Reflections on maths, learning and maths learning support, by David K Butler

Category: Uncategorized

  • The denominator of the rational roots

    Introduction

    In the previous post, I factorised a quadratic equation with a fraction coefficient x2+16x2x^2+\tfrac16 x-2 by thinking of numbers that add to 1/6 and multiply to -2. This is how I did it:

    2/6+(-1/6)=1/6, 2/6×(-1/6)=1/3×(-1/6)=-1/18, which is not low enough.
    3/6+(-2/6)=1/6, 3/6×(-2/6)=1/2×(-1/3)=-1/6, which is lower but not low enough, and I’ve got quite a long way to go.
    7/6+(-6/6)=1/6, 7/6×(-6/6)=7/6×(-1)=-7/6, so much closer.
    8/6+(-7/6)=1/6, 8/6×(-7/7)=… yeah that won’t work out right.
    9/6+(-8/6)=1/6, 9/6×(-8/6)=3/2×(-4/3)=-2 yay!

    But how could I be sure that counting in sixths would eventually get me to the right place? What if it was some other denominaror I needed?

    Well, it turns out that if you want two numbers with specific rational sum and product, they are guaranteed to be able to be written with a specific denominator, so you will be able to try only numbers with that denominator.

    The theorem

    Theorem:
    Let \(a\), \(b\), \(c\) and \(d\) be integers with \(b\) and \(d\) not zero. Suppose there are rational numbers \(x\) and \(y\) such that \(x+y=\frac{a}{b}\) and \(xy=\frac{c}{d}\). Then it is possible to write both \(x\) and \(y\) with denominator \(bd\).

    I would like to show my proof for this theorem. There might be an easier way than I did it, but I definitely enjoyed my way, so I want to share it. It’s actually two proofs, but the first one makes me feel a little uncomfortable. I’ll do that one first.

    Proof 1

    Since \(x\) and \(y\) are rational, let \(x=\frac{p}{q}\) and \(y=\frac{r}{s}\) for integers \(p\), \(q\), \(r\), and \(s\) with \(q\) and \(s\) not zero.

    Then

    \[\begin{aligned} x+y&=\frac{p}{q}+\frac{r}{s}\\ &=\frac{ps}{qs}+\frac{qr}{qs}\\ &=\frac{ps+qr}{qs}\end{aligned}\]

    and

    \[\begin{aligned}xy&=\frac{p}{q}\cdot\frac{r}{s} \\ &= \frac{pr}{qs}\end{aligned}\]

    Thus both the sum and the product can be written with denominator \(qs\). The numbers \(x\) and \(y\) themselves can also be written with that denominator, as

    \[\begin{aligned} x&= \frac{p}{q} = \frac{ps}{qs}\\ y&= \frac{r}{s} = \frac{qr}{qs}\end{aligned}\]

    In other words, the numbers \(x\) and \(y\) can be written with the same denominator as the common denominator of the sum and the product. The sum \(\frac{a}{b}\) and the product \(\frac{c}{d}\) have \(bd\) as a common denominator, so that means \(x\) and \(y\) can be written with this denominator.

    Interlude

    I am certain this proof is watertight, except for maybe tidying up the idea that if a two fractions can be written with a common denominator, then they can be written with any of the common denominators.

    But still it feels a bit uncomfortable somehow. It gives a whiff of circular reasoning, maybe, or at least I don’t directly talk about the original denominators \(b\) and \(d\) anywhere until I reveal them at the last moment, which feels sneaky. I’d much prefer a proof that begins with the equations and ends with solutions with the correct denominators. And so I have this proof too.

    Proof 2

    Consider the two equations:

    \[\begin{aligned}x+y&=\frac{a}{b}\\xy&=\frac{c}{d}\end{aligned}\]

    Multiply the first by \(bdx\) and the second by \(d\) to give

    \[\begin{aligned}bdx^2+bdxy&=adx\\dxy&=c\end{aligned}\]

    Subsitute the second equation into the first to give

    \[\begin{aligned}bdx^2+bc=adx\\bdx^2-adx+bc=0\end{aligned}\]

    Using completing the square or the quadratic formula,

    \[x = \frac{ad\pm\sqrt{(ad)^2-4b^2cd}}{2bd}\]

    Now \((ad)^2-4b^2cd\) is an integer, so \(\sqrt{(ad)^2-4b^2cd}\) is either unreal, irrational or an integer. Since \(x\) is rational, that means it must be an integer. Let it be \(m\), so that

    \[x = \frac{ad\pm m}{2bd}\]

    Suppose \(ad\) is odd. Then \((ad)^2\) is odd, and so is \((ad)^2-4b^2cd\), and therefore so is \(\sqrt{(ad)^2-4b^2cd}=m\). But now \(ad\pm m\) is even.

