Thoughts on 1/7 and other rational numbers (Part 3)

In Part 2 of this series, I discussed the process of converting a fraction into its decimal representation. In this post, I consider the reverse: starting with a decimal representation, and ending with a fraction.

Let me say at the onset that the process I’m about to describe appears to be a dying art. When I show this to my math majors who want to be high school teachers, roughly half have either not seen it before or else have no memory of seeing it before. (As always, I hold my students blameless for the things that they were simply not taught at a younger age, and part of my job is repairing these odd holes in their mathematical backgrounds so that they’ll have their best chance at becoming excellent high school math teachers.) I’m guessing that this algorithm is a dying art because of the ease and convenience of modern calculators.

So let me describe how I describe this procedure to my students. To begin, suppose that we’re given a repeating decimal like $0.\overline{432} = 0.432432432\dots$ . How do we change this into a decimal? Let’s call this number $x$ .

I’m now about to do something that, if you don’t know what’s coming next, appears to make no sense. I’m going to multiply $x$ by $1000$ . Students often give skeptical, quizzical, and/or frustrated looks about this non-intuitive next step… they’re thinking, “How would I ever have thought to do that on my own?” To allay these concerns, I explain that this step comes from 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. Multiplying by $1000$ on the next step is absolutely not obvious, unless you happen to know via clairvoyance what’s going to come next.

Anyway, let’s write down $x$ and also $1000x$ .

$1000x = 432.432432\dots$

$x = 0.432432\dots$

Notice that the decimal parts of both $x$ and $1000x$ are the same. Subtracting, the decimal parts cancel, leaving

$999x = 432$

$x = \displaystyle \frac{432}{999} = \displaystyle \frac{16}{37}$

In my experience, most students — even senior math majors who have taken a few theorem-proof classes and hence are no dummies — are a little stunned when they see this procedure for the first time. To make this more real and believable to them, I then ask them to pop out their calculators to confirm that this actually worked. (Indeed, many students need this confirmation to be psychologically sure that it really did work.)

Then I ask my students, why did we multiply by $1000$ ? They’ll usually give the correct answer: so that the decimal parts will cancel. My follow-up question is, what should we do if the decimal is $0.\overline{24}$ ? They’ll usually respond that we should multiply by $100$ or, in general, by $10^n$ , where $n$ is the length of the repeating block.

This strategy, of course, works for $0.\overline{142857}$, eventually yielding

$0.\overline{142587} = \displaystyle \frac{142857}{999999} = \displaystyle \frac{1}{7}$

after cancellation.

The same procedure works for decimal expansions with a delay, like $x = 0.72\overline{3}$ . This time, I’ll ask them how we should go about changing this into a fraction. I usually get at least one of three responses. I love getting multiple responses, as this gives the students a chance to came the “different” answers, compare the different strategies, and

Answer #1. Multiply $x$ by $1000$ since the repeating pattern starts at the 3rd decimal place.

$1000x = 723.333\dots$

$x = 0.7233\dots$

$\therefore 999x = 722.61$

$x =\displaystyle\frac{722.61}{999} = \displaystyle\frac{72261}{99900} = \displaystyle \frac{217}{300}$

Answer #2. Multiply $x$ by $10$ since the repeating block has length 1.

$10x = 7.23333\dots$

$x = 0.7233\dots$

$\therefore 9x = 6.51$

$x = \displaystyle \frac{6.51}{9} = \displaystyle\frac{651}{900} = \displaystyle\frac{217}{300}$

Answer #3. First multiply $x$ by 100 to get rid of the delay. Then multiply $100 x$ by an extra $10$ since the repeating block has length 1.

$1000x = 723.333\dots$

$100x = 72.33\dots$

$\therefore 900x = 651$

$x = \displaystyle\frac{651}{900} = \displaystyle\frac{217}{300}$

The above discussion concerned repeating decimals. For completeness, converting terminating decimals into a fraction is easy. For example,

$0.124 = \displaystyle \frac{1}{10} + \frac{2}{100} + \frac{4}{1000} = \displaystyle \frac{124}{1000} = \displaystyle \frac{31}{250}$

One more thought. The concept behind Part 2 of this series shows that a rational number of the form $k/n$ , where both $k$ and $n$ are integers, must have either a terminating decimal expansion or else a repeating decimal expansion (possibly with a delay). In this post, we went the other direction. Therefore, we have the basis for the following theorem.

