Showing posts with label Poincare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Poincare. Show all posts

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Kwanzaa Post: Continued Fractions and Calendar Reform

Table of Contents

1. Pappas, Poincare, and L'Engle
2. The Kwanzaa Celebrant in My Class
3. Ogilvy and Continued Fractions
4. Coding Continued Fractions in BASIC
5. Coding Continued Fractions in TI-BASIC
6. Continued Fractions and Calendar Reform
7. Continued Fractions and Leap Weeks
8. Calendar Reform and Kwanzaa
9. Continued Fractions and Music
10. Conclusion: "The Twelve Days of Christmath" (Vi Hart)

Pappas, Poincare, and L'Engle

This is what Theoni Pappas writes on page 58 of her Magic of Mathematics:

"There is an astonishing imagination even in the science of mathematics."
-- Voltaire

This is the first page of the section "Mathematical Worlds in Literature." Pappas tells us that several authors write about math in their fiction.

Here are some excerpts from this page:

"Is the tesseract the figment of a mathematical imagination? We learn in Euclidean geometry that a point only shows location, and it cannot be seen since it has zero dimension. A line is infinite in length, yet does such a figure exist in the realm of our lives? A plane is infinite in two dimensions and only one point thick. Consider the pseudosphere of hyperbolic geometry; asymptotic lines of exponential functions, infinities of transfinite numbers. One wonders if these can exist in our world.

"Many writers, artists and mathematicians have ingeniously used these concepts to describe worlds where these ideas come to life."

The first author Pappas mentions in this section is Poincare -- the formulator of a famous conjecture, but also, as I mentioned earlier, the creator of the Poincare hyperbolic disk. Pappas writes:

"In the 19th century, mathematician Henri Poincare created a model of a hyperbolic world contained in the interior of a circle. Here to all things and inhabitants, their circular world was infinite. Unbeknownst to these creatures, everything would shrink as it moved away from the center of the circle, while growing as it approached the center. This meant that the circle's boundary was never to be reached, and hence their world appeared infinite to them."

Here's a link to the Poincare hyperbolic disk:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PoincareHyperbolicDisk.html

In past years, I used to write about hyperbolic geometry, because this theory is "neutral," differing from Euclidean geometry merely by denying the Fifth Postulate. (On the other hand, the parallel postulate is true in spherical geometry -- we must change other axioms to obtain spherical geometry.)

I stopped writing about hyperbolic geometry because it's less intuitive than spherical geometry -- for the simple reason that we live on a spherical earth. But since we read about it here and Pappas -- and since it's still vacation time -- let's take some time to learn about hyperbolic geometry.

OK, so objects on the Poincare disk shrink as they approach the boundary. So what exactly does this have to do with denying the Fifth Postulate? Well, if two lines appear to intersect outside the boundary, these lines are in fact parallel (ultraparallel), since the boundary can't be reached. Two lines that would intersect on the boundary are horoparallel. Hence through a point not on a line there are infinitely many lines parallel to that line, and so Playfair fails.

The Wolfram link above contains a picture of MC Escher's representation of the Poincare disk -- Pappas includes such a picture in her book as well. The Wolfram link also shows a short animation of what appears to be a "rotation" about a point on the circle. Since the point lies on the boundary, the so-called "rotation" is actually a horolation -- the fifth isometry that doesn't exist in normal geometry.

Here's a link to a Numberphile video on hyperbolic geometry:



The Poincare disk doesn't appear only the 8:30 mark of this video -- instead another model of hyperbolic geometry is featured (the half-plane model). 

Meanwhile, Pappas also writes about Madeleine L'Engle's book A Wrinkle in Time. Even though she writes about this on pages 59-60 rather than 58, I include it in today's post since the movie -- starring Oprah Winfrey -- is coming out in just over two months:

"For her novel A Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L'Engle uses the tesseract and multiple dimensions as means of allowing her characters to travel though outer space. '..for the 5th dimension you'd square the fourth and add that to the other four dimensions and you can travel though space without having to go the long way around...In other words a straight line is not the shortest distance between two points.'"

(Yes, that last line appears in the movie trailer.) Recall that even though a tesseract is a 4D hypercube, L'Engle labels it as 5D because she's including time as the Einsteinian fourth dimension, so the tesseract must be 5D.

At this point, you may wonder why adding another dimension means that the shortest distance between two points is no longer a straight line. Well, actually the shortest distance between two points is a straight line only in Euclidean geometry. We've already seen that the shortest distance between two points (a "geodesic") in spherical geometry is a great circle.

To understand what L'Engle is doing here, let's bump everything down a dimension. So instead of (counting only the spatial dimensions) using a 4D tesseract to travel across the 3D universe, let's use a 3D cube to travel across 2D Flatland. We can model Flatland using a sheet of paper, except that this paper isn't flat, but folded (or "wrinkled"). The cube then is a tube connecting one folded half of this paper to the other half. It's much shorter, then, for a Flatlander to travel through the cube to the other side than it is to go the long way through Flatland (staying on the sheet of paper).

In fact, it's even possible that L'Engle's universe is hyperbolic like the Poincare disk! In this case, the places where people live are near the boundary of the disk. The circle is small, but people living near the boundary are very tiny, so the universe appears vast to them. Ordinary, people must traverse long distances to travel anywhere else on the disk. But instead, we shorten distances very easily -- travel to the center of the disk (which causes us to grow to a humongous size), walk a single huge step in the correct direction, and then approach the destination (shrinking back to the original size). Notice that the boundary of the Poincare disk is a 1D manifold (the exterior of the 2-ball), and so the people who live in this universe are Linelanders. We then bump it up two dimensions. Then it becomes 3D people living near the image of the 3-sphere, and they travel through the 4-ball across the universe.

Unfortunately, if L'Engle's universe were hyperbolic, it would be incorrect to call the 4-ball through which we travel a "tesseract." Squares don't exist in hyperbolic geometry, hence neither can cubes, and neither can tesseracts. But there might be a way to make the universe the boundary of a tesseract rather than a 4-ball in order to make her story work out.

I've written about L'Engle's universe a couple of times on this blog, but I haven't decided yet whether I'll actually watch the movie when it comes out. I still have over two months to decide -- but I almost have to since I keep writing about it so much!

One thing that annoys me is when I'm searching for something and I stumble upon something I wish I'd found weeks earlier. When I was searching for the hyperbolic geometry video above, I stumbled upon the following Numberphile video on Ricci flow:



I wrote about Ricci flow as we read the Poincare book, but since I gave only excerpts and skipped over large portions of the book, I feel that the readers don't really understand what Ricci flow is (and admittedly, neither do I). This video explains what Ricci flow is and how it was used to prove the Poincare conjecture. (I might as well include it since I already added the "Poincare" label.) There is also a Numberphile video on the Poincare conjecture itself, but I don't link to it here.

The Kwanzaa Celebrant in My Class

Kwanzaa is an African-American holiday, celebrated December 26th-January 1st. (Oops -- I mentioned race in this post, but it's OK because it's vacation time.)

I've written about Jewish holidays in previous posts, especially Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur because the LAUSD is closed those days. In New York, schools are closed for both of these Jewish holidays as well as Chinese New Year and the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr. But so far, I've never mentioned Kwanzaa since it has nothing to do with school calendars (except for the fact that all schools are closed for winter break during the seven days of Kwanzaa).

But last year, one of the eighth grade girls in my class celebrated Kwanzaa. (I didn't mention this last year -- even during vacation time, I wanted to write about race in only one post -- and that was the big Hidden Figures post, five days after the last day of Kwanzaa.)

The holiday of Kwanzaa is controversial. Part of this is because it's seen as a "made-up" holiday, due to the recency of its establishment -- the creator, Maulana Karenga, is still alive at age 76. But this post will be mainly about the actual student in my class whose family celebrated the holiday.

How, exactly, does one celebrate Kwanzaa anyway? For my student, the major event during the holiday was a dance recital. She spent the entire month of December preparing for the recital, and she invited me to attend her performance during the holiday itself.

At first I wasn't going to attend, since my home is far from the dance hall. But as it turned out, the December paychecks weren't available before winter break began, and the director (principal) invited the teachers to pick up the paycheck at her house -- which is near the dance hall. And so I decided to drive to the dance hall that afternoon -- even though it was hours before the performance, I thought that I might see her arrive to practice for that evening. If I had seen my student, I would have purchased a ticket, but I never saw her. It was possible that she would have been performing on one of the other six nights of the holiday, and so I decided not to purchase the ticket.

The name Kwanzaa comes from the language of Swahili ("first (fruits)"), and the names of the seven principles associated with the holiday also come from this language. (Swahili is also the language spoken by many characters in the movie Lion King -- the phrase "Hakuna Matata" comes from this language, and the name of the main character, Simba, means "lion.") The principle associated with today, the third day of Kwanzaa is Ujima, which means "collective work and responsibility." (As it turned out, our school also associated each month with a principle, and the December principle, "creativity," was also the sixth principle of Kwanzaa, Kuumba.)

For the sake of my eighth grader, I decided to mention one of the seven principles during each of the last seven school days before winter break (December 6th-14th). The history teacher had announced that there would be a party on the last day of school, December 14th. I was considering hosting my own party in class that day and calling it a Karamu -- the Kwanzaa feast. I might have asked my student what she normally eats during the holiday (probably some sort of soul food), and then I'd bring enough of it for all 14 of my eighth graders to eat.

But then something terrible happened. Ironically, it occurred on December 8th, the day I told my students about the third principle of Ujima, since the students collectively lacked responsibility. (I never mentioned this incident on the blog, since I didn't post on December 8th last year, and I wrote about other things the rest of that week.)

It was during IXL computer time. The eighth graders were supposed to get laptops in order to begin the IXL assignment. But one student -- and I never did figure out who it was -- decided to start flicking the lights on and off. Then a second student started playing with the lights, then a third person, and so on.

While this was happening, two seventh graders from the English class entered the room. The English teacher wanted her students to work on laptops as well, but she didn't have quite enough computers for the large class of seventh graders, so she sent in two boys to borrow laptops from my smaller class of eighth graders. But when they see the eighth graders playing with the lights, they decide to join in and start flicking the lights themselves.

I try to punish my class for playing the lights -- but they claimed that it was unfair to punish them since "only" the two seventh grade boys were guilty. I began to yell -- and this caused the history teacher to leave his classroom and find out what was going on. In the end, he ended up canceling the following week's party -- and since he was no longer having a party, there was no reason for me to hold the Kwanzaa Karamu either.

It's easy to see how this incident was a reflection of my classroom management. Even as a sub, I've never seen students enter the classroom at the beginning of the period play with the lights before. The students don't play with the lights until after they perceive me to be a weak, powerless teacher. So if students are playing with the light switch, it means that I've already lost control of the class.

And it's also easy to see what I did during IXL time that was weak. The most obvious punishment to give students during laptop time is to take away the laptops and forbid them from using them. But I had no back up assignment, and I knew that the students might see the cancellation of IXL as a reward rather than a punishment.

In previous posts, I've mentioned what I should have done with IXL last year -- have an IXL accountability worksheet. Students who have their laptops taken away would be required to copy and answer eleven questions on that worksheet. Since I didn't know which individuals were responsible for turning off the lights, the entire class would be subject to the punishment. I wouldn't have to yell, or even talk about the lights. If anyone asks why they can't use the laptops that day, I would give the stock answer "Because I said so." The first ten questions would be math, while the eleventh question would be, "Will I ever turn off the lights without permission?" with a one-word answer required. (If someone protests, "But I didn't turn off the lights!" I point out that the question begins with the word "Will," indicating the future tense, not the past tense.)

Hopefully, if the two seventh graders enter to see the eighth graders working, they aren't inspired to turn off the lights themselves. But in case I don't stop the eighth graders before two younger boys arrive and they in turn play with the lights, I punish them the next day. This would not be a class punishment but individual, since it's obvious which two boys are involved in the incident. If I had done all of this, the history teacher would never have cancelled the party, and the Karamu could have proceeded as I intended. The day before the party -- Kuumba day -- would have been a good day to have the students show their creativity by doing an art project, perhaps drawing the seven candles (one black, three red, three green) that Kwanzaa celebrants light during the holiday.

By the way, as I mentioned in my Hidden Figures post (dated January 6th), the sixth and eighth grade classes were majority black, but the seventh grade class was mostly Latino. I was considering making up for this by having a Fiesta later in the year. Indeed, one day during a music break, a seventh grader wanted me to open one of my songs with "Uno, dos, tres, cuatro." I didn't that day, but I realized that there was a Square One TV song for which this opening would fit -- "X is the Sign of the Times," which also had Spanish lyrics -- "Equis es el simbolo de los tiempos." The planned date for this song was Cinco de Mayo -- but alas, by May 5th I was no longer in the classroom.

