A Wheel on a Wheel

For study today, I watched the three-video series The Wonderful World of Weird Wheels by Morphocular, which is a fun look at the mathematics of curves rolling on other curves. I think it would probably appeal to any readers who have a basic understanding of what a derivative is, and maybe to others as well, since there are a lot of engaging visuals.

The video series motivated me to read a bit about hyperbolic functions, which I never really encountered in my mathematical education. $\sinh$ and $\cosh$ were always just mysterious markings on certain calculators. I can’t say they are that much less mysterious now, but I do know their definitions and have some sense of their relationship to hyperbolas.

Shiny New Week

Today I spent two hours reading a section of Analysis with an Introduction to Proof and doing the associated exercises. I’m feeling better than I was for most of last week, though the mental weather is still not entirely clear.

Part of the section I read explained the inadequacy of examples, even quite a few examples, in proving general statements. As an illustration, it offered the statement that $n^2+n+17$ is prime for every natural number $n$. This statement is true for values of $n$ up to 15, but is not true for 16 or 17. The latter, in particular, could be predicted without trying each value of $n$, since $17^2$, $17$, and $17$ are clearly all divisible by a common factor (meaning that their sum must also be divisible by that factor).

Later, an exercise asked me to find a counterexample to the statement that $3^n+2$ is prime for every natural number $n$. This had me wondering whether there was a way to predict a counterexample, as there had been in the earlier case.1 I could not think of one, however, so I answered the question by trying each $n$. It turns out that I didn’t have to go far, as $n=5$ breaks the pattern. I still wonder if there is a better way, though.

Thank you to all of you who have commented on my posts recently. It really helps me stay committed to my project. I will try to reply soon.

  1. To do. ↩︎

Ludare est Orare

Today I read a little of The Mathematical Tourist and also a little of Infinite Powers, Steven Strogatz’s book on the history of calculus. The Mathematical Tourist skims over its material very quickly and I was finding it hard to follow in my current state of mind.

I am feeling very detached from my review project just now. Nevertheless, tonight, at the midpoint of Western Christian Holy Week, I’ve been reflecting that, when I am able to apply myself to it, doing mathematics becomes a spiritual practice for me. There is a certain attitude of mind that engages with the grandeur of the universe with both humility and joy. I’ve always called it play, but there may be a better word. At any rate, this play can be a response to any natural or artistic beauty—is there really a distinction?—and the impulse behind any creative work. I think what evokes it is very different for different people. For some people it may well be basketball or cake decorating. For me it is certain natural phenomena, music, and more than anything else, higher mathematics. And for me, this play is also a form of prayer. Engaging with the wonder of creation with humility and joy is also singing a hymn to the Creator. To play is to pray, and nothing inspires play in me like mathematics.

Not Doing Much

My mental health was better today, but I haven’t yet bounced back physically. I took a long nap after church, and I was only up for some light math reading after. The section of The Mathematical Tourist that I read was about tests for primality, which is appropriate given my current interest in primes. It made me wonder if SageMath tests numbers directly or looks them up in a table. There might be a forum where I could ask.1

  1. To do. ↩︎

Persistent Puzzlement, Part 2

Today I continued to play with the problem from my post Puzzling Primes. Among other things, I installed the computer algebra system SageMath, which I can use to test quickly whether numbers are prime. With that tool, I might be able to solve the problem by brute force. I can’t imagine that this would be chosen as a problem of the week if there were not a better way, though.

So far I have been able to prove (a) that a superprime may contain at most two occurrences of the digits 1 or 7, (b) that all the other digits must be 3 or 9, except the first digit, which may also be 2 or 5, and (c) that if the first digit is 2 or 5, there will be no occurrences of 1 or 7.

All this means that, if there were some factor limiting the number of trailing 3s and 9s a prime could have, I would at least be able to prove a limit on the length of superprimes, and therefore that there must be a largest one. So far I’ve had no luck with that avenue of inquiry, though.

I will share the actual proofs of these claims in the future, but I’m still feeling unwell today. In the meantime, here is a chart of the ways that potential superprimes can be constructed. Red represents potential starting digits while blue represents digits that may be added.

Empty Bubble Prime Chart

Functioning and Functions

Today I read the first section of the first chapter of my calculus book and worked on the associated exercises. (Yippee!) My concentration, which was such a problem on Thursday, was fine today, and I’m feeling encouraged.

The section I read was about functions and discussed the vertical line test. According to the test, a graph represents a function of $x$ if and only if no vertical line intersects the graph more than once. The way I remember first being taught the test, though, the “of $x$” condition was not included. It always bothered me that $y=x^2$, an upward facing parabola, should be a function, while $x=y^2$, a rightward facing parabola, should not. It is, of course. It’s just a function of $y$ rather than a function of $x$. This has me wondering whether, say, the graph of a diagonally facing parabola could be interpreted as representing a function, and what it would be a function of.1

  1. To do. ↩︎

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.