Theorem. A number $x$ is rational if and only if it has either a terminating decimal expansion or else a repeating decimal expansion.

The contrapositive of this theorem is perhaps intuitively obvious.

Theorem. A number $x$ is irrational if and only if it has a non-terminating and non-repeating decimal expansion.

In my experience, most students absolutely believe both of these theorems. For example, most students believe that $\sqrt{2}$ has a decimal expansion that neither terminates nor repeats. That said, most math majors are surprised to discover that it does take quite a bit of work — like a formal write-up of Parts 2 and 3 of this series — to actually prove this statement from middle-school mathematics.

Thoughts on 1/7 and other rational numbers (Part 2)

Let’s take another look at the decimal expansion of 1/7:

This result from a calculator should convince most students that $\displaystyle \frac{1}{7} = 0.\overline{142857}$ . After all, there’s a second $142$ after the first $7$ , and the ending $9$ is consistent with rounding up the $857$ .

So the evidence that $\displaystyle \frac{1}{7} = 0.\overline{142857}$ is persuasive.

But does this prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this decimal representation is correct?

Sadly, no. Taken by itself, the result of the calculator is also consistent with, to give just one example, $\displaystyle \frac{1}{7} = 0.\overline{142857142910235}$ , which also would truncate after 10 decimal places to the result shown above.

In short, the calculator gives evidence that the decimal expansion is correct, but does not prove that it’s correct.

Which leads to the obvious question: how do we prove it?

One method, which used to be taught in elementary school (I honestly don’t know if this is taught anymore), is by traditional long division:

After six steps, we finally get to a remainder that was previously seen (in this case, on the first step). Therefore, we tell students, the subsequent digits have to repeat.

By the way, this is the essence of the proof for why every rational number has either a repeating decimal representation (possibly with a delay, like $0.1\overline{6}$ ) or else a terminating decimal representation. Though a more formal proof would be preferred by professional mathematicians, the idea is simple: in the algorithm for long division for $k/n$ , there are only $n$ possible remainders: $0, 1, \dots, n-1$ . So we eventually have to arrive at a remainder that was seen before. If that remainder is $0$ , then the decimal representation terminates. Otherwise, the decimal representation repeats itself.

In my experience, every math major that I’ve ever met intuitively knows that the above theorem is true. After all, they’ve worked intensively with decimals since 5th grade and have seen decimals in the lower elementary grades. However, very few can articulate why it’s true.

Thoughts on 1/7 and other rational numbers (Part 1)

I’m guessing that not many people ever blocked time out of their busy schedules to purposefully memorize the decimal representation of a fraction. Nevertheless, in my experience, most math majors and math teachers can immediately convert, from memory, most (but not all — more on this later) fractions of the form $\displaystyle \frac{k}{n}$ into its decimal representation as long as the denominator $n$ is less than or equal to $10$ . They can also go the other direction, mentally recognizing a decimal expansion as a fraction of this form.

This memorization occurs not because of purposeful study but because these fractions arise so commonly from 6th grade through college that students can’t help but memorize them. They just come up so often that good students almost can’t help but memorize them.

Here are the decimal representations of $\displaystyle \frac{k}{n}$ , where the fraction is in lowest terms and $1 \le k < n \le 10$ .