Ogilvy and Continued Fractions

This is the time of year that I post my annual Calendar Reform post. But I promised that I'd post the Ogilvy chapter that we skipped, since there's a relationship between this topic and calendars.

Chapter 10 of Stanley Ogilvy's Excursions in Number Theory is "Continued Fractions." He begins:

"We now take a second look at the Euclidean algorithm which we presented in Chapter 3. On page 29 we confirmed by means of the algorithm that 14 and 45 are relatively prime: they have no common factor except 1."

Ogilvy now revisits the steps of that algorithm, except this time he divides it using fractions:

45/14 = 3 + 3/14
          = 3 + 1/(14/3)
          = 3 + 1/(4 + 2/3)
          = 3 + 1/(4 + 1/(3/2))
          = 3 + 1/(4 + 1/(1 + 1/2))

We stop when the last fraction has a numerator of one (which corresponds to a GCF of 1). The multiple-decker expression:

3 + 1/(4 + 1/(1 + 1/2))

is called a continued fraction expansion of the number 45/14.

Ogilvy explains how continued fractions can be used to approximate the original fraction. He deletes the last fraction 1/2:

3 + (4 + 1/1) = 16/5

This is an approximation of the original fraction 45/14, which we verify by subtracting:

45/14 - 16/5 = (45 * 5 - 14 * 16)/(14 * 5) = (225 - 224)/70 = 1/70

Since the error is only 1/70, the two fractions are very close. Ogilvy tries another example:

87/37 = 2 + 13/37
          = 2 + 1/(37/13)
          = 2 + 1/(2 + 11/13)
          = 2 + 1/(2 + 1/(13/11))
          = 2 + 1/(2 + 1/(1 + 2/11))
          = 2 + 1/(2 + 1/(1 + 1/(11/2)))
          = 2 + 1/(2 + 1/(1 + 1/(5 + 1/2)))

Once again, we discard the last fraction:

2 + 1/(2 + 1/(1 + 1/5)) = 40/17

and find the error:

87/37 - 40/17 = (87 * 17 - 37 * 40)/(37 * 17) = (1479 - 1480)/629 = -1/629

This time the difference is smaller and negative.

Ogilvy now writes about the purpose of these continued fractions. One purpose of them is to solve linear Diophantine equations:

45x - 14y = 1

To solve this equation, we take the equation from earlier:

(45 * 5 - 14 * 16)/(14 * 5) = 1/70

and multiply both sides by 70:

45 * 5 - 14 * 16 = 1

which produces (5, 16) as the solution of the Diophantine equation without trial-and-error at all. Here is Ogilvy's next example:

87x - 37y = 1

But this time, we repeat the process to obtain:

87 * 17 - 37 * 40 = -1

Oops -- we wanted +1, not -1. This time, we return to the continued fraction process and replace the last 1/2 by:

1/(1 + 1/1)

And now we can throw out the last 1/1 instead of 1/2:

2 + 1/(2 + 1/(1 + 1/(5 + 1/1))) = 47/20

Finding the difference as usual:

87/37 - 47/20 = (87 * 20 - 37 * 47)/20 = (1749 - 1739)/20 = 1/740

or

87 * 20 - 37 * 47 = 1

Thus the solution is (20, 47). Ogilvy now gives an admittedly trumped up problem related to these Diophantine equations:

"A man finds that he can spend all his money on widgets at 87 cents a piece, or he can buy gadgets at 37 cents a piece and have one cent left over. How much money does he have?"

87W = 37G + 1
87W - 37G = 1

And so W = 20, G = 47 is a solution. Here's how to find other solutions -- add 87 * 37 and then subtract it back:

87 * 20 + 87 * 37 - 37 * 47 - 87 * 37 = 1
87(20 + 37) - 37(47 + 87) = 1
87 * 57 - 37 * 134 = 1

And so another solution is (57, 134). In other words, the line whose equation is:

87x - 37y = 1

passes through the lattice points (20, 47), (57, 134), and others. Ogilvy writes that we can generalize this to solve:

ax - by = c

provided that the GCF of a and b -- say d -- divides c evenly.

At this point, Ogilvy writes about the main purpose of continued fractions. It's not to find fractions to approximate other fractions, but rather to find fractions to approximate irrational numbers.

His first example is sqrt(2). He begins by adding 1 -- that is, floor(sqrt(2)) -- and then subtract it back:

sqrt(2) = 1 + sqrt(2) - 1

We had good luck inverting before, so we try it again:

sqrt(2) = 1 + 1/(1/(sqrt(2) - 1))

Now we perform the Algebra II trick -- rationalize the last denominator by multiplying it and the numerator by its conjugate:

sqrt(2) = 1 + 1/((sqrt(2) + 1)/((sqrt(2) - 1)(sqrt(2) + 1)))
            = 1 + 1/((sqrt(2) + 1)/(2 - 1))
            = 1 + 1/(1 + sqrt(2))

At this point, we have that sqrt(2) equals something on the right hand side -- and that something itself contains a sqrt(2). So we substitute the entire RHS in for sqrt(2):

sqrt(2) = 1 + 1/(1 + (1 + 1/(1 + sqrt(2))))
            = 1 + 1/(2 + 1/(1 + sqrt(2)))

And the RHS still has a sqrt(2), so we substitute in RHS again and again ad infinitum:

sqrt(2) = 1 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + ...

Just as rational numbers have finite continued fraction expansions, it turns out that irrational numbers have infinite continued fraction expansions. At this point, Ogilvy points out that we don't know whether the infinite expansion converges at all, much less to sqrt(2). Here he decides to check the first few approximations, or convergents, to sqrt(2):

C_1 = 1
C_2 = 1 + 1/2 = 3/2
C_3 = 1 + 1/(2 + 1/2) = 7/5
C_4 = 1 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + 1/2)) = 17/12

1/1, 3/2, 7/5, 17/12, ...

Ogilvy notices a pattern here -- to find the next denominator, add the old numerator and denominator, so for example, 17 + 12 = 29. To find the new numerator, add the new denominator and old numerator, so 12 + 29 = 41. So the next fraction is 41/29, and the pattern continues with 99/70.

Since these numbers should be approaching sqrt(2), their squares should approach 2:

1/1, 9/4, 49/25, 289/144, 1681/841, 9801/4900, ...

Let's find the errors -- their differences from 2:

-1/1, +1/4, -1/25, +1/144, -1/841, +1/4900, ...

Note that the signs alternate, the numerators are all 1's, and the denominators increase rapidly. This suggests that the sequence really does converge to sqrt(2). Ogilvy tells us that if the fractions in the sequence are y/x, then each one satisfies:

(y^2 +/- 1)/x^2 = 2

or

y^2 - 2x^2 = +/- 1

This is a famous Diophantine equation -- Pell's equation.

At this point Ogilvy returns to a problem from Chapter 2 of his book -- what perfect squares are also triangular numbers? The nth triangular number is (n^2 + n)/2, so we write:

(n^2 + n)/2 = m^2

Clearing the fraction, multiplying by 4, and adding 1 gives:

4n^2 + 4n + 1 = 8m^2 + 1
(2n + 1)^2 = 2(2m)^2 + 1

We let y = 2n +1 and x = 2m to obtain:

y^2 - 2x^2 = 1

which is Pell's equation. So each solution to Pell's equation also produces a square triangle -- the solutions to Pell are (2, 3), (12, 17), (70, 99). In each pair, half of the even number is the square and half of one less than the odd number is the triangle. Hence 1^2 is the first triangular number, 6^2 is the eighth triangular number, 35^2 is the 49th triangular number, and so on.

Ogilvy informs us that all irrationals of the form sqrt(a^2 + 1) can be developed the same way:

sqrt(a^2 + 1) = a + 1/(2a + 1/(2a + 1/(2a + ...

But other square roots, such as sqrt(3), are found using a different method that I choose not to include in this post:

sqrt(3) = 1 + 1/(1 + 1/(2 + 1/(1 + 1/(2 + ...

The successive convergents are:

1, 2, 5/3, 7/4, 19/11, 26/15, ...

whose squares are:

1, 4, 25/9, 49/16, 361/121, 676/225, ...

and whose errors are:

-2/1, +1/1, -2/9, +1/16, -2/121, +1/225, ...

This means that we now have solutions to the Diophantine equations:

y^2 - 3x^2 = 1
y^2 - 3x^2 = -2

The first of these is Pell's equation, but the second isn't, since the right hand side is -2, not -1. In fact, Ogilvy tells us that:

y^2 - Nx^2 = 1

has solutions for all N (except perfect squares, of course), but:

y^2 - Nx^2 = -1

has solutions for only certain values of N -- and 3 isn't one of them.

In the rest of this chapter, Ogilvy plays around with some continued fractions for a few special transcendental numbers. He gives us a result from Euler:

c_1 + c_1c_2 + c_1c_2c_3 + ... = c_1/(1 - c_2/(1 + c_2 - c_3/(1 + c_3 - ...

This isn't what's known as a simple continued fraction since the numerators aren't all 1, but this is a sort of generalized continued fraction. Most series aren't of the form given by the LHS, but it turns out that the Taylor series for arctangent is of this form:

arctan x = x - x^3/3 + x^5/5 - x^7/7 + ...
             = x + x(-x^2/3) + x(-x^2/3)(-3x^2/5) + ...
             = x/(1 + x^2/(3 - x^2 + 9x^2/(5 - 3x^2 + 25x^2/(7 - 5x^2 + ...

Ogilvy now substitutes in x = 1, since arctan 1 is 45 degrees or pi/4 radians:

pi/4 = 1/(1 + 1^2/(2 + 3^2/(2 + 5^2/(2 + ...

Even though pi has a simple continued fraction expansion, it follows no pattern. On the other hand, the simple continued fraction for e does show a pattern:

e = 1 + 1/1! + 1/2! + 1/3! + ...

e = 2 + 1/(1 + 1/(2 + 1/(1+ 1/(1 + 1/(4 + 1/(1 + 1/(1 + 1/(6 + 1/ + ...

According to Ogilvy, two computer programmers comment on why it's faster to calculate digits of e than digits of pi:

"One would hope for a theoretical approach... -- a theory of the 'depth' of numbers -- but no such theory now exists. One can guess that e is not as deep as pi, but try and prove it!"

Coding Continued Fractions in BASIC

Ogilvy doesn't use the following notation in his book, but there's a simpler way to write all of the continued fractions that he mentions in this chapter:

45/14 = [3; 1, 4, 2]
87/37 = [2; 2, 1, 5, 2]
sqrt(2) = [1; 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, ...]
sqrt(a^2 + 1) = [a; 2a, 2a, 2a, ...]
sqrt(3) = [1; 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, ...]
e = [2; 1, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1, 6, ...]

Let's write programs to find continued fractions, in both BASIC and TI-BASIC:

http://www.haplessgenius.com/mocha/

10 INPUT X
20 PRINT INT(X);
30 X=X-INT(X)
40 IF X<=.001 THEN END
50 X=1/X
60 GOTO 20

In this program, only decimals can be entered, not fractions or square roots. So we may require the computer to PRINT 45/14 or PRINT SQR(2) before we RUN the program.

Line 40 ought to say IF X=0, but it's obvious that decimals can't be written exactly -- we can't even express 1/3 exactly, after all -- and so errors are inevitable. So this program has a .001 tolerance. But even with this tolerance, errors are inevitable especially with irrational inputs. The computer displays a few 2's when sqrt(2) is inputted, but soon many spurious values appear. (Press "Esc" to stop the computer as soon as the non-2's appear.)

For the rationals, the computer will often display a list ending with 1. Ogilvy does tell us, after all, that since 1/1 = 1, the two continued fractions are equivalent:

[a; b, c, d, ..., n]
[a; b, c, d, ..., n-1, 1]

Lists ending in 1 appear because of rounding error again -- a final 2, for example, may be stored in the computer as 1.9999 instead. The computer can't convert 1.9999 directly to 2 because of the INT (floor) function -- instead, 1.9999 becomes 1. The extra .9999 is inverted to 1.0001 (or thereabouts), and that's where the final 1 comes from. The last .0001 is within the tolerance .001, and so it ends.

For fractions, it may be annoying to find their decimal values first, so instead we could write:

5 INPUT P,Q
10 X=P/Q

This doesn't allow us to input irrational values -- but since the computer is inaccurate for irrationals, perhaps it's better not to allow irrational inputs.

