More Notebook Archeology

I hoped I might finish the exercises from the review of conics today, but I am still feeling under the weather, so I didn’t push that. Instead I read some of The Joy of X by Steven Strogatz and poked around in the same old notebook where I unearthed the problem about superprimes. There I found a nifty, non-inductive proof that $\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}x^i=\frac{x^n-1}{x-1}$, which is a theorem from the first chapter of Number Theory by George E. Andrews, where it is proven by induction.

I also found two unproven propositions about digit sums and the question, “What is the pattern of the sums of digits for multiples of 9?” I worked a bit on the latter, but couldn’t make much of the results. That led me to look them up in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, a resource I’d heard of but never before used. The sequence I was working with didn’t prove to have any very interesting properties, but I found some others I want to look into further, such as the binary weight of $n$ and the sequence $n$ minus the sum of the digits of $n$, the terms of which are always multiples of 9.1 (Whoa.) I’ll have to be careful, though. The OEIS looks worse than Wikipedia or even TV Tropes for trapping in the unwary browser.

  1. To do. ↩︎

Puzzling Primes

Today I worked on some interesting applied exercises in the review of conics, as well as finishing a problem set in Analysis with an Introduction to Proof. I also spent some time thinking about a challenge problem that I found copied into one of my notebooks:

Problem of the Week #793 by Stan Wagon

A superprime is an integer (such s 7331) such that all of its left-to-right initial segments are prime. (For 7331, the segments are 7, 73, 733, and 7331, all prime.) There is largest superprime. Find it.1

I had done some work on the problem during one of my abortive stabs at doing math again. My approach was to try to prove that there is a largest superprime as a step toward constructing it. The work I did to that end is interesting, but I don’t know yet whether I can get beyond the place I got stuck before. Possibly finding the largest superprime empirically, then proving that it must be the largest would be more fruitful.

  1. To do. ↩︎

Revenge of the Squares, Part 1

I intended to split my study time today between analytic geometry review and logic review, but ended up getting drawn into some exploration as well. The result is that I have two proofs about quadrilaterals ready to post. The first of the two appears below. It’s a proof of my hunch from the post Squares Again that if a convex, four-sided, equilateral polygon has one right angle, then it has four right angles. It turns out that I could prove this without knowing that such a figure must be a parallelogram. (It must, though. That’s the proof for tomorrow.)


Lemma: The angles opposite (i.e. subtended by) the equal sides of an isosceles triangle are also equal.

Triangle Before 1
Triangle After

Consider the isosceles triangle $\triangle ABC$ with $AB=AC$.

Draw a line bisecting $\angle CAB$ and extend it to intersect $\overline{BC}$. Let the point of intersection be called $D$.

Now, by the side-angle-side property, $\triangle ACD\cong\triangle ABD$, since $AB=AC$, $\angle CAD\cong\angle BAD$, and $\overline{AD}$ is shared.

Therefore, $\angle ACD\cong\angle ABD$. These are the angles opposite the equal sides of the original isosceles triangle, so the lemma is proven.


Proposition: If a convex, four-sided, equilateral polygon has one (interior) right angle, then it has four (interior) right angles.

Let $ABCD$ be an convex, four-sided, equilateral polygon, and let $\angle BCD$ be a right angle.

Square Before
Square After

Divide the polygon by drawing $\overline{BD}$.

Note that, since $\overline{BD}$ is shared and all other line segments are equal, $\triangle ABD\cong\triangle BCD$ by the side-side-side property.

Hence, since $\angle BCD$ is a right angle and the angles of congruent triangles are equal, $\angle BAD$ is also a right angle.

Similarly, $\angle ADB\cong\angle CBD$.

Furthermore, by the lemma, since $\triangle ABD$ is isosceles, $\angle ADB\cong\angle ABD$, and since $\triangle ACD$ is isosceles, $\angle BDC\cong\angle CBD$.

Therefore, $\angle ADB\cong\angle ABD\cong\angle BDC\cong\angle CBD$.

Let the measure of those angles be called $x$. Since the sum of the measures of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees, either triangle gives us the relationship $90+2x=180$, so $x=45$.

The measures of $\angle ADC$ and $\angle ABC$ are both $2x=2(45)=90$. Thus they are also right angles.

Hence, if a convex, four-sided, equilateral polygon has one right angle, then it has four right angles.


This proof uses SSS again—I actually thought of it while trying to work out a proof of SSS—as well as SAS, through the lemma1. It also uses the fact that the measures of the angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees. I’m pretty sure that theorem is only a couple of steps from the parallel postulate, though.

My original version of this proof didn’t make use of the lemma about isosceles triangles, but instead argued that the two congruent triangles could be mapped onto each other by either rotation or reflection, and that was why all of the acute angles had to be equal. That was kind of a nifty argument, but not easy to formalize.

Stay tuned tomorrow for the proof about parallelograms.

