
Source: http://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2015/06/24/mathemacomics/
I’m a couple months late with this… after all, school started in August… but nevertheless I recently stumbled on this voiceless video syllabus by Joshua Katz, a mathematics teacher in Florida.
I really enjoyed this.
Well done, sir. Your students are very lucky to have you as a teacher.
As a follow-up to yesterday’s triangle problem, here’s another one in the same equivalence class that I found at http://thinkzone.wlonk.com/MathFun/Triangle.htm (via the comments at Math With Bad Drawings). The author of this webpage tantalizingly calls this the World’s Hardest Easy Geometry Problem: solve for in the figure below.

This figure is similar to the figure in yesterday’s post, except the values of and
have changed.
So as to not ruin the fun, I won’t give the answer here. Instead, I’ll leave a thought bubble so you can think about the answer. In case you’re wondering: yes, I did figure this out for myself without using the Laws of Sines and Cosines. But I needed over an hour to solve this problem , and that’s after I had time to read and reflect upon the solution to the problem I posed in yesterday’s post.
Math With Bad Drawings had an interesting post about solving for in the following picture (this picture is taken from http://thinkzone.wlonk.com/MathFun/Triangle.htm):

I had never heard of this problem before, but it’s apparently well known and is called Langley’s Adventitious Angles. See Math With Bad Drawings, Wikipedia, and Math Pages for more information about the solution of this problem. Math Pages has a nice discussion about mathematical aspects of this problem, including connections to the Laws of Sines and Cosines and to various trig identities.
I’d encourage you to try to solve for without clicking on any of these links… a certain trick out of the patented Bag of Tricks is required to solve this problem using only geometry (as opposed to the Law of Cosines and the Law of Sines). I have a story that I tell my students about the patented Bag of Tricks: Socrates gave the Bag of Tricks to Plato, Plato gave it to Aristotle, it passed down the generations, my teacher taught the Bag of Tricks to me, and I teach it to my students. In the same post, Math With Bad Drawings has a nice discussion about pedagogical aspects of this problem concerning when a “trick” becomes a “technique”.
I recommend this problem for advanced geometry students who need to be challenged; even bright students will be stumped concerning coming up with the requisite trick on their own. Indeed, the problem still remains quite challenging even after the trick is shown.
My colleague Jason Ermer at Collaborative Mathematics is back from summer hiatus and has published Challenge 16 on his website: http://www.collaborativemathematics.org/challenge16.html
This antiderivative has arguable the highest ratio of “really hard to compute” to “really easy to write”:
As we’ve seen in this series, the answer is
Also, as long as and
, there is an alternative answer:
.
In this concluding post of this series, I’d like to talk about the practical implications of the assumptions that and
.
For the sake of simplicity for the rest of this post, let
and
.
If I evaluate a definite integral of over an interval that contains neither
or
, then either
or
can be used. Courtesy of Mathematica:
However, if the region of integration contains either or
(or both), then only using
returns the correct answer.
So this should be a cautionary tale about solving for angles, as the innocent-looking that appeared several posts ago ultimately makes a big difference in the final answers that are obtained.
In the course of evaluating the antiderivative
,
I have stumbled across a very curious trigonometric identity:
if
,
if
,
if
,
where and
are the unique values so that
,
.
I will now show that and
. Indeed, it’s apparent that these have to be the two transition points because these are the points where
is undefined. However, it would be more convincing to show this directly.
To show that , I need to show that
.
I could do this with a calculator…
Instead, let and
, so that
,
.
Indeed, by SOHCAHTOA, the angles and
can be represented in the figure below:
The two small right triangles make one large triangle, and I will show that the large triangle is also a right triangle. To do this, let’s find the lengths of the three sides of the large triangle. The length of the longest side is clearly . I will use the Pythagorean theorem to find the lengths of the other two sides. For the small right triangle containing
, the missing side is
Next, for the small right triangle containing , the missing side is
So let me redraw the figure, eliminating the altitude from the previous figure:
Notice that the condition of the Pythagorean theorem is satisfied, since
,
or
.
Therefore, by the converse of the Pythagorean theorem, the above figure must be a right triangle (albeit a right triangle with sides of unusual length), and so . In other words,
, as required.
To show that , I will show that the function
is an odd function using the fact that
is also an odd function:
.
Therefore, , and so
.
In the course of evaluating the antiderivative
,
I’ve accidentally stumbled on a very curious looking trigonometric identity:
if
,
if
,
if
.
The extra and
are important. Without them, the graphs of the left-hand side and right-hand sides are clearly different if
or
:
However, they match when those constants are included:
Let’s see if I can explain why this trigonometric identity occurs without resorting to the graphs.
Since assumes values between
and
, I know that
,
,
and so
.
However,
,
and so and
must differ if
is in the interval
or in the interval
.
I also notice that
,
,
and so
.
However, this difference can only be equal to a multiple of , and there are only three multiples of
in the interval
, namely
,
, and
.
To determine the values of where this happens, I also note that
,
, and
are increasing functions, and so
must also be an increasing function. Therefore, to determine where
lies in the interval
,it suffices to determine the unique value
so that
. Likewise, to determine where
lies in the interval
,it suffices to determine the unique value
so that
.
In summary, I have shown so far that
if
,
if
,
if
,
where and
are the unique values so that
,
.
So, to complete the proof of the trigonometric identity, I need to show that and
. I will do this in tomorrow’s post.
This antiderivative has arguable the highest ratio of “really hard to compute” to “really easy to write”:
As we’ve seen in this series, the answer is
It turns out that this can be simplified somewhat as long as and
. I’ll use the trig identity
When I apply this trig identity for and
, I obtain
.
So we can conclude that
for some integer that depends on
. The
is important, as a cursory look reveals that
and
have different graphs. (The vertical lines in the orange graph indicate where the right-hand side is undefined when
or
.
The two graphs coincide when but differ otherwise. However, it appears that the two graphs differ by a constant. Indeed, if I subtract
from the orange graph if
and add
to the orange graph if
, then they match:
So, evidently
if
,
if
,
if
.
So as long as and
, this constant
,
, or
can be absorbed into the constant
:
.
However, a picture may be persuasive but is not a proof, and there are some subtle issues with this simplification. I’ll discuss these further details in tomorrow’s post.
This antiderivative has arguable the highest ratio of “really hard to compute” to “really easy to write”:
So far, I’ve shown that the denominator can be factored over the real numbers:
To evaluate the remaining two integrals, I’ll use the antiderivative
.
To begin, I’ll complete the squares:
Applying the substitutions and
, I can continue:
Combining, I finally arrive at the answer for :
Naturally, this can be checked by differentiation, but I’m not going type that out.