Coding Continued Fractions in TI-BASIC

In TI-BASIC, we write:

PROGRAM:CONTFRAC
:Input X
:{iPart(X)}->L1
:fPart(X)->X
:2->A
:While (A<99)(X>
.001)
:1/X->X
:iPart(X)->L1(A)
:fPart(X)->X
:A+1->A
:End
:L1

This time, we store our continued fraction in a list variable L1, while A keeps track of the size of the list variable. The program stops when either the list reaches length 99, or the tolerance is met.

Interestingly enough, the calculator gives the correct list for the irrational sqrt(2), with a 1 followed by nothing but 2's. For sqrt(3) and all higher square roots, errors are inevitable. For the number e, the last correct values are 10, 1, 1, but then 13 appears instead of 12. The next two values after 13 are indeed 1's, then all further values are incorrect. On the computer, when we enter e, the last correct values are 8, 1, 1.

Of course, perhaps we should change 99 to a more realistic value, since the calculator will almost never find 99 correct values except for a few special numbers like sqrt(2). For example, since e produced 17 correct values, maybe we should change this to 17, or 19 at the most.

Continued Fractions and Calendar Reform

OK, so now we have learned what continued fractions are. Earlier, I wrote that continued fractions have something to do with calendars, but it's not obvious what the relationship is.

We know that the Gregorian Calendar -- the calendar currently in widespread use -- requires Leap Days in order to keep it accurate. Whenever we see a leap anything (Leap Second, Leap Day, Leap Week, and so on), it means that the ratio of two lengths of time (such as a year and a day) is not a whole number.

The following link gives the number of solar days in a tropical year:

https://mrob.com/pub/math/numbers-11.html

The value given there is 365.242189 days. So let's find a continued fraction for that number:

365.242189 = [365; 4, 7, 1, 3, 40, ...]

As it turns out, these numbers can be converted into the Leap Day rule for a calendar. Here's how we do this:


  • The Level-0 cycle is the length of the shorter unit. For example, when trying to determine the number of days in a year, one day is the Level-0 cycle.
  • For each value of n, the length of the Level-n cycle is given by the nth value a_n in the continued fraction (CF) found above. In particular, we combine exactly a_n Level-(n - 1) cycles with one Level-(n - 2) cycle.
So let's try this for the continued fraction found above:

0. The Level-0 cycle is one day.
1. The first value in the CF is 365. The Level-1 cycle consists of 365 Level-0 cycles, or 365 days in a year. This is a very basic approximation, used by the ancient Egyptians.
2. The second value in the CF is 4. The Level-2 cycle consists of 4 Level-1 cycles plus one Level-0 cycle, or four 365-days years plus a Leap Day. This is the Julian calendar cycle.
3. The third value in the CF is 7. The Level-3 cycle consists of 7 Level-2 cycles plus one Level-1 cycle, or 28 years (with 7 Leap Days) followed by a 365-day year (no Leap Day). In other words, once every 29 years, Leap Days would be five years apart rather than four.
4. The fourth value in the CF is 1. The Level-4 cycle consists of one Level-3 cycle plus one Level-1 cycle, or the 29-year cycle followed by a simple 4-year Julian cycle. In other words, once every 33 years (instead of 29), Leap Days would be five years apart rather than four.

This corresponds to an actual calendar -- the Dee Calendar. I've mentioned in past years that if our goal is to keep, say, the spring equinox on the same date, then it's better to have Leap Days mostly four and occasionally five years part, rather than go eight years between Leap Days as in the Gregorian Calendar (1896-1904 and 2096-2104, but not 1996-2004 because 400 divides 2000).


Whenever the number 1 appears in the continued fraction, we obtain two cycles of approximately the same length (such as 29 and 33 years). So we could call the 29-year cycle the short Dee cycle, and the 33-year cycle the long Dee cycle.

But in reality, John Dee (the 16th century British astronomer for whom the cycle is named) used only the 33-year cycle. This is because it's inaccurate to cut off the CF just before a 1 -- recall what Ogilvy wrote earlier. Cutting off the CF at 1 means throwing away the fraction 1/1, which is the largest fraction we can cut. It's better to cut off a fraction before any value other than 1. So Dee's calendar cuts off the CF just before a 3. Throwing away 1/3 is much more accurate than discarding 1/1.

By the way, there's also a calendar called the Dee-Cecil Calendar. The Dee and Dee-Cecil Calendars are exactly one day apart -- the difference is that the Dee Calendar seeks to keep the equinox on March 21st and the Dee-Cecil Calendar keeps it on March 20th instead. For most of my lifetime, the Gregorian and Dee-Cecil calendars coincided, and the equinox was always March 20th. For one recent year (March 2016-February 2017), the equinox on the Gregorian Calendar slipped to March 21st, and so the Gregorian Calendar agreed with the Dee Calendar instead of Dee-Cecil. Then the Dee and Dee-Cecil calendars observed February 29th, 2017, which aligned the Gregorian calendar with Dee-Cecil once again.


5. The fifth value in the CF is 3. The Level-5 cycle consists of 3 Level-4 cycles plus one Level-3 cycle, or three (long) Dee cycles followed by a short Dee cycle. Three 33-year cycles plus a 29-year cycle adds up to 128 years.

There are several calendars based on a 128-year cycle, but none of them actually observe Leap Days by combining Dee cycles this way. Instead, all of them simply observe Leap Days once every four years and then skip a Leap Day once every 128 years. This is similar to the Gregorian pattern, except that the skipped Leap Days follow a simpler pattern themselves (once every 128 years, instead of thrice every 400 years). Since 128 = 2^7, this cycle is often used in conjunction with binary, quaternary, octal, or hexadecimal bases. Let's call this cycle the Earth cycle, since it's used in, among other calendars, the Earth Calendar:


6. This sixth value in the CF is 40. The Level-6 cycle consists of 40 Level-5 cycles plus one Level-4 cycle, or 40 Earth cycles followed by one Dee cycle. No known calendar actually uses this cycle, which would span 5153 years. Just as it's inaccurate to cut off a CF before a 1, it's very accurate to cut off a CF before a large number like 40 (discarding 1/40 rather than 1/1).

Notice that none of these cycles corresponds to the Gregorian cycle of 400 years. We can force the Gregorian cycle to appear by finding a continued fraction for 365.2425 -- the average length of the Gregorian year -- instead of 365.242189:

365.2425 = [365; 4, 8, 12]

Here the Level-2 cycle is still the Julian cycle, but now Level-3 skips the short Dee cycle (which is incompatible with the Gregorian] and takes us directly to the long Dee cycle. Level-4 directs us to combine 12 Dee cycles (totaling 396 years) with one Julian cycle to complete the 400 years. This is actually used in a calendar, the Truncated Dee-Cecil Calendar (since the four-year cycle at the end "truncates" the pure Dee cycle):


Continued Fractions and Leap Week Calendars

So far, the Level-0 cycle has always been a day -- the basic calendar unit. We can obtain Leap Week calendars simply by making the Level-0 unit the week rather than the day. All we have to do is divide our tropical year length by seven and feed it into the CF calculator:

52.17745557 = [52; 5, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 6, 2]

Since this CF has so many more 1's, our Leap Week calendars won't be quite as accurate as our Leap Day Calendars.

0. The Level-0 cycle is one week.
1. The first value in the CF is 52. The Level-1 cycle consists of 52 weeks in a year, or 364 days.
2. The second value in the CF is 5. The Level-2 cycle consists of 5 Level-1 cycles plus a Level-0 cycle, or a Leap Week every five years. This isn't very accurate (average year length=365.4 days).
3. The third value in the CF is 1. The Level-3 cycle consists of 1 Level-2 cycle plus a Level-1 cycle, or a Leap Week every six years. This isn't very accurate (average year length=365 1/6 days).
4. The fourth value in the CF is 1. The Level-4 cycle consists of 1 Level-3 cycle plus a Level-2 cycle, or two Leap Weeks every 11 years. This isn't accurate (average year length=365.2727 days).
5. The fifth value in the CF is 1. The Level-5 cycle consists of 1 Level-4 cycle plus a Level-3 cycle, or three Leap Weeks every 17 years. This is in the ballpark (average year length=365.2353 days).
5.5 Even though the next value in the CF is 2, let's try combining just 1 Level-5 cycle with a Level-4 cycle anyway. This gives us five Leap Weeks every 28 years (average year length=365.25 days). In other words, this is equivalent to the Julian calendar. It doesn't appear in the CF for a very good reason -- the Level-5 cycle is already more accurate than the Julian calendar (albeit too short, rather than too long like the Julian calendar).
6. The sixth value in the CF is 2. The Level-6 cycle consists of 2 Level-5 cycles plus a Level-4 cycle, or eight Leap Weeks every 45 years. This produces an average year length of 365.2444 days.
7. The seventh value in the CF is 1. The Level-7 cycle consists of 1 Level-6 cycle plus a Level-5 cycle, or 11 Leap Weeks every 62 years. This produces a average year length of 365.2419 days. This cycle is used in the Usher Calendar (mentioned in my Leap Day 2016 post). Usher originally used the shorter Level-5 cycle of 17 years -- and technically, Usher actually combined seven Level-5 cycles with one Level-2 cycle of five years to obtain a 124-year cycle, but this is shown to be equivalent to two Level-7 cycles of 62 years each.
8. The eighth value in the CF is 6. The Level-8 cycle consists of 6 Level-7 cycles plus a Level-6 cycle, or 74 Leap Weeks every 417 years. This produces an average year length of 365.2422 days, and it is used by Brij Vij (the inventor of the Earth Calendar) in one of his other calendars.
9, The ninth value in the CF is 2. This Level-9 cycle consists of 2 Level-8 cycles plus a Level-7 cycle, or 159 Leap Weeks every 896 years. This produces an average year length of 365 + 31/128 days and is thus equivalent to the 128-year cycle for Leap Days. It is used in the Bonavian Calendar:


Just like the Earth Calendar, the Bonavian Calendar doesn't actually follow the CF-suggested cycle (two 417-cycles plus a 62-cycle), but instead uses Level-5.5 Julian cycles and then drops the extra Leap Week at the end of the 896-cycle. And since we've already reached the accuracy of the Earth Calendar, there's no reason to consider Level-10 or beyond.

Once again, the Gregorian cycle has been skipped. We can force it to appear by dividing 365.2425 by 7 and then finding its CF:

52.1775 = [52; 5, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2]

The first seven levels agree with the CF above, but this time we changed Level-8:

8. The eighth value in the CF is now 2. The Level-8 cycle consists of 2 Level-7 cycles plus a Level-6 cycle, or 30 Leap Weeks every 169 years. This produces an average year length of 365.2426 days.
9. The ninth value in the CF is 2. The Level-9 cycle consists of 2 Level-8 cycles plus a Level-7 cycle, or 71 Leap Weeks every 400 years. This is now equivalent to the Gregorian cycle. This cycle is used in the Hermetic Leap Week Calendar:


Another calendar, the New Earth Calendar, has a Gregorian-like Leap Week Rule. Leap Weeks are held every five years (Level-2 cycle), except they are skipped every 40 years, and then they are added back every 400 years:


It's possible to make Leap Week Calendars for weeks that are six days, eight days, or any other length, simply by dividing 365.242189 or 365.2425 by six, eight, or whatever.

Calendar Reform and Kwanzaa

Since I already opened a can of worms by mentioning Kwanzaa, an interesting question is, what happens to this holiday under the various versions of Calendar Reform? Assuming that we define Kwanzaa as December 26th-January 1st, for example:
  • On the 13-Month International Fixed Calendar (with Sol as the extra month in the middle of the year), each month has 28 days, so Kwanzaa is shortened to four days. Usually, the blank days are at the end of December, so Kwanzaa would be either five or six days.
  • Two Leap Week calendars listed above (Bonavian and New Earth) give December 28 days, so that Kwanzaa would have only four days. But the Leap Week is added to the end of December, so the month would have 35 days, with 11 days of Kwanzaa, in such years.
  • On the other hand, Kwanzaa wouldn't change much under the World Calendar. December already has 30 days with a blank day on the 31st, so it would remain a seven-day festival.
Of course, Kwanzaa is significant to me in that I had a Kwanzaa celebrant in my class last year. But it also matters to all teachers since that is our winter break. Recall that in New York, the only nine days that are guaranteed are Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and the seven days of Kwanzaa. Exactly one of December 23rd and January 2nd is a school day. (This year there is school on January 2nd, since December 23rd was a Saturday.)

