n$ natural numbers, which it does.
$$n^2+(n+1)(n)=n[n+(n+1)]=n(2n+1)=\frac{2n(2n+1)}{2}$$
Squares as Sums of Odd Numbers, Part 1
Today was a fruitful day for math. I watched more of the Essence of Calculus series, did a couple of pages of algebra review exercises, then started on the book The Joy of X by Steven Strogatz, which I bought earlier in the week. Near the beginning of that book, the author mentions that the $n$th square number is the sum of the first $n$ odd numbers. I stopped reading at that point and went to see if I could prove the claim. I was able to come up with two proofs, as well as a way of visualizing the problem geometrically that led me to a formula for the sum of the first $n$ even numbers. I also checked that the sum of the two formulas yielded the well known one for the sum of the first $n$ natural numbers, which it did.
Proposition:
$$\sum_{i=1}^{n}(2i-1)=n^2\text{ for all }n\in\mathbb{N}\text{.}$$
The proof by induction is easy…
Proof 1 (by induction):
When $n=1$, $\sum_{i=1}^{n}(2i-1)=\sum_{i=1}^{1}(2i-1)=2(1)-1=1=1^2$.
Assume that $\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(2i-1)=(n-1)^2$.
It follows that $\sum_{i=1}^{n}(2i-1)=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(2i-1)+(2n-1)=(n-1)^2+2n-1=$ $(n^2-2n+1)+2n-1=n^2$.
Therefore, by induction, the proposition holds for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
Proof 2:
For any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $\sum_{i=1}^{n}(2i-1)=[2n-1]+[2(n-1)-1]+[2(n-2)-1]+…+[2(1)-1]$.
Since there are $n$ terms in the sum, there are $n$ instances of $-1$.
Thus, $\sum_{i=1}^{n}(2i-1)=2[n+(n-1)+(n-2)+…+1]-n$.
Using the well known formula for the sum of the first $n$ natural numbers, it follows that $\sum_{i=1}^{n}(2i-1)=2[\frac{n(n+1)}{2}]-n=n(n+1)-n=n[(n+1)-1]=n^2$.
Thus, the proposition holds for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
Stay tuned tomorrow for a geometric visualization of the problem and the formula for the sum of the first $n$ even numbers.
Video Dreams
Today was busy, and I didn’t find a lot of time for math. I did watch some of the series Essence of Calculus by YouTube math communicator 3Blue1Brown, which was enjoyable. I also played around a bit with tools that might help me make my own math videos someday. That’s something I’d really like to do. As I’ve said elsewhere, for me, math is something to be communicated.
Here’s my favorite of the 3Blue1Brown videos I’ve seen:
I don’t expect to make anything as good as this for a long time, if ever—3Blue1Brown is one of the top math communicators on the Internet—but I find it inspirational (not to mention fascinating in itself).