The How of Science

Today I read more of Infinite Powers. I’ve finished the section on Archimedes and moved on to the next protagonist of Strogatz’s tale, Galileo. What I read about him today proved interesting. I don’t think I ever knew that he discovered the properties of falling bodies, not by dropping balls vertically, but by rolling them down ramps. Perhaps if I had ever taken a traditional physic course, I would have learned that. On the other hand, perhaps this is an example of the tendency in science education to present results without explaining how they were discovered. My scientist father has lamented the disservice that approach does to the subject.

I suppose the analog in math education is the fact that nearly all pre-college math courses are focused on calculation rather than proof. (Traditionally, the exception was geometry, but I think that is often calculation-focused now, as well. My course was, for the most part.) I don’t know whether that is a disservice or not. For me, proof is the most exciting thing. I enjoyed math in middle school and high school, but didn’t truly love it until I was aske to discover and prove facts for myself. I think I’m probably in the minority there, though. Most people, to the extent that they are interested in math at all, are interested in its applications.

Book Report

Today I felt unwell again. I also had a discussion with my father about approximating pi, however, that inspired me to do some research on the subject. I ended up reading the historical section of the Wikipedia article on pi. When I was in college, the consensus was that you should never read about math on Wikipedia. My understanding is that the mathematical articles have improved since then, however, and since I’m sure there are many eyes on this particular article, I decided it would serve my purpose.

As I told my father, ancient mathematicians (such as Archimedes, but also including mathematicians in India and China) calculated pi by approximating the circumference of a circle using the perimeters of polygons with increasingly many sides. According to the article, after 1500, mathematicians in both Europe and India began to use infinite series that could be shown to converge to pi, instead. In the 20th century, they continued to use infinite series, but also developed very fast iterative algorithms in which each step involved applying the same calculation to the results of the previous step. Computers following these algorithms were able to generate millions of digits of pi. Currently, the limiting factor in finding new digits of pi seems to be, not processor speed, but availability of storage for the huge numbers needed for each calculation.

99 Problems

Things are still not going well. I’m experiencing a lot more anxiety than I have for a long time and struggling to cope. I did watch some math YouTube videos today, however. Among them was one about the Banach-Tarski Paradox, which reminded me of a joke I read once: “I’ve got 99 problems, but Banach-Tarski is 198 of them.” (For the uninitiated, the Banach-Tarski Paradox concerns how a solid, such as a sphere, can be split into two perfect copies of itself. It’s pretty wild, and I didn’t fully understand the argument. I think I’m going to look for another video on the same topic.)

Parabola Magic

I worked on more calculus exercises today, then did some experimenting with graphs using Desmos. What I discovered is that adding a line to a parabola will always produce a congruent parabola. So far, I haven’t been able to find any other type of curve that has this property. For all other curves, adding a line also adds “tiltiness” to the graph, so that the result is not congruent to the original.

Here is an example using a parabola. The original parabola appears in green, the line in red, and their sum in blue. Click here for an interactive version of this figure.

Parabolic Function

We know that these parabolas are congruent because the coefficient of the $x^2$ term does not change. (It is called $a$ in the interactive graph.) This coefficient is equal to $\frac{1}{4p}$, where $p$ is the distance of the vertex of the parabola from both the focus and the directrix. It is this distance that determines the curvature of the parabola.

(To see that $a$ does equal $\frac{1}{4p}$, try converting the general equation for a parabola $(x-h)^2=4p(y-k)$ into the general equation $y=ax^2+bx+c$. That’s another thing I did today.)

Below is a gallery of some of the other curves I tried. Again, the original graphs are in green, the line in red, and their sum in blue. You can see how each result has greater tiltiness than the original in one way or another.

I haven’t yet been able to explain why parabolas have this congruence property while other types of curve do not nor tried to understand what other implications it may have, but I find it magical.1

  • Cubic Function
  • Quartic Function
  • Root Function
  • Elliptical Function 1
  • Hyperbolic Function 1
  • Rational Function
  • Exponential Function
  • Trig Function
  1. To do. ↩︎

Snoozle

Today was another of my periodic sleepy days, and I spent much of it napping. I did work on calculus for an hour in the evening, and I listened to A Brief History of Mathematics for another half hour or so. Both the calculus exercises and the radio programs emphasized the usefulness of mathematics to natural science. That’s not really something I think about much. For me, the appeal of math is very much inherent in the subject, not tied to what you can do with it. I am glad other people are interested in the latter, though.

Less Fun with Logarithms

Today I did more exercises and reading in my calculus book. I also proved the converse of the proposition from last week’s post Fun with Logarithms. You can see the proof below. As I expected, all that was required was a little algebra. Finally, I listened to some of the BBC radio series A Brief History of Mathematics.

It was struggling to listen to that series at the beginning of this year that inspired me to try doing math with the aid of CBD gummies (as described in Take Drugs, Do Math). The series is intended for a broad audience and is not intellectually demanding. Yet even a short time listening to it left me completely exhausted. That served as strong evidence that the overwhelming difficulties I was still having when I tried to do math were at least partly emotional, as opposed to cognitive. Before, it had never been so clear. The new certainty, combined with an overall improvement in my mental health around that time, led me to seek new ways to overcome the emotional block.

Today I was able to enjoy the series with no ill effects, even without CBD gummies, which I am now using infrequently.


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

Suppose that $a$ and $b$ are natural numbers greater than $1$ that are both powers of a natural number $c$.

Then, by definition, $a=c^m$ and $b=c^n$ for some natural numbers $m$ and $n$.

Since $a\neq 1$, it follows that $m\neq 0$.

And since $m\neq0$, $a^{\frac{n}{m}}=(c^m)^{\frac{n}{m}}=c^n=b$.

Thus $\log_a b = \frac{n}{m}$, which is rational, and the proposition is proven.

Shopping is Hard (Let’s Do Math)

Today I visited four thrift shops looking for various clothing items I need. It was exhausting. Between that and some other things I needed to do today, I wasn’t up for either calc exercises or explorations.

I ended up reading more of Infinite Powers. It was fun to be doing that with a sharper mind than I often do, especially today, when the section I read covered Archimedes’s Method. I can’t adequately explain it here, but it is a way of doing geometry by imagining shapes as physical objects acting on levers. This allowed Archimedes to discover the relationships between their areas or volumes. It’s pretty wild. “Give me a lever” and I will not only move the Earth, I’ll discover the volume of the sphere, too.

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. ↩︎