Thus shortening Kwanzaa really means shortening winter break, especially in New York. Depending on how the calendar is set up, all 28-day months begin on the same day, either Sunday or Monday. In the former case, Christmas falls on a Wednesday. Even New Yorkers don't attend school on the 23rd if it's a Monday (to avoid a one-day week), and so the last day of school is the 20th. If January 1st is New Year's Day, then Monday the 2nd is a holiday, and so students return on the 3rd. This means that schools are closed for a week and a day (possibly two days, if there's a blank day). 

It's much worse if the months begin on Monday. Then the 23rd is a Tuesday, and students would have to attend school on the 22nd and 23rd -- and then they return on Tuesday, January 2nd! So schools aren't even closed for a full week as schools are open both Tuesdays. Well, actually there would be seven days off if there's a blank day, but even seven days is too short for a "winter break."

I also once saw a (not-so-serious) calendar proposal that reduced December to only 26 days. The author (who's probably neither African-American nor a teacher/student) figures that the days between Christmas and New Year's are wasted days, so we jump directly from Christmas to New Year's Eve. I point out that Kwanzaa is now reduced to four days, and New York winter break (depending on the day of the week) could be reduced to a mere four-day weekend. (Actually, this calendar might be made more appealing of we give the the first 11 months 31 days each and the rest to December. But then the last month would have only 24 days. Christmas Eve suddenly becomes New Year's Eve and Christmas itself disappears. Of course, December 25th could become the Leap Day. Those who are fed up with Christmas might not mind celebrating it only once every four-year Julian cycle!)

There are a few other calendars that change the dates of Christmas and Kwanzaa. For example, there is the Fixed Festivity Calendar:


There are actually two calendars listed there, a Leap Day and a Leap Week calendar. (Notice that the Leap Day version explicitly mentions both Kwanzaa and Hanukkah!) Apparently all holidays are reduced to one day of the week, a special "Holiday" that appears only in weeks where there's a holiday -- which is more than half the weeks! The implication is that Christmas, Kwanzaa, and Hanukkah are all on December 24th, with Kwanzaa losing six of its days and Hanukkah losing seven of its days. The Leap Week version squeezes all holidays into four weeks, one each season,

Another calendar similar to Fixed Festivity is International Liturgical Calendar:


This is another Leap Week Calendar that seeks to redefine Christmas and other church holidays, but keeping them close to their original times of the year. It's designed to fit with the Gregorian Calendar and is thus similar to the Usher Calendar and its treatment of Christian holidays.

Continued Fractions and Music

Continued fractions can be applied to music as well as the calendar. For example, the Bohlen Pierce site has a continued fractions page:

http://www.huygens-fokker.org/bpsite/contfract.html

The goal here is to convert just ratios into EDO's (for octaves) and EDT's (for tritaves), and justify why Bohlen-Pierce is a 13-note scale.

Just ratios, of course, are rational numbers, but when converted to cents (or divisions of an octave or tritave) they become irrational numbers. Continued fractions are used to find an EDO or EDT that would approximate the just ratio.

The point being made here is that all six major consonant intervals based on the 3:5:7 chord (9/7, 7/5, 5/3, and their inversions) have 13 in the denominator of one of their convergents. Thus 13EDT is a great scale in which to approximate BP. On the other hand, if we do the same with the 4:5:6 major chord and octaves, 12EDO only approximates the perfect fourth and fifth well. Other EDO's with good fourths and fifths are 41EDO and 53EDO. Meanwhile, 19EDO estimates minor thirds the best, while 28EDO and 59EDO estimate major thirds the best. No single EDO plays all the consonant intervals well, while a single EDT sounds all of the BP consonances well. As the link points out, "Small wonder that this regime [the 12EDO "regime," that is] is under siege.

The following link at Dozens Online is doing the opposite:

http://z13.invisionfree.com/DozensOnline/index.php?showtopic=1724

Here we are taking the 12EDO scale and converting it to just intonation. The task is to convert each note into hertz (where A is 440 Hz, and each semitone has ratio 2^(1/12)) and then entering the number of hertz into a CF calculator. Even if we just use the Level-1 approximations, we are already finding just ratios for the 12EDO notes. For example, Bb is approximately 466 Hz, and so the interval from A to Bb is approximately 466/440 (= 233/220).

Now this is the second time today that I'm looking up something -- in this case, the application of continued fractions to music -- and I stumble upon something else. There is a link into this thread to a BASIC program written for another old computer, the Atari:

https://www.atariarchives.org/c3ba/page045.php

I've written before about the limitations of computer music based on Bridge 261. It's nice that we can play a just major scale, but we can only play one just major scale, based on green Bb. This is because the least common numerator of all the intervals of the just major scale is 180, and 180 * 2 is 360, which is already too big. Hence only one just major scale can be played.

Now according to this link, the Atari also has the same limitations -- but there is a special method to extend the range. In addition to 8-bit music, which is based on 2^8 = 256, there is apparently 16-bit music, based on 2^16 = 65536.

It's difficult to interpret the tables here. Apparently, even though there is a SOUND command, the values appear to be based on degrees, with no subtraction from a bridge needed. A side effect is that higher values correspond to lower notes, and vice versa.

Lowering a note an octave should double the degree, but the ratios between two notes an octave apart aren't exactly 2/1. So C#3 is listed under 8-bit as Degree 230, but C#4 is given as Degree 114 instead of the expected 115 (230/2). The 16-bit table has the same problem -- C#3 is Degree 6450, but C#4 is Degree 3422 instead of 3425, and so on. (Also, we notice that the 8-bit Degrees on the Atari are not the same as those on the Color Computer. On the Atari Middle C4 is Degree 121, but on the Color Computer we found Middle C to be Degree 162.)

But let's assume that these are approximations and that the degrees really are based on just intonation and exact ratios like 2/1. Then even though the link above was trying to convert 12EDO into degrees, consider what this implies for just intonation and other scales:

  • In 8-bit, there is only one just major scale. In 16-bit, we have 65536/180 = 364 major scales. So we can play a different major scale every day of the year (except blank day of course).
  • It's easy to modulate a song like Dolly Parton's "Hard Candy Christmas" up a whole tone -- by which we mean a justly tuned 9/8. The original scale must begin on a multiple of 180 * 9 (or 1620) and the new scale begins on a multiple of 180 * 8 (or 1440). There are still 65536/1620, or 40, different ways we can modulate a major scale by 9/8. It's even possible to play a song that can be modulated up by 9/8 twice -- begin on a multiple of 180 * 81 = 14580, which can be played in 65536/14580, or four, different ways.
  • To play a 4:5:6:7:8 harmonic seventh chord required starting on a multiple of 210. There are now 65536/210 = 312 different harmonic seventh chords.
  • In fact the New 7-Limit Scale was created around the limitations of 8-bit music. It's possible to create more 7-limit scales that have more otonal (or happier-sounding) notes since 16-bit can accommodate the higher numerators.
  • The least common numerator of the Bohlen-Pierce scale is 3^3 * 5^2 * 7^2 = 33075. Hence a full just BP scale is playable in 16-bit. If we restrict ourselves only to the notes of the Lambda mode, then the least common numerator is only 1575. So there are 65536/1575 = 41 different Lambda scales that can be played. The easiest way to play a mode other than Lambda (such as Walker I) is to play Lambda starting from another note (F in this case).
  • It's easier to extend beyond the 7-limit into the 11- and 13-limits. Multiples of 11 and 13 grow quickly in 8-bit but can be accommodated in 16-bit, as the product of all the primes up to 13 is only 30030, a 16-bit number.
  • Just as 12EDO sounds better in 16-bit, it's possible to estimate other EDO's as well. EDL-based music isn't designed to accommodate EDO's, but with 65536 notes available it's easier to approximate any scale, including EDO's. With 8-bit, only lower EDO's are easy to approximate with only 16-EDO sounding reasonable of the EDO's past 12. In 16-bit, we expect to be able to go well beyond 16-EDO.
  • According to the chart, 16-bit music goes deeper into the baritone and bass ranges. (I assume that the octaves are piano notation, so middle C is in Octave 4.) This is especially important for tritave music, since my strong tritave is from A2 to E4.
But all of this is for the Atari, not the Color Computer. The BASIC programs listed here can't be run on the Color Computer emulator, such as:

SOUND 0,0,0,0

This is an error on my computer. My SOUND command can only take two arguments, not four -- and none of those arguments are permitted to be zero. Still, I recognize the POKE command, which implies that machine language is being used. I wonder whether any of the music .BIN files on the Color Computer emulator are written in 16-bit.

Conclusion: "The Twelve Days of Christmath" (Vi Hart)

This is still the 12 days of Christmas, which run from December 25th-January 5th and end only at Epiphany on January 6th. (Yes, the 12 days of Christmas overlap the seven days of Kwanzaa.) And so I feel justified in posting another version of "The Twelve Days of Christmas" today. And besides, Vi Hart didn't post her version until the tenth day of Christmas, January 3rd. (Notice that the two religious calendars from earlier, Fixed Festivity and International Liturgical, accommodate Epiphany as well.)

But in these holiday posts, I want to fix/correct the songs I sang in my class last year. Last December I didn't write any original songs -- everything was either a Square One TV song, or a parody of a known song (either "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" or a Christmas song).

I tried to play Vi Hart's "The Twelve Days of Christmath" in class. The song didn't go too well, because many of the concepts she sings about are high school level or above. I really should have created my own version of the song with middle school math topics:


Vi's first verse is "the multiplicative identity." Even though many middle school students don't know what a multiplicative identity, the concept itself is simple -- even second graders should know that one times anything is the number itself.

Of course, Vi changes the words on every verse. Let's keep it simple and make it more like the original song, where the songs repeat each verse.

THE 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMATH

1. On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me,
     The multiplicative identity. (same as Vi)

2. ...The only even prime,... (same as Vi)
3. ...The number of spatial dimensions... (same as Vi)
4. ...The number of sides of a square...
5. ...Give me a high-five! (not mathematical, but a nice mid-song pick-me-up)
6. ...The smallest perfect number...
7. ...The most common lucky number... (same as Vi)
8. ....The number of corners of a cube...
9. ...The number it all goes back to... (reference to Square One's Nine, Nine, Nine)
10. ...The base of Arabic numerals (same as Vi)
11. ...The number the amp goes up to... (same as Vi)
12. ...The number in a dozen...

Now let's program the Color Computer emulator. Because so many parts of the song repeat, let's just just use PLAY for this song. Actually, I notice that the Atari link above has lines like RESTORE 20140, which presumably means that only the DATA in line 20140 is restored. Hey, even the RESTORE command works better on the Atari. (I must find that Atari emulator!)

10 FOR V=1 TO 4
20 PLAY "O2;L8;CC;L4;C;L8;FF;L4;F"
30 PLAY "L8;EFGAB-G;L2;A"
40 IF V=1 THEN 80
50 FOR X=V TO 2 STEP -1
60 PLAY "O3;L4;C;O2;L8;GA;L4;B-"
70 NEXT X 
80 PLAY "O3;L4;C;L8;D"
90 PLAY "O2;B-AF;L4;G;L2.;F"
100 NEXT V
110 FOR V=5 TO 12
120 PLAY "O2;L8;CC;L4;C;L8;FF;L4;F"
130 PLAY "L8;EFGAB-G;L2;A"
140 IF V=5 THEN 180
150 FOR X=V TO 6 STEP -1
160 PLAY "O3;L4;C;O2;L8;GAB-G"
170 NEXT X
180 PLAY "O3;L2;C;L4;D;O2;B;O3;L1;C"
190 PLAY "L8;C;O2;B-AG;L4;F"
200 PLAY "B-DF;L8;GFED;L4;C;L8;AB-"
210 PLAY "O3;L4;C;L8;D"
220 PLAY "O2;B-AF;L4;G;L2.;F"
230 NEXT V

Happy third day of Kwanzaa! Happy fourth day of Christmas! My next post will be New Year's Eve.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Lesson 7-4: Overlapping Triangles (Day 74)

This is what Theoni Pappas writes on page 37 of her Magic of Mathematics:

"...The universe stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are...geometric figures...without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth."
-- Galileo

Today is my 37th birthday, and as usual, I celebrate it here on the blog in style! First, let's go back to the computer emulator:

http://www.haplessgenius.com/mocha/

Select "Music 6" from the Mount Disk menu, turn on the sound, and then enter the following lines:

LOAD "BIRTHDAY.BAS"
RUN

Also, today my Amazon delivery arrived, and so I now have the Mathematics Calendar 2018 from Pappas this year. It's a sight for sore eyes after she didn't create a calendar for 2017. In order to qualify for free shipping, I added her newest book to the order, Do the Math! This is a puzzle book, and while I could post puzzles from it in the new year, the purpose of writing about Pappas this year is to fill the void created by the lack of a 2017 calendar. Again, the plan is to post only questions from the new calendar that are related to Geometry, just as I sometimes did before 2017.