  1. To do. ↩︎

Perpendicular Lines

Today I spent all my study time on exploration and proofs, as opposed review exercises. My first goal was to prove Theorem 2 from yesterday:

Two lines with slopes $m_1$ and $m_2$ are perpendicular if and only if $m_1m_2=-1$; that is, their slopes are negative reciprocals:$$m_2=-\frac{1}{m_1}$$

I succeeded in that, and also came up with an argument for the converse of the Pythagorean Theorem, which is needed for the proof.


Argument for the converse of the Pythagorean Theorem

Proposition: Given a triangle with side lengths $a$, $b$, and $c$, if $a^2+b^2=c^2$, then the triangle is a right triangle.

Congruent Triangles

Let $\triangle ABC$ be a triangle such that $CA=\sqrt{AB^2+BC^2}$.

Construct a right triangle $\triangle EFG$ such that $EF=AB$ and $FG=BC$.

By the Pythegorean Theorem, $GE=\sqrt{EF^2+FG^2}$. Furthermore, $\sqrt{EF^2+FG^2}=\sqrt{AB^2+BC^2}=AC$.

Thus, $EF=AB$, $FG=BC$, and $GE=AC$, meaning that by the side-side-side property, $\triangle EFG$ is congruent to $\triangle ABC$.

The angles of congruent triangles are equal. Therefore, since $\triangle EFG$ is a right triangle, $\triangle ABC$ is also a right triangle.


The use of the SSS property here arose from a hint I found on the Internet. I would like to be able to prove that property, but have had no luck so far.1 It isn’t obvious to me why it should be true that having all sides equal guarantees congruence for triangles when it does not for other polygons.


An abbreviated proof of Theorem 2

Proposition: Two lines with slopes $m$ and $n$ are perpendicular if and only if $mn=-1$; that is, their slopes are negative reciprocals:$$n=-\frac{1}{m}$$

Let $y=mx+b$ and $y=nx+c$ be two lines such that $m\neq n$.

By Theorem 1 (from yesterday), since $m\neq n$, the two lines are not parallel. Thus, they intersect.

Let $E$ be the point at which the lines intersect.

We know from the proof of Theorem 1 that the coordinates of $E$ are $\left(\frac{c-b}{m-n},\frac{mc-nb}{m-n}\right)$.

Let $F\neq E$ be point on $y=mx+b$ with coordinates $(x_F, y_F)$ and let $G\neq E$ be point on $y=nx+c$ with coordinates $(x_G, y_G)$.

Furthermore, let $x_F=x_G=\frac{c-b}{m-n}-1$.

Perpendicular Lines

By plugging $\frac{c-b}{m-n}-1$ into both equations, we can find the values of $y_F$ and $y_G$ in terms of $m$, $n$, $b$, and $c$.

Using the formula below, we can then find the distance between each pair of points:

$$P_1P_2=\sqrt{(x_1-x_2)^2+(y_1-y_2)^2}$$ where $P_1=(x_1,y_1)$ and $P_2=(x_2,y_2)$.

The algebra yields the following: $FG=|m-n|$, $EF=\sqrt{1+m^2}$, and $EG=\sqrt{1+n^2}$.

Now, assume that the lines $y=mx+b$ and $y=nx+c$ are perpendicular. This means that they meet at a right angle. Thus $\triangle EFG$ is a right triangle, and by the Pythagorean Theorem

$$\left(\sqrt{1+m^2}\right)^2+\left(\sqrt{1+n^2}\right)^2=\left(|m-n|\right)^2$$$$m^2+n^2+2=m^2-2mn+n^2$$$$2=-2mn$$$$mn=-1$$

Therefore, if the two lines, $y=mx+b$ and $y=nx+c$, are perpendicular, then $mn=-1$.

Instead, assume that $mn=-1$. In that case, $$\left(\sqrt{1+m^2}\right)^2+\left(\sqrt{1+n^2}\right)^2=m^2+n^2-2mn=(m-n)^2\text{.}$$

It follows, by the converse of the Pythagorean Theorem, that $\triangle EFG$ is a right triangle. Since the right angle of a right triangle is opposite the hypotenuse, $\angle FEG$ is a right angle. Hence the lines $y=mx+b$ and $y=nx+c$ are perpendicular.

Therefore, if the slopes of two lines, $y=mx+b$ and $y=nx+c$, have a product of $-1$, then the lines are perpendicular.


I had some other ideas today, as well, including regarding the question about squares from my post Squares Again. Expect those in the next few days.

  1. To do. ↩︎

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!

  1. To do (see comments). ↩︎

Squares as Products of Squares

While watching a video about factoring, it occurred to me that, if n is a square number, then n is also the product of square numbers. This is trivially true, of course, in that n is the product of itself and 1, which is a square. If the root of n is not a prime, though, then n can be expressed as a product of squares in at least one other way. To see why this is, consider 36:

36 = (6)(6) = (3)(2)(3)(2) = (3)(3)(2)(2) = (9)(4)

Given any factorization of the root of n, n can be expressed as the product of the squares of the root’s factors.

This is all pretty obvious, but I thought it was interesting. In the future, I may consider if there is a geometric interpretation of this fact and what light it might shed.1

  1. To do. ↩︎