    Alternatively suppose \(ad\) is even. Then \((ad)^2\) is a multple of 4, and so is \((ad)^2-4b^2cd\), which means \(\sqrt{(ad)^2-4b^2cd}=m\) is even. But now again \(ad\pm m\) is even.

    Hence \(x\) can be written with an integer numerator and denominator as

    \[x = \frac{ad\pm m}{2bd} = \frac{\left(\frac{ad\pm m}{2}\right)}{bd}\]

    Because of the symmetry in the original equations, this is also the two solutions for \(y\). Thus both \(x\) and \(y\) can be written with denominator \(bd\).

    Conclusion

    I particularly enjoyed that second proof. I was convinced when I did it the first time that the denominator had to be \(2bd\) but then I realised that the numerator had to be even and so it came down to \(bd\) after all, which was very satisfying.

    And I am very happy that this means I can now factorise monic quadratics with rational coefficients by directly working through numbers with one specific denominator that add to the x-coefficient. It just feels like such a bold move to me, and now I know it just seems bold, because it provably will definitely work.

  • Too many presents

    Once upon a time when my daughter was very young, she was given a lot of presents – it was a birthday or Christmas but I can’t remember which. What I do remember is that she played with just one present all day long, leaving all the others untouched.

    I think we sometimes do the same thing to our students that friends and family did to Charlotte: we give them too many presents and then get upset when they don’t play with them all.

    Let me explain.

    Playing with it is one of the main ways to get a deep understanding of concepts and to get fluency with procedures. You ask yourself, “What would happen if…?” and say to yourself, “I wonder…”, and you try things out in different combinations. It’s awesome when it happens and you feel all sorts of positive feelings like curiosity and joy and satisfaction. Even teachers who don’t consciously subscribe to a play-based approach are usually happy when they see this sort of thing happenning. Many of the people who become university lecturers had similar experiences when they were students and assume their students also play with the ideas in their courses.

    And the students actually do. It’s amazing how often even the struggling students are trying to explore. And the students who were engaged with the content long before they joined your course are sometimes aching for chances to explore that aren’t being given to them. But there’s a big problem: there’s just not enough time.

    A university course has multiple new concepts and procedures every week, and there’s just too many of them to play with all of them. Yet the assignment questions tend to assume a level of familiarity with every single thing in the course that only comes with a decent amount of playing with every one. There’s just too many things in the course to be able to give all of them the time they need. And if a student gets nerdsniped and goes on a deep dive on one thing, they are forced to sacrifice play time with the other things.

    I see it most clearly in two places.

    First, in a course like Nursing where students are expected to be fluent in all the various ways to do calculations with multiplication and division quickly without a calculator. This fluency comes to most people through years of play: trying new problems, seeing how others do them, noticing strategies worth trying, and noticing when they’re not worth trying, storing away relationships between numbers. But in a first-year Nursing course with students who have past traumatic experiences with maths, there is literally not enough time for this kind of play, even if a student realised that the play was the thing that helped them be better at getting the answer, because they also have to play with how to listen to patients and what all the drugs do and any number of other things that go into becoming a nursing professional.

    Second, in a pure maths course for students who chose a pure maths degree because they were interested in pure maths. These students deeply want to play, but there are so many concepts coming at them, there is just not enough time to play with them all, and they feel overwhelmed. Especially when their lecturer assumes unconsciously they have already done the play just because they’ve got previous experience with maths.

    My great hope is actually to give students less to play with, so they have time to play with each of them as they go. But failing that, we need to at least not get upset when they don’t play with everything, and definitely not assume that they are lazy or uninterested or ungrateful. They’re just toddlers with too many presents.

  • It’s just subbing into formulas

    (This blog post is a slightly expanded copy of a thread I wrote on Twitter in 2021.)

    I have met people before who say that statistics and applied maths are easy for students because it’s just subbing numbers into the right formulas. Sometimes it’s not quite so overt, and I just see people express frustration because the sudents just aren’t succeeding, even though all they need to do is sub things into formulas. Either way, it makes me sad and angry, because “just” subbing numbers into formulas is not easy, in multiple different ways.

    I will now describe a number of those ways, numbered idiosyncratically in the order I thought of them.

    1. For many students studying especially intro stats, they have very little experience with maths and what they have has been traumatic. The very act or substituting things into formulas is actually hard for them, if not triggering. Just looking at the formula will create a rush of feelings that make it hard to think.

    2. For the students with little or traumatic experience with maths, one thing that really holds them back from succeeding is not knowing the order of operations. They don’t know that addition is after multiplication, or that their calculator will in general know the correct order. This means even if they put the numbers in the right places, they won’t get the right answer every time.