Last year, my 36th birthday was my ninth Julian birthday. There is nothing special about my 37th birthday, but according to the following link:

https://mrob.com/pub/math/numbers-6.html

two movies revolve around the 37th birthday of their main characters (Phenomenon and To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday).

Last year, on my 36th birthday, I played the Conjectures/"Who Am I?" game. This fit the occasion because the first question in that game is "What is the teacher's age?" And so the students were able to guess my new age on my birthday. (More recently, I wrote about the Conjectures/"Who Am I?" game in my Halloween post.)

I also wrote that I used questions from the STEM project in each grade in the birthday game. In last year's post, I lamented that I should have asked simpler questions to the seventh and eighth graders -- such as how to measure angles -- before jumping directly to the STEM projects where the Illinois State text asked them to make conjectures about the angles they measured. This is part of my general concern with the projects -- that students didn't know how to do what the instructions asked. I should have created worksheets to accompany the Illinois State text.

Indeed, last year my birthday fell on a Wednesday. If I had followed the weekly plan, then STEM projects were for Thursdays, not Wednesdays -- which would be Learning Centers instead. On my birthday, I could have used the Learning Centers as groups for the Conjectures/"Who Am I?" game, and then asked the groups questions about measuring angles. Then this would have prepared them in earnest to do the project on Thursday. (This, of course, assumes that I don't just do a science project on Thursday instead. But even then, the birthday game could have been set up to prepare the students for the science project the next day.)

Seventh graders had music that day last year, and the music teacher sang me "Happy Birthday." But little did I know it at the time, but that was the last time I would ever see the music teacher. The following week was the last school Wednesday of the month and hence an assembly, and then the music teacher was injured over winter break. By the time he healed, the semester ended, and music was replaced with SBAC Prep.\

A few sixth graders quickly drew me a birthday card, and after school during the Wednesday Common Planning meeting, the director (principal) gave me a special birthday basket filled with sweets. But it is bittersweet to reflect on my 36th birthday as I celebrate my 37th birthday today. I wasn't in a classroom today, not even to sub, and so I couldn't play the birthday game with any students at all today. And I learned much too late how to supplement textbook projects with a worksheet so that students can follow them better.

Let's return to Pappas. We read page 37 today since I covered the first thirty pages the corresponding days in November, then read page 31 on December 1st, up to page 37 today. But it also fits perfectly because 37 is my age.

This is the first page of the section "Geometric Worlds." This is a Geometry blog, and so I celebrate my birthday by reading one of my favorite sections of the book.

Here is an excerpt from this page:

"Mathematics has many types of geometries. Each geometry forms a mathematical system with its own undefined terms, axioms, theorems, and definitions."

The one picture on this page is an example of non-Euclidean geometry -- hyperbolic geometry. The caption begins:

"This is an abstract design of Henri Poincare's (1854-1912) hyperbolic world."

Poincare, Poincare -- hey, where have we heard that name Poincare before? That's right -- the same mathematician who formulated the Poincare Conjecture also came up with a model of hyperbolic geometry, the Poincare disc. Indeed, even though we're done with Szpiro's book, let's add the label Poincare in order to write about his disc. The caption continues:

"Here a circle is the boundary of this world. The sizes of the inhabitants change in relation to their distance from the center. As they approach the center they grow, and as they move away from the center they shrink. Thus they will never reach the boundary, and for all purposes, their world is infinite to them."

In past years, I've mentioned hyperbolic geometry as part of "neutral geometry." Since then, I've dropped references to hyperbolic geometry in order to avoid confusing students. If we want to introduce our students any non-Euclidean geometry at all, it's much better to show them spherical geometry than hyperbolic geometry. The world is more like a sphere than a Poincare disc.

Lesson 7-4 of the U of Chicago text is called "Overlapping Triangles." In this lesson students will write more sophisticated proofs.

This is what I wrote two years ago about today's lesson:

Lesson 7-4 of the U of Chicago text covers more proofs. These proofs are trickier, since they involve overlapping triangles.

Because the triangles overlap, it may appear that, in Question 4, we need to show that Triangle SUA is isosceles. But as it turns out, we actually don't need to show this to complete the proof.

The bonus question is somewhat interesting here. It asks whether there is a valid congruence theorem for quadrilaterals, SSASS. Last year I tried to solve it, but got confused, so I want to take the time to set the record straight.

[2017 update: Hey, it's my birthday, so let's convert this into a new multi-day activity -- especially since all the proofs are on the first page, with review on the second page, so we can just replace that second page with this new activity. I added in the Exploration Question from Lesson 7-3, on SSSS, just to put SSASS into perspective -- and it also reflects how I should have set up the projects last year, with a simpler question on the first day before the main question on the second day.]

As it turns out, SSASS is not a valid congruence theorem for quadrilaterals. A counterexample for SSASS is closely related to a counterexample to SSA for triangles -- we start with two triangles that satisfy SSA yet aren't congruent -- one of these will be acute, the other obtuse. Then we reflect each triangle over the congruent side that is adjacent to the congruent angle. Each triangle becomes a kite -- as the original triangles aren't congruent, the kites can't be congruent either, yet they satisfy SSASS (with the A twice as large as the A of the original triangles).

I tried to prove SSASS by dividing each quadrilaterals into two triangles, then using SAS on the first pair and SSS on the second. The problem with this is that that division doesn't produce two triangles unless the quadrilateral is known to be convex. With our two kites, notice that the acute triangle becomes a convex kite, while the obtuse triangle becomes a nonconvex (or concave) kite -- which is also known as a dart. If both quadrilaterals are already known to be convex, then my proof of SSASS is valid.

One congruence theorem that actually is valid for quadrilaterals is SASAS. We can prove it the same way that we proved SAS for triangles. We put one of the sides -- in this case the congruent side that's between the other two congruent sides -- on the reflecting line. Then we can prove that the two far vertices are on the correct ray, the correct distance from the two vertices on the reflecting line -- this works whether the quadrilateral is convex or concave. We can also prove SASAS by dividing the quadrilateral into triangles. There are separate cases for convex and concave quadrilaterals, but all of them work out.

Other congruence theorems for quadrilaterals are ASASA and AASAS. Another congruence theorem, AAASS, is also valid, but it's similar to AAS in that there's a trivial proof based on the angle-sum that reduces it to ASASA (just as AAS reduces to ASA), only in Euclidean geometry. A neutral proof of AAASS exists, but it's more complicated.

[2017 update: I'll retain this reference to "neutral geometry" since I did mention hyperbolic geometry and the Poincare disc in this post. Oh, and if students finish the activity early, it's possible to ask them to solve the Exploration question for Lesson 7-5: Explore this conjecture. If, in quadrilaterals ABCD and EFGH, angles A, C, E, and G are right angles, AB = EF, and BC = FG, then the quadrilaterals are congruent. It turns out that this conjecture is false -- again, a counterexample is a pair of kites, one a square, the other not a square. Then again, if you're tired of giving false conjectures, you can give them one of the valid ones instead like SASAS or ASASA.]



Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Lesson 7-2: Triangle Congruence Theorems (Day 72)

This is what Theoni Pappas writes on page 35 of her Magic of Mathematics:

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many things as six impossible things before breakfast."
-- Lewis Carroll.

This is the first page of the first section of Chapter 2, "How Mathematical Worlds Are Formed." And some of the material mentioned on this page should look familiar to Geometry students.

Here are excerpts from this page:

"Little did Euclid know in 300 B.C. when he began to organize geometric ideas into a mathematical system that he was developing the first mathematical world. All form the universe of mathematics.

"Every mathematical world exists in a mathematical system. It explains how its objects are formed, how they generate new objects, and how they are governed. Undefined terms can be described, so one has a feeling of what they mean, but technically they cannot be defined. It takes terms to form definitions, and you have to begin with some terms.

"The best way to understand a system is to look at one. Assume this mini world's undefined terms are points and lines. In addition to undefined terms, a mathematical system also has axioms, theorems, and definitions."

Yes, this definitely sounds like the world formed Chapter 1 of the U of Chicago text. But actually, as we'll find out tomorrow, this world will be much simpler than the Euclidean world. Indeed, we already see that planes is an undefined term for Euclid and the U of Chicago, but there are no planes in the world Pappas is forming here.

Before we continue, let me make an important announcement. Tomorrow I will be substitute teaching at a high school in the district where I work. But there is something special happening tomorrow:

Announcement: High School Putnam Exam

The [name redacted] district has been selected to pilot the administration of the William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Exam on Wednesday, December 6, 2017. All seniors are expected to take the math test on Wednesday. The special bell schedule for Wednesday will be:

8:00-11:00 Period 1/Putnam A Session
11:00-11:45 Lunch
11:50-2:50 Period 2/Putnam B Session

Students in grades 9-11 are expected to attend periods 1 and 2 during the indicated blocks. All math teachers are highly encouraged to give the Pre-Putnam practice test to students in grades 9-11 in order to prepare them for the Putnam test next year.

Some people applaud the arrival of the new test. "The highest level of CCSS success leads only to no remediation for college algebra," says Steve H., an advocate of traditional math. "CCSS institutionalizes low expectation, no-STEM math." while the Putnam is a high-expectations test. The old CCSS tests only assess up to Algebra II, but the new Putnam test will assess students on Calculus and other college-level topics. Success on the new Putnam test will demonstrate a high school student to be prepared for success in a STEM major.

The State of California is planning to replace the high school math portion of the SBAC with the Putnam for all students by the 2019-2020 school year. A more rigorous replacement for the ELA section of the SBAC has yet to be determined.

OK, the above announcement is satire. It's actually based on a dream I had last night -- I was in a high school classroom one day, and suddenly I had to administer the Putnam to all students.

Of course, this is a horrible idea. Recall that the Putnam is a test that even most math majors don't take -- and most math majors who do take the test earn a score of zero! But based on recent trends, the Putnam being administered to all high school seniors isn't as far-fetched as it ought to be.

We know that districts, states, and the federal government all embrace standardized testing and the idea that all students should be prepared for college. And we know that traditionalists criticize the SBAC and PARCC for their lack of rigor and failure to prepare students for college math. So surely the Putnam qualifies a sufficiently rigorous test. And it's true that any high school student with a decent Putnam score is more than prepared for success in a college-level course. (Oh, and before you say that the Putnam will never be given in high school because it's always on a Saturday, remember that the same used to be true of the PSAT.)

Yesterday, I wrote that I've told my students as young as eighth grade about the Putnam exam, and even give them one of the questions as an example. But under no circumstances would I ever advocate forcing all high school students to take even AMC (American Mathematics Competition for high school students), much less Putnam.

Anyway, here is the Putnam question that I want to discuss, Problem B1:

https://artofproblemsolving.com/community/c7h1554577_putnam_2017_b1

As usual, Kent Merryfield is the one who posts the problem at the Art of Problem Solving forum:

Let $L_1$ and $L_2$ be distinct lines in the plane. Prove that $L_1$ and $L_2$ intersect if and only if, for every real number $\lambda\ne 0$ and every point $P$ not on $L_1$ or $L_2,$ there exist points $A_1$ on $L_1$ and $A_2$ on $L_2$ such that $\overrightarrow{PA_2}=\lambda\overrightarrow{PA_1}.$

Notice that I cut-and-paste the LATEX from the forum, but everything else in my post is ASCII. It's mostly safe to click the above link -- Merryfield gives a proof using vectors, but it's the Geometry proof given by CantonMathGuy at the bottom of the page that I want to discuss here. So as long as you don't scroll down at the link, you can avoid spoilers until we reason this question out. But I will tell you this -- CantonMathGuy's proof will use one of the Common Core transformations.

First of all, we notice the words "if and only if" (abbreviated "iff" last week). As we learned in Lesson 2-5, "if and only if" means that there are two statements to prove:
  • If L_1 and L_2 intersect, then for every real number lambda =/= 0 and every point P not on....
  • If for every real number lambda =/= 0 and every point P not on..., then L_1 and L_2 intersect.
And we must prove both of these statements in order for the Putnam graders to award us any points.

The next thing we notice here are quantifiers -- "for every" and "there exist." High school Geometry students are usually shielded from having to deal with quantifiers, but they appear in higher-level math all the time.

One analogy often used to help understand quantifiers is "opponent" and "proponent." The proponent is the person trying to prove the theorem, and the opponent is trying to stump the proponent. The idea is that "for every" number or object that the opponent throws out there, "there exists" a response that the proponent can give to complete the proof. For example, we can write Goldbach's Conjecture as:

For every even number greater than 2, there exist two prime numbers whose sum is the even number.

So the opponent's job is to name any even number, and the proponent's job is to name the two primes that add up to it. If the opponent can stump the proponent, then the opponent wins and the conjecture is proved false. If the proponent can always avoid being stumped, then the proponent wins and the conjecture is proved.

And so let's rewrite the forward direction of the statement to be proved in terms of the proponent and the opponent:
  • The opponent names intersecting lines L_1 and L_2, a nonzero real number lambda, and a point P not on either line.
  • The proponent now names points A_1 on L_1 and A_2 on L_2 such that PA_2 = lambda PA_1.
There are a few more things we must clean up before we begin the proof. First of all, notice that PA_1 and PA_2 are actually vectors. The U of Chicago text uses this notation in Lesson 14-5 -- P is the initial point of each vector. Point A_1 is the terminal point of the first vector, and A_2 is the terminal point of the second vector.

Then lambda is a Greek letter to represent the scalar by which we are multiplying the first vector to obtain the second vector. Scalar multiplication appears in Lesson 14-6 of the U of Chicago text. You might not like using Greek letters, but the most common variable to represent a scalar factor in mathematics is lambda. How about this -- let's use the variable k instead, since Lesson 14-6 actually uses k when defining scalar multiplication.

OK, so let's begin the forward direction of the proof. You, by the way, are the proponent trying to prove the theorem. The opponent has given you the intersecting lines L_1 and L_2, the nonzero real number k, and the point P not on either line. What will you, as the proponent, do next to find the points A_1 and A_2? Keep in mind that I already mentioned a hint earlier -- a Common Core transformation will be used in the proof.

Think about it for a moment -- you've been given a number k and a point P. So what transformation has something to do with a number and a point? That's right -- it's a dilation. So let's consider the dilation with center P and magnitude k. (By the way, how do we know it's not a rotation, since rotations also have centers and magnitudes? Well, our k seems to have nothing to do with degrees, as you would expect of magnitudes of rotations. The Greek letters also give it away -- if an angle were intended, the writers would have named it theta instead of lambda.)

OK, so we have the dilation with center P and magnitude k. What happens to the lines L_1 and L_2 under this dilation? Well, Common Core expects us to know that a line and its dilation image are parallel, and so L_1 | | L_1' and L_2 | | L_2'.

But how are, say, L_1' and L_2 related? You are given that L_1 intersects L_2 and L_1 | | L_1', and so we conclude that L_1' and L_2 also intersect. The proof of this statement is that it follows from either Transitivity of Parallelism (Lesson 3-4 -- if L_1 | | L_1' and L_1' | | L_2 then L_1 | | L_2, which is false) or Playfair (Lesson 13-6 -- if we name the intersection point of L_1 and L_2 as Q, then there are two lines parallel through Q parallel to L_1' and Q -- namely L_1 and L_2 -- where there's only supposed to be one such line).

Anyway, since you proved that L_1' and L_2 intersect, you want to give this intersection point a name, so you give it the name A_2. After all, A_2 is indeed a point on L_2, and your job as proponent is to name a point on L_2.

Now you need to find a point A_1 on L_1. Well, you could repeat the process above and find the point where L_2' and L_1 intersect, but you're going to do something else. The point you named earlier, A_2, is on L_1' as well as L_2. But what is L_1'? It's the dilation image of L_1. In other words, every point on L_1' is the dilation image of a point on L_1. So A_2 must also be the dilation image of a point on L_1 -- and that's the point you name A_1.

So A_1 and A_2 aren't just any points on L_1 and L_2 -- indeed, A_2 is the dilation image of A_1. But how does that help you, as the proponent, win the proof? Let's look at the definition of dilation (or "size change") as given in Lesson 12-2 of the U of Chicago text:

Definition:
Let O be a point and k be a positive real number. For any point P, let S(P) = P' be the point on ray OP with OP' = k * OP. Then S is the size change with center O and magnitude k.

Pay close attention to the location of P' -- it is on ray OP with OP' = k * OP. Now think about what it would mean to take vector OP and multiply it by the scalar k. That's right -- the result is exactly the vector called OP'! So the text could have written:

Definition:
Let O be a point and k be a positive real number. For any point P, choose S(P) = P' such that vector k * OP = vector OP'. Then S is the size change with center O and magnitude k.

Most Geometry texts don't use vectors to define dilations. If vectors are used to define any transformation at all, they are used to define translations, not dilations. But we can clearly see that multiplying a vector by a scalar k is equivalent to dilating a point by magnitude k. Indeed, the fact that the U of Chicago text uses the variable k to refer to both is not a coincidence!

Thus, returning to the original problem, the statement that vector PA_2 = k PA_1 is exactly equivalent to the statement that A_2 is the image of A_1 under a dilation with center P and magnitude k. And guess what -- that's exactly how you selected points A_1 and A_2. You, the proponent, wins the proof.

Well, there's just one problem -- notice that k (or lambda) in the original problem is nonzero -- that is, it could be negative. But dilations in the U of Chicago text are defined mainly for positive k. You don't win until you specify what happens for negative k.

It actually is possible to define dilations for negative magnitudes. These do exactly what they need to do for the proof to work -- map vectors to new vectors pointing in the opposite direction. Indeed, the dilation of magnitude -1 is equivalent to a rotation of 180 degrees with the same center, and a dilation of magnitude -k is the composite of this rotation and a dilation with magnitude k, each with the same center of course.

In the modern Third Edition of the U of Chicago text, vectors appear in Chapter 4, well before dilations in Chapter 12. Thus the new text could use vectors to define dilations, yet it doesn't. On the other hand, at least the new text allows k to be negative, so that the proof works. That text gives a longer definition to accommodate negative magnitudes, but it's easier just to change "positive" to "nonzero" in the above definition, since negative scalar multiplication is already defined.

Definition:
Let O be a point and k be a nonzero real number. For any point P, choose S(P) = P' such that vector k * OP = vector OP'. Then S is the size change with center O and magnitude k.

OK, this wraps up the forward direction of the proof. Don't forget that this is an "if and only if" statement, so we need to prove the converse before we're done with the proof:




  • If for every real number lambda =/= 0 and every point P not on..., then L_1 and L_2 intersect.
  • This direction is a bit awkward to think of in terms of proponent and opponent. You might think that we can just reverse the proponent and opponent (so that the opponent finds A_1 and A_2 instead of the proponent). This is sort of, but not quite, the case.

    Most mathematicians would use an indirect proof for this direction. To prove that the two lines intersect, we assume the opposite is true -- that the lines are parallel. This is actually what the opponent does -- give two parallel lines L_1 and L_2. The proponent's job in this case is to provide the contradiction. The statement to contradict is that every lambda (or k) and every point P works -- so all the proponent needs is a counterexample, a single point P and value of k that don't work.

    OK, so your opponent has already given you two parallel lines L_1 and L_2. How are you going to find the point P and value of k?

    Well, let's say you choose a point P in between the two parallel lines. Now you need to find a k that doesn't work -- that is, so that PA_2 can never equal k * PA_1. You can think of this in terms of the opponent again -- as soon as you name the k, the opponent will try as hard as he can to find the A_1 and A_2 that do make PA_2 = k PA_1, so you must find a k that will stump the opponent. (So in a way, the positions have reversed, since you're indeed finding P and k while the opponent is finding the points A_1 and A_2.)

    In order to find a k that doesn't work, let's rule out values of k that do work. Since vector PA_2 is a scalar multiple of PA_1, the points P, A_1, and A_2 must be collinear (as scalar multiples point in the same or opposite directions). So we draw any line through P that intersects both L_1 and L_2 and label the points of intersection A_1 and A_2. We can find k such that PA_2 = k PA_1 -- we can't divide vectors, but we divide their lengths, so PA_2 / PA_1 (as lengths) is our k, as long as we choose the correct sign. Since P is between the lines, the vectors point in opposite directions, so k is negative. Of course, you just found a k that works, so you don't give that k to the opponent.

    Let's try to find a second value of k to rule out. We draw another line through P that intersects both L_1 and L_2, and this time you label the points of intersection B_1 and B_2. This time, you found another value to rule out, namely PB_2 / PB_1.

    But hold on a minute. Notice that we have drawn two triangles here -- PA_1B_1 and PA_2B_2. As soon as we have two triangles in a proof, the first thing you should ask is, how are these two triangles possibly related?

    Well, notice that we have two parallel lines L_1 and L_2 cut by a transversal A_1A_2. Thus the alternate interior angles PA_1B_1 and PA_2B_2 are congruent. We also have the two parallel lines cut by a transversal B_1B_2. Thus the alternate interior angles PB_1A_1 and PB_2A_2 are congruent. So by AA Similarity, triangles PA_1B_1 and PA_2B_2.

    Since corresponding sides of similar triangles are proportional, PB_2 / PB_1 = PA_2 / PA_1 -- and recall that PA_2 / PA_1 is exactly the k that we found earlier. And so even though we choose two new points, we ended up with the same k.

    In fact, the points we choose are arbitrary. This means that no matter what transversal we draw through point P, it will lead to similar triangles and the exact same value of k. And this is great news, because you, the proponent, are hoping to prove that not all values of k work, and we just showed that only one specific value of k works! So all you have to give your opponent is any value of k other than the one that works, and this forces the contradiction that leads to a proponent victory.

    Notice that if P is chosen outside the parallel lines instead of inside, the same proof works. The alternate interior angles become corresponding angles instead. In this case, we could also use the Side-Splitting Theorem of Lesson 12-10 to arrive at the same conclusion -- only a single value of k works, and in this case k will be positive.

    We actually went beyond what is required -- we only needed one point P and one value of k to win the proof, and we found that for each P, almost any value of k wins the proof. In fact, we don't even need similar triangles -- any P inside the lines requires k to be negative and any P outside the lines requires k to be positive, so just give the opponent a value of k with the wrong sign to win.

    It's also possible to make the backward direction of the proof look like the forward direction -- we look at dilations centered at P with magnitude k. In the case where L_1 and L_2 are parallel, with the correct k, the dilation image of L_1 is exactly L_2. All other k's map L_1 to a line parallel to L_2, which is why there's no point of intersection A_2 as in the forward direction. It's because the image of L_1 always intersects L_2 in the forward direction that makes that direction of the proof work.

    Let's scroll down to see how CantonMathGuy worded his response (cut-and-paste):

    Here's a geometric solution!

    If $L_1 \parallel L_2$, then selecting $P$ to be on the line midway between them always forces $\lambda = -1$, so the problem holds.

    Suppose $L_1$ and $L_2$ are not parallel. Let $h$ be the dilation with center $P$ and scale $\lambda$. Since $L_1 \parallel h(L_1)$, lines $h(L_1)$ and $L_2$intersect at a point $A_2$. Let $A_1 = h^{-1}(A_2)$. It is clear that $A_1 \in L_1$, $A_2 \in L_2$, and $\overrightarrow{PA_2} = \lambda \overrightarrow{PA_1}$.

    Here we see that in the reverse direction, CantonMathGuy chooses a point between the lines where lambda (our k) is known to be -1, so we can give the opponent any value of k other than -1. In the forward direction, he comes with the dilation, which he calls h, to make the proof work.

    Let's take a brief look at some of the other problems. Here's a link to A1:

    https://artofproblemsolving.com/community/c7t310571f7h1554571_putnam_2017_a1

    Let $S$ be the smallest set of positive integers such that

    a) $2$ is in $S,$
    b) $n$ is in $S$ whenever $n^2$ is in $S,$ and
    c) $(n+5)^2$ is in $S$ whenever $n$ is in $S.$

    Which positive integers are not in $S?$

    (The set $S$ is ``smallest" in the sense that $S$ is contained in any other such set.)

    This question is worded a bit awkwardly -- indeed, in the thread, even some test takers where confused by the word "whenever." Here, "q whenever p" means the same as "if p then q." Also, some high school students may be confused by the mention of a set S. So let's rewrite this with some adjective (perhaps starting with S) to represent the members of set S. We use the word "sexy" in order to grab the students' attention:

    Some positive integers are sexy and some of them aren't:

    a) 2 is sexy
    b) If n^2 is sexy, then n is sexy.
    c) If n is sexy, then (n + 5)^2 is sexy.
    d) No other numbers are sexy unless a)-c) force them to be sexy.

    In fact, we can write b) even better:

    b) If n is sexy, then sqrt(n) is sexy.