    3. The formulas often use letters that the students have never seen before and don’t know what they’re called. I can’t count the number of students I’ve met who don’t know the name of the letter μ. There is nothing like not being able to read the formula to make you feel like an idiot.

    4. Even if you can read the formula, finding which numbers in the problem go into it is often difficult. It’s like one of those reading comprehension tasks that ask about technical details you probably missed. You have to go searching again to find the numbers you need hidden in the text.

    5. The search for the right numbers also requires you to know what the words mean. If your formula has a standard deviation, then it’s useful to know what standard deviation means, if only to know how people talk about it so you can find it in the problem text. This is further complicated by the fact that the context can change the meaning. If it’s implied in the text that the standard deviation came from the data not somehow from the population, that changes everything.

    6. Some might argue that you don’t need to know what the words mean. Can’t they just find the numbers next to those words in the text and put those numbers into the formula? But imagine having six meaningless words to look for every time. That’s exhausting. And do you really want students using formulas without meaning? That doesn’t seem like a good idea to me even in the short term.

    6b. Many applied maths courses introduce new applications in every assignment, with a whole raft of brand-new terminologies that have letters and/or numbers to go with them, and it’s a big load to deal with even if you decide not to try to understand the context. It’s one of those difficult technical reading comprehension tasks again.

    7. If there are even a handful of formulas to choose from, and they’re spread out through the course materials, it’s actually a large task to search for the right one. Flicking through all the materials, you might easily miss one, and even if you have a handy cheat sheet with them all there, you still have to find the right one among the list.

    8. In order to choose which formula is the right one, you need to be able to distinguish between different situations that formulas might apply to. What features do the situations have that make them different enough to need different formulas? What features are irrelevant? This is actually hard to notice and to a novice is not obvious at all. It’s also hard to notice because it’s rare for teachers to explicitly point out those features.

    8b. Indeed, to notice how the situations are similar and different, you need to have enough examples so that you can compare them to each other, and many courses only have one or two examples of each situation/formula. That’s just not enough to glean the unspoken rules of deciding between them.

    9. When they’ve chosen the right formula and put the right numbers in it and gotten an answer, they still have to know what to do with the answer. This is a separate skill, often requiring more understanding of the context and also skills with written language.

    10. Language is a whole set of problems of its own. In the genre of maths assignment questions, information is presented in terse sentences that assume you can tell the difference between technical words and ordinary words and keywords that indicate expectations. And you can’t always do that, especially on the fly without specific instruction.

    11. Many many students actually do want to understand, despite you telling them they don’t need to. They want to make connections between ideas and have reasons why the choices were made the way they were. If this is unrequited, they come to resent the whole thing.

    11b. They don’t necessarily need the whole mathematical theory, but they do need reasons and connections. And actually you yourself decide between methods based on these reasons and connections anyway.

    I’ll stop there. But I hope I’ve made it clear that choosing and using formulas is a long long way from easy, so we need to support our students and give them the credit they deserve when they struggle with it. Because it is actually hard and they’re trying.

  • The seven doll’s houses

    There is an episode of the TV show “Friends” where Phoebe makes a doll’s house out of boxes. The other friends are most impressed with this doll’s house, especially with the candy room, aroma room and bubble-blowing chimney (except Monica of course, who still wants to play with her historically accurate mansion). Unfortunately, the cardboard doll’s house burns down, the fire seeming to originate in the aroma room.

    It was a cool episode, but it was made all the cooler after I watched a “making of Friends” show in the special features on the DVD. This featurette chronicled the making of a single episode of Friends, and the work of hundreds of people who made it happen. There were writers, set-builders, camera operators, editors, costume designers, sound editors, music composers, foley artists, live audience herders, actors, and props managers, all working sixteen-hour days just to make half an hour of television.

    The ones that most opened my eyes were the props managers. They make sure that everything the actors hold or touch works and looks the way it should. In particular, they made Phoebe’s doll’s house. In fact, they made SEVEN of Phoebe’s doll’s house: that’s SEVEN candy rooms, seven aroma rooms and seven bubble-blowing chimneys, all exactly alike. They had to make so many in order to get the scene right where the house burns down.

    Yet to us the viewers, there was only one house and it was only in the episode for a total of three minutes. You wouldn’t dream that there would be SEVEN doll’s houses to produce these three minutes of television.

    And it got me thinking about one of the major difficulties of my job: it seems easy. The students turn up to the MLC or our seminars or art events and we talk to them; they go to our website and find resources to use. It all seems so easy. But what people DON’T see the hours of other work: the data entry, the meetings with casual staff, the workplace safety training, the fiddling with web links, the data entry, the editing of videos, the painting, the design of posters, the printing, the laminating, the dishwashing and the data entry.