    Technically, we should write +/- sqrt(n), but this is unnecessary because the problem states that these are positive integers. (And of course if sqrt(n) isn't an integer, rule b) doesn't apply.)

    Notice that we just created mathematical world as described by Pappas! We have an undefined term, "sexy," with axioms to generate more sexy numbers. At this point we can have the students prove some theorems in this mathematical world:

    Theorem: 7 is sexy.

    Proof:
    Statements          Reasons
    1. 2 is sexy.         1. Rule a)
    2. 49 is sexy.       2. Rule c) [1]
    3. 7 is sexy.         3. Rule b) [2]

    If we add more steps, we can prove that 144 and hence 12 are sexy. In fact, we have the following theorem, which Merryfield calls a "lemma":

    Theorem: If n is sexy, then n + 5 is sexy.

    Given: n is sexy.
    Prove: n + 5 is sexy.

    Proof:
    Statements               Reasons
    1. n is sexy              1. Given
    2. (n + 5)^2 is sexy. 2. Rule c) [1]
    3. n + 5 is sexy.        3. Rule b) [2]

    And so as soon as we have 2 sexy, we also have 7, 12, 17, 22, 27, and so on all sexy. Try having the students prove that 69 is sexy:

    Proof:
    Statements          Reasons
    1. 2 is sexy.         1. Rule a)
    2. 49 is sexy.       2. Rule c) [1]
    3. 54 is sexy.       3. Lemma [2]
    4. 59 is sexy.       4. Lemma [3]
    5. 64 is sexy       5. Lemma [4]
    6. 69 is sexy.       6. Lemma [5]

    Notice that after step 5, we could have applied Rule b) to prove that 8 is sexy as well.

    Teachers might want to write the numbers in rows of 5, and then as soon as a number is proved sexy, all numbers below it are automatically sexy. You can read the final proof at the link above, where it's proved that the only numbers that aren't sexy are 1 and the multiples of 5.

    Another questions that could be worth mentioning are Problem A4:

    A class with $2N$ students took a quiz, on which the possible scores were $0,1,\dots,10.$ Each of these scores occurred at least once, and the average score was exactly $7.4.$ Show that the class can be divided into two groups of $N$ students in such a way that the average score for each group was exactly $7.4.$

    There's nothing in this problem that a high school student shouldn't understand. (Last year, the problem I gave my eighth graders was also numbered A4 -- it's a bit eerie that a simple-sounding problem lands in the A4 spot.)

    There's one more problem that involves Geometry, Problem B5:

    A line in the plane of a triangle $T$ is called an equalizer if it divides $T$ into two regions having equal area and equal perimeter. Find positive integers $a>b>c,$ with $a$ as small as possible, such that there exists a triangle with side lengths $a,b,c$ that has exactly two distinct equalizers.

    But this problem leads to some very messy Algebra, and so it's not recommended for high school.

    Meanwhile, nearly every year, at least one Putnam problem mentions the date. This year, there are two problems involving the number 2017 -- B2 and B6. I won't post the problems here, but I do point out that both of them depend on the fact that 2017 is prime.

    In fact, perhaps the first thing a student should do the night before the Putnam is to look at number theoretic properties of the year number, especially its prime factorization. Two years ago, someone got a problem wrong because they factored 2015 = 5 * 403 and thought that 403 was prime, instead of factoring it as 13 * 31. Well, let me save you some work for next year -- 2018 = 2 * 1009, and 1009 is indeed prime.

    By the way, what happened in my dream when I tried to administer the Putnam in high school? Well, it turned into a classroom management nightmare. With twenty minutes left to go in the A Session, one student starts asking, "Why do I have to take the Putnam?" (And of course, there's no good reason -- I expect that most students don't even know where to begin on Problem A1.) It turns into a big argument, and when this is happening, all other students leave the room early with no intention of returning for the B Session.

    Of course, for college students, "Why should I take the Putnam?" has a definite answer -- in order to qualify for a monetary prize, including $12K and a Harvard scholarship for the top student. (Indeed, three Putnam fellows have gone on to earn Fields medals.) There's another monetary prize that I want to discuss now -- the prize for solving the Poincare conjecture.

    Chapter 14, the final chapter of George Szpiro's Poincare's Prize is called "The Prize." It begins:

    "Did I say that the International Congress of Mathematicians in Madrid was the endpoint of the saga? Well, it wasn't quite."

    In this chapter, Szpiro writes about the use of money as a reward for solving math problems. Indeed, mathematicians have been winning prizes for centuries:

    "Leonhard Euler won no less than twelve prizes from various academies. Joseph-Louis Lagrange won the French prizes in 1764, 1766, 1772 (jointly with Euler), 1774, and 1778."

    On the other hand, the French academy offers prizes for solving certain problems, then withdraws the award because no one can solve the problem:

    "At this stage the academy again decided it was time to lie low for a while. When the prize was offered in 1894 with a question on differential equations, guess what? No entries."

    The idea of offering the Millennium Prize Problems goes back to Harvard professor Arthur Jaffe. So who exactly is this Jaffe?

    "He has written more than 160 scientific articles, mainly in quantum field theory; authored or coauthored four books; edited seven more; served as chair of the mathematics department at Harvard, as president of the International Association of Mathematical Physics, as president of the American Mathematical Society; received the Dannie Heinemann Prize in mathematical physics, a medal from the College de France; has been named a member of the National Academy of Sciences."

    Szpiro also tells us about the financial backer of the award, Landon T. Clay. (He actually died just four months before this post.) He also is the donor of several archaeology grants, but one such grant may be controversial:

    "Nobody accuses Clay himself of having done anything untoward, but on that occasion the savvy investor may have been taken in by grave robbers."

    Clay and Jaffe decide to create a mathematical institute, even though it would have to compete with large software companies:

    "It would be much more effective, financially and in impact, to create a foundation devoted to mathematics."

    Nonetheless, the Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI) is born. Szpiro describes this organization, first formed in 1998:

    "Since then, CMI has fulfilled its mission by supporting scholars, funding research projects, organizing summer programs, and publishing research results. But the program for which CMI is best known among the public is the creation of the Millennium Prizes."

    A scientific advisory board is formed to choose seven problems which would make their solvers rich:

    "The scientific advisory board asked specialists to write up an account for each problem. The recorder for the Poincare Conjecture was John Milnor from SUNY at Stony Btook, who had won a Fields Medal in 1962 for his work on seven-dimensional spheres."

    The next issue is to set the amount for each prize. For example, the British publishing house Faber & Faber announced a million-dollar (or should that be million-pound?) reward for the solution of Goldbach's Conjecture (mentioned earlier in this post). The catch is that the reward two years after it is published -- a conjecture that has lasted over 250 years without a proof.

    "Jaffe's initial idea was to arrange for a prize fund the increased, albeit slowly, each year. So a problem solved after sixty or more years would yield a substantial reward."

    In the end, the prize amount is set at $1 million for each problem. Of course, there's also the matter of a proof that is eventually revealed to be incorrect:

    "The assumption in the 'test of time' is that if a proof contains a hole, eventually someone, somewhere, will spot it."

    Soon after the prizes are announced in the year 2000 (hence the name "Millennium Prizes"):

    "The prizes hit the front page of Le Monde, France's leading newspaper, an Associated Press report was carried out by several hundred U.S. newspapers, and Nature published an editorial."

    But Anatoly Vershik, a colleage of Perelman's, thinks that the prizes lead to too much hype:

    "As a case in point, he remarks that the Clay Institute had played no role whatsoever in furthering or hastening the solution of any of the seven Millennium Problems."

    The worry, of course, is that the other six problems might take centuries to prove:

    "After all, the Poincare Conjecture was a hundred years old before Grigori Perelman came along, the Four-Color Problem two hundred when it was proven, Fermat's conjecture three hundred, and Kepler's conjecture four hundred. In December 1999, I asked Robert MacPherson from the Institute for Advanced Study what question he would ask his colleagues if he went to sleep and woke up at the start of the fourth millennium. His answer: 'Has the Riemann conjecture finally been proven?'"

    This is likely a reference to the character Fry from Futurama, who likewise is frozen in December 1999 and wakes up at the turn of the fourth millennium.

    And so the question is, should Perelman be awarded the million dollars? One requirement is that the proof actually be published, followed by a two-year waiting period:

    "If the members of CMI's scientific advisory board decide that Perelman's arXiv submissions of 2002 and 2003 constitute a valid form of publication, then the two-year waiting period has long since elapsed without any errors or gaps having been found."

    Furthermore, should the million be awarded solely to Perelman?

    "During the past century, hundreds of mathematicians contributed in one way or another to the proof of the Poincare Conjecture, starting with Poincare himself and the early topologists, to those who have reduced the question from topology to a manifold question, to those who adapted it to geometry."

    The author adds that "Hamilton even uses a technique first applied by John Nash that actually appeared on a blackboard in the background of the movie A Beautiful Mind." (And you thought that the equations written in movies were fake -- at least until Hidden Figures came around.)

    And we're not even sure if Perelman even wants the money. After all, he is mugged in Berkeley when carrying only a few dollars:

    "How much more dangerous it would be to carry thousand of rubles around in Russia/ Whatever the reasons, Perelman is again keeping up the suspense."

    Szpiro concludes the book as follows:

    "It is easy to remain humble in the face of mathematics; so many problems have not been solved. Let's allow the magnificent enterprise to continue."

    And we allow math to continue every time a Millennium Problem is solved, a Putnam test-taker receives full marks, or even a Geometry student writes the last step in a proof.

    But that doesn't answer the question about the Poincare million-dollar prize. The status of the prize was still unknown at the time Szpiro published his book. Well, let's find out the answer:

    http://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/millenniumprizefull.pdf

    The Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI) announces today [March 18th, 2010] that Dr. Grigoriy Perelman of St. Petersburg, Russia, is the recipient of the Millennium Prize for resolution of the Poincaré conjecture.  The citation for the award reads: The Clay Mathematics Institute hereby awards the Millennium Prize for resolution of the Poincaré conjecture to Grigoriy Perelman.

    And of course, Perelman never accepts the prize money.

    In the end, Szpiro's book is an enjoyable read. If you don't have access to the book, you can read the CMI link above, which summarizes everything mentioned in the book. I undoubtedly left parts out as I tried to describe it here on the blog.

    Szpiro takes pains to explain what some of the mathematical terms mean via analogies -- and I posted some, but not all, of these analogies on the blog. One of these words is "tensor" -- I've heard that word mentioned several times before, but I never knew what it meant -- only that it is something similar to a vector. But I knew it wasn't the same as "vector," otherwise why wouldn't mathematicians just say "vector"? Szpiro writes:

    "The tensor is a generalization of the notion of scalars, vectors, and matrices. It is an array of numbers that describe physical or geometric quantities."

    Ahh, so tensors can have various "ranks," or dimensions. On the other hand, all scalars are dimension zero, vectors are dimension one, and matrices are dimension two. Now I'm finally starting to understand what a tensor is, thanks to Szpiro.

    Every time I finish a side-along reading book, I compare it back to our own students. Just as I was confused with what a "tensor" is, our students might be just as confused with "vector." This is likely why Geometry books define dilations without confusing students with vectors -- and the U of Chicago text even defines translations without mentioning vectors. (On the other hand, other texts figure that vectors make translations easier to comprehend.)

    It has been said that proof is the currency of mathematics. As we've seen with Poincare and Putnam, this could be literal currency as in thousands or millions of dollars. But actually, nothing is worth anything in math unless it has been proved. Mathematicians from Poincare to Perelman spent 100 years trying to find an elusive proof, Putnam test-takers spend six hours trying to find proofs, and our Geometry students spend minutes trying to find proofs. And for Geometry students, it all starts with the four big triangle theorems -- SSS, SAS, ASA, and AAS.

    Lesson 7-2 of the U of Chicago text is called "Triangle Congruence Theorems." As you already know, this is one of the most important lessons in the entire text.

    This is what I wrote two years ago about today's lesson:

    And so we finally reach Lesson 7-2 of the U of Chicago text, the Triangle Congruence Theorems. I will be able to demonstrate how SSS, SAS, and ASA follow from the definition of congruence in terms of isometries.

    Let's start with ASA, since as I said earlier this week, we can use the same proof of ASA directly out of the U of Chicago text. Here is the proof as given in the text:

    ASA Congruence Theorem:
    If, in two triangles, two angles and the included side of one are congruent to two angles and the included side of the other, then the triangles are congruent.

    Proof:
    Given AB = DE, Angle A = FDE, and Angle B = FED. Consider the image Triangle A'B'C' of Triangle ABC under an isometry mapping AB onto DE. Triangle A'B'C' and DEF form a figure with two pairs of congruent angles.

    Think of reflecting Triangle A'B'C' over line DE. Applying the Side-Switching Theorem to Angle C'DF, the image of Ray A'C' is Ray DF. Applying the Side-Switching Theorem to Angle C'EF, the image of Ray B'C' is Ray EF. This forces the image of C' to be on both Ray DF and Ray EF, and so the image of C' is F. Therefore the image of Triangle A'B'C' is Triangle DEF.

    So if originally two angles and the included side are congruent (AB = DE, Angle A = D, Angle E) then Triangle ABC can be mapped onto Triangle DEF by an isometry. (First map AB onto DE, then reflect the image of Triangle ABC over the line DE.) Thus, by the definition of congruence, Triangle ABC is congruent to Triangle DEF. QED

    Now as we said earlier, the U of Chicago text uses the Isosceles Triangle Theorem to prove SAS, when we instead want to use SAS to prove the Isosceles Triangle Theorem. But as it turns out, we can write a proof of SAS that's not much different from the ASA proof given above. In this proof, we will discuss more in detail how we perform the first isometry -- the one that maps Triangle ABC to the position A'B'C', from which we can perform the final reflection.

    SAS Congruence Theorem:
    If, in two triangles, two sides and the included angle of one are congruent to two sides and the included angle of the other, then the triangles are congruent.

    Proof:
    Given AB = DEAC = DF, and Angle A = FDE. Our first isometry will be to map A onto D. Now we simply reflect A onto D -- that is, the mirror is the perpendicular bisector of AD. This may be a bit trickier to visualize that the translation, but it works. The image A' is D, while the images B' and C' can be anywhere on the plane.

    Next, we must map the whole segment A'B' onto our destination, DE. Since A' is already at D, we can perform (just as Euclid did) a rotation centered at D. How many degrees should this rotation be? The answer is that it's exactly the measure of Angle B'DE. Then this rotation maps Ray DB' to Ray DE, and therefore segment DB' to DE as they both have the same length as the original segment AB (that is, we already have a point on Ray DE that's the correct distance from D, and it has the name E). At this point, after the reflection and rotation, the image A" is still D and the image B" is now E, so all we have to do is figure out where C" is.

    Now it could be the case that C" is already F -- in which case, we'd already be done. (Euclid erroneously made the assumption that C" is always F.) This is why the U of Chicago text always draws the case where C" is not F, in hopes that one final reflection, over line DE, will map C" to F.

    So far, this part of the proof isn't particular to SAS. All of the congruence theorems will begin with this same isometry -- reflect A to D, then rotate DB' to DE. (By the way, it's possible to dispense with the rotation and use only reflections in the proof. Instead of rotating, use the angle bisector of B'DE as the mirror. Then by the Side-Switching Theorem, Ray DB' maps to DE.)

    Notice that I have written C" double-primed. This is because C mapped to C' under the first reflection and then C' maps to C" under the rotation (or second reflection). We would have to write a third prime for the final reflection, to show that C'" is F. (The U of Chicago text shows only a single isometry mapping AB to DE, so it uses one fewer prime symbol.) To avoid having to write multiple prime symbols, we will abuse notation and simply refer to the image of Triangle ABC under the isometry mapping AB to DE as Triangle ABC, without any prime symbols. I'm hoping that this will actually be less confusing to the students -- calling the image ABC drives home that the fact that all six parts of both triangles are already known to be congruent, and that it's only the congruence of the parts of ABC and DEF that remains to be proved.

    Now here's the part of the proof that's particular to SAS. Instead of using isosceles triangles as in the U of Chicago proof, we notice that just as in the ASA proof, since Angles CAB (which has been moved to CDE) and FDE are given to be congruent, the Side-Switching Theorem once again tells us that the reflection over line DE maps Ray DC to Ray DF, and thus segment DC to DF as it's given that they both have the same length as the original segment AC (that is, we already have a point on Ray DC that's the correct distance from D, and it has the name F), so the image of C is F. Therefore the image of Triangle ABC is Triangle DEF.

    So if originally two sides and the included angle are congruent (AB = DE,  AC = DF, Angle A = D) then Triangle ABC can be mapped onto Triangle DEF by an isometry. (First map AB onto DE, then reflect the image of Triangle ABC over the line DE.) Thus, by the definition of congruence, Triangle ABC is congruent to Triangle DEF. QED

    When presenting this proof in class, we can start with this SAS proof so that students can see how to perform the opening reflection and rotation. Then when we get to ASA and the other proofs, we can just say "there exists an isometry" mapping ABC to the reflection of DEF, so that the proof only needs to discuss the final reflection.

    Now let's go for SSS. I mentioned earlier that the proof in the U of Chicago text creates a kite -- and the properties of kites ultimately go back to isosceles triangles. I wrote that we can avoid the Isosceles Triangle Theorem by using the Converse to the Perpendicular Bisector Theorem instead. Here is the new proof:

    SSS Congruence Theorem:
    If, in two triangles, three sides of one are congruent to three sides of the other, then the triangles are congruent.

    Proof:
    Given AB = DEAC = DF, and BC = EF. We begin, as in the other proofs, by performing the isometry that maps AB to DE. So A is mapped to D, and B is mapped to E, and we are now ready to reflect C over line DE.

    We are given that AC (mapped to DC) = DF -- that is, D is equidistant from C and F. Therefore by Converse Perpendicular Bisector, D lies on the perpendicular bisector of CF. We are given that BC (mapped to EC) = EF -- that is, E is equidistant from C and F. Therefore by Converse Perpendicular Bisector, E lies on the perpendicular bisector of CF. So we already know two points on the perpendicular bisector of CF, namely D and E. Since two points determine a line, this tells us that the perpendicular bisector of CF is exactly line DE -- and that's convenient, since DE is exactly the mirror over which we wish to reflect!

    So line DE is the perpendicular bisector of CF. Therefore, by the definition of reflection (meaning), C reflected over line DE must be F -- which is exactly what we want to prove. QED

    But Lesson 7-2 contains another congruence theorem -- AAS. The U of Chicago, like most texts, prove AAS using ASA plus the Triangle Sum Theorem. I like the following proof of AAS:

    AAS Congruence Theorem:
    If, in two triangles, two angles and a non-included side of one are congruent respectively to two angles and the corresponding non-included side of the other, then the triangles are congruent.

    Proof:
    Given AB = DE, Angle A = FDE, Angle C = DFE. We begin, as in the other proofs, by performing the isometry that maps AB to DE. And as in the proofs of ASA and SAS, the Side-Switching Theorem implies that using line DE as a mirror, Ray DC is mapped to Ray DF. So we know that the image of C is somewhere on Ray DF, but we don't know yet that C' is exactly F.

    We know that Angle ACB (same as DCE) is mapped to Angle DC'E, and as reflections preserve angle measure, these angles are congruent. And we are given that Angles ACB and DFE are congruent, so this tells us that DC'E and DFE are congruent. But this isn't sufficient to identify the images of any rays, since we don't know whether the vertices of the angles, C' and F, are the same point yet.

    So let's try an indirect proof -- assume that C' and F are not the same point. This may be tough to visualize, so try drawing a picture. We already know that C' lies on Ray DF, so we can draw C' to be any point on Ray DF other than F. It doesn't matter whether C' is between D and F or on the opposite side of F from D -- both will lead to the same contradiction.

    After we label the two angles known to be congruent, DC'E and DFE, we notice something about the diagram we've drawn. We see that lines C'E and FE are in fact two lines cut by the transversal DF, and the two angles DC'E and DFE turn out to be corresponding angles that are congruent. Thus, by the Corresponding Angles Test, lines C'E and FE are parallel! And so we have two parallel lines that intersect at E, a blatant contradiction. So the assumption that C' is not F must be false, and so C' is exactly F. QED

    Like previous indirect proofs involving parallel lines, this can be converted into a direct proof if we use the U of Chicago definition of parallel. Then C'E and FE are parallel lines with E in common, so they are identical line -- that is, C' lies on FE. Then just as in the ASA proof, C' lies on both DF and FE, so C' is exactly F.

    I like this proof as it has the same flavor as the SAS, ASA, and SSS proofs. Now I have an alternate proof of HL that avoids AAS and uses only theorems that have been proved previously on the blog so far.

    HL Congruence Theorem:
    If, in two right triangles, the hypotenuse and a leg of one are congruent to the hypotenuse and a leg of the other, then the two triangles are congruent.

    Proof:
    Given AB = DEBC = EFA and D are right angles. We begin, as in the other proofs, by performing the isometry that maps AB to DE. Now since BC (same as EC) = EF, just as in the proof of SSS, we see that E is equidistant from C and F, so that E lies on the perpendicular bisector of CF.

    Now since CAB (same as CDE) and FDE are right angles, line DE is perpendicular to CF. By the Uniqueness of Perpendiculars Theorem, DE is the only line through E perpendicular to CF, so line DE must be that perpendicular bisector that we were discussing earlier. So just as in the proof of SSS, we have by the definition of reflection (meaning), C' is exactly F. QED

    [2017 update: Two years ago, I wrote some information about an alternate proof of AAS below. I retain this information for technical interest, but none of it is relevant any longer. We should just stick to the proof of AAS given in the text --  the usual proof with ASA and the Third Angle Theorem. The proofs are the same in the Second and Third Editions of the text, except that SAS gets a new proof in the Third Edition.]

    I was wondering whether there's a proof of AAS that avoids TEAI (or the Corresponding Angles Test, which can also be proved as a result of TEAI). As the U of Chicago uses AAS to prove HL and we've already been reversing many of the proofs in the text, I'm wondering whether we might possibly use HL to prove AAS (drawing in altitudes in order to generate right triangles) -- but I wasn't able to find such a proof.

    Dr. Randall Holmes, a math professor at Boise State, also tried to find a proof of AAS that avoids the TEAI, but he could not find such a proof. Two years ago, he wrote:

    http://math.boisestate.edu/~holmes/math311/M311S13announcements.html

    "AAS proof note: I'm convinced that there is no way to prove AAS without using the exterior angle theorem, which makes it less attractive as a test proof (because of the need for cases – but see that I actually handle the cases quite compactly below). By the way, the ASA proof does not need cases, because the application of the Angle Construction Postulate in it does not depend on the position of the new point in the same way the application of the Exterior Angle theorem in the AAS proof does."

    We can easily why we need two cases in our proof of AAS using TEAI. Recall that in our above proof of AAS, the image C' could either be on the segment DF or on the other side of F from D. Well in the former case, Angle DC'E is exterior to Triangle C'FE, so by TEAI, Angle DC'E > DFE. And in the latter case, Angle DFE is exterior to that same triangle, so by TEAI, Angle DFE > DC'E. In either case, we have a contradiction since angles DC'E and DFE are known to be congruent.

    Now Dr. Holmes isn't merely a geometer -- he's also a set theorist. Set theory ultimately goes back to the mathematician Georg Cantor. (Yes, the same Cantor for whom the Cantor dust is named. But no, he is not one of the mathematicians whose biography is given in Mandelbrot's book.) Now as it turned out, Cantor's original theory led to contradictions (for example, a set containing all sets was problematic for Cantor). Ever since then, set theorists have been trying to find new theories that avoid the contradiction of the Cantor's theory.

    Now here's where Holmes comes in -- two years ago, he completed a proof that an alternate set theory, called New Foundations, allows for a set of all sets without contradictions. This theory is complicated -- recall that I once called the Axiom of Choice the set theorists' Parallel Postulate. Well, the Axiom of Choice is not even compatible with New Foundations.

    Thus Holmes is undoubtedly an expert at proofs and determining which theorems can be proved using which axioms or postulates. So if someone like Holmes is unable to come up with a proof of AAS without using TEAI (or a theorem derived from TEAI), then who am I even to try?

    And so today I post worksheets for SAS, ASA, and SSS, but not AAS yet. We'll get to HL next week since it's not until Lesson 7-5 of the U of Chicago text. I'm still holding out hope that I can find a proof of AAS from HL by the time we get to Lesson 7-5 (but considering what Holmes wrote above, don't count on it).

    Here are the worksheets for today. I've actually written a worksheet for ASA last year, but I couldn't post it due to the computer problems I had last Thanksgiving. I'd written it using the prime-notation from the U of Chicago text, where we begin with some isometry mapping Triangle ABC to A'B'C' as we prepare for the final reflection. The new worksheets for SAS and SSS that I created this year do not refer to Triangle A'B'C' -- instead we abuse the name ABC again.