    Well finally someone recognised all that work. Yesterday we got a Commendation for Excellence in Support of the Student Experience from the Vice Chancellor. While we would never stop doing all this behind-the-scenes work (because we really do love working with students), it is nice to know at least a few other people appreciate how much goes into making it look easy.

  • Forget pi, it’s cos squared that’s wrong!

    For a while now, a debate has been raging about whether we should scrap using pi in all our equations and instead write everything in terms of tau (which is 2 pi). Most of the time I stand at a distance from this debate, thinking it rather tedious and preferring instead to fun things with pi like draw its digits in chalk on the footpath. But every so often I get involved.

    The last time I got involved, I made a video satirising the whole thing and suggesting that both pi and tau are wrong and we should instead use eta (which is pi/2). You can see it here . Every so often I check on the video to see how it’s going and I read with some amusement the comments people have posted there. In one of these comments I learned that Michael Hartl, the main advocate for Tau with his Tau Manifesto, has actually added a reference to me in the latest version of his Manifesto, saying that eta is not that bad a choice after all for certain applications! How ironic (in a gratifying sort of way).

    Anyway, because of this I have been drawn back into the debate again and have found myself watching YouTube videos and reading blogs on the topic, and commenting on these videos and blogs.

    The time has come to write a blog post of my own…

    One of the main arguments that our tauists put forward for using tau is that it makes teaching trigonometry easier. They claim that using pi is one of the main reasons people don’t understand radian measure when learning trigonometry, saying that it’s silly for a full turn to be 2 of something.

    And this is where I am compelled to make this blog post: all that may possibly be true, but if you’re going to pick something to fix in the way we teach trigonometry, which constant you use to describe how far it is around a circle is not the thing to pick. The pi versus tau issue pales in comparison to this little gem, which is a fundamentally wrong thing to write and causes all sorts of confusion:

    cos2 x + sin2 x = 1

    The first and most basic confusion is that students are forever typing “cos^2 (x)” into their computer-marked assignments, and then asking me to help them because the computer doesn’t mark it as correct.

    And the reason the computer isn’t marking it as correct is of course that the computer does not recognise that as a legitimate thing to write, for the very simple reason is that it’s NOT a legitimate thing to write! The symbols cos and sin are functions which means that the true meaning of cos²(x) ought to be cos(cos(x)), as it is in all other situations when we use powers on functions. If we told them this is what it meant, then they wouldn’t think it was the answer to their assignment question. I also believe it might make it a little easier for them to understand why cos⁻¹(x) is in fact the functional inverse of cos and not 1/cos(x).

    On the other side of the coin, we don’t do this with any other functions do we? We don’t say either of these do we:

    (exp(x))2 = exp2(x)
    or
    (√ x)2 = √ 2 x

    That’s ridiculous. Why do it for trig functions?

    And finally, are we really that lazy? I went looking on the internet for the reasons why people write the abomination above, and every one of them just says “for brevity”. Really? For brevity!? Honestly, it may be breif to you but it uses up hours of your students’ and my time – time that could have been saved with four strokes of your pen!

    Ok, so I got more and more passionate and less and less cohesive in each paragraph there, but I think the point still stands. I think the teaching of trigonometry and a lot of other things too would be much easier if we all just wrote:

    (cos x)2 + (sin x)2 = 1

    These comments were left on the original blog post: 

    Sam Cohen 6 April 2013:
    I like what you say, David, but I just wanted to flag up that I regularly write X^2 to mean the square of X, even when X is a random variable (and so, in my language, a function of the outcome \omega). I would argue that we do, frequently, want to write f^2 for the function x->(f(x))^2, particularly when thinking of functions as key objects in their own right, rather than as secondary entities to numbers, etc… Just my two cents.

    David Butler 7 April 2013:
    Fair call with the random variable thing Sam, if you view a random variable as a function from Omega to the real numbers. And yes, with functions like polynomials, we usually consider a polynomial as an abstract object constructed by addition and multiplication of other basis polynomials. So if p is a polynomial it probably does make more sense for p^2 to mean (p(x))^2. *sigh* It’s never simple is it? Still, I wish people gave this sort of reasoning rather than just “brevity”. 😉

    Tomas 23 November 2013:
    I love debates about Pi ,or Tau …. Pi or Tau were , are and will be always wrong and not accurate numbers. You all know this omfg 🙂 Pi was made up first with physical measurement .. you are unable to find it with any method , and juts still using this crap. I simply don’t get it. Start to think outside the box and find the real constant and new equation how to count circumference and stop using this made up crap and endless debates about, which are not solving anything (no offense). Just one advice 10:3= 3,2 this is the right result, solve it ,and you will maybe open new dimension of thinking and understanding for yourself . There is a reason ,why we using our stupid decimal math system . Peace. 😉