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{2} = 0.5$

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{3} = 0.\overline{3} \quad \displaystyle \frac{2}{3} = 0.\overline{6}$

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{4} = 0.25 \quad \displaystyle \frac{3}{4} = 0.75$

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{5} = 0.2 \quad \displaystyle \frac{2}{5} = 0.4 \quad \displaystyle \frac{3}{5} = 0.6 \quad \displaystyle \frac{4}{5} = 0.8$

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{6} = 0.1\overline{6} \quad \displaystyle \frac{5}{6} = 0.8\overline{3}$

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{7} = 0.\overline{142857} \quad \displaystyle \frac{2}{7} = 0.\overline{285714} \quad \displaystyle \frac{3}{7} = 0.\overline{428571}$

$\displaystyle \frac{4}{7} = 0.\overline{571428} \quad \displaystyle \frac{5}{7} = 0.\overline{714285} \quad \displaystyle \frac{6}{7} = 0.\overline{857142}$

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{8} = 0.125 \quad \displaystyle \frac{3}{8} = 0.375 \quad \displaystyle \frac{5}{8} = 0.625 \quad \displaystyle \frac{7}{8} = 0.875$

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{9} = 0.\overline{1} \quad \displaystyle \frac{2}{9} = 0.\overline{2} \quad \displaystyle \frac{4}{9} = 0.\overline{4} \quad \displaystyle \frac{5}{9} = 0.\overline{5} \quad \displaystyle \frac{7}{9} = 0.\overline{7} \quad \displaystyle \frac{8}{9} = 0.\overline{8}$

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{10} = 0.1 \quad \displaystyle \frac{3}{10} = 0.3 \quad \displaystyle \frac{7}{10} = 0.7 \quad \displaystyle \frac{9}{10} = 0.9$

Like I said, most (but not all) of these have been memorized by math majors and math teachers. The exceptions, not surprisingly, are the fractions with a denominator of $7$ .

When I was a child, I read somewhere the following rule for memorizing the decimal expansion of $\displaystyle \frac{k}{7}$ . I must have been lucky, because I have yet to meet a student that also saw this rule. The following is not a formal proof of the rule, but it does work for the purposes of memorization.

Step 1. Let’s begin with $\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}$ . The decimal expansion can be remembered by repeating “3, 2, 6” along with repeating “up, down.” Repeating both patterns, we get

up 3

down 2

up 6

down 3

up 2

down 6

So,

Start at $1$ :

up 3: $\quad 1 + 3 = 4$

down 2: $\quad 4 - 2 = 2$

up 6: $\quad 2 + 6 = 8$

down 3: $\quad 8 - 3 = 5$

up 2: $\quad 5 + 2 = 7$

down 6: $\quad 7 - 6 = 1$

The pattern returns back to $1$ , and the digits repeat. That’s the decimal expansion:

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{7} = 0.142857142857\dots$

Steps 2-6. For $\displaystyle \frac{2}{7}, \dots, \frac{6}{7}$ , the digits repeat in the same pattern as $\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}$ , just starting at a different place. For example:

For $\displaystyle \frac{2}{7}$ , the second smallest of the digits $1, 4, 2, 8, 5, \hbox{~and~} 7$ is $2$ . So we’ll drop the first $1$ and $4$ and start on $2$ :

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{7} = 0.2857142857\dots = 0.\overline{285714}$

For $\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}$ , the fourth smallest of the digits $1, 4, 2, 8, 5, \hbox{~and~} 7$ is $5$ . So we’ll drop the first $1$ , $4$ , $2$ , and $8$ and start on $5$ :

$\displaystyle \frac{4}{7} = 0.57142857\dots = 0.\overline{571428}$

P.S. Plenty of math majors (though perhaps not a majority) have also memorized the decimal expansions of $\displaystyle\frac{k}{11}$ and $\displaystyle \frac{k}{12}$ . For $11$ , the rule is multiply $k$ by $9$ to form the two-digit repeating block. In other words:

$4 \times 9 = 36$ , and so $\displaystyle \frac{4}{11} = 0.\overline{36}$

$8 \times 9 = 72$ , and so $\displaystyle \frac{8}{11} = 0.\overline{72}$

$1 \times 9 = 9$ , and so $\displaystyle \frac{1}{11} = 0.\overline{09}$

For $12$ , the only lowest-term fractions are $\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}$ , $\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}$ , $\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}$ , and $\displaystyle \frac{11}{12}$ . To begin, the first should be memorized:

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{12} = 0.08333\dots = 0.08\overline{3}$

The others are obtained by addition or subtraction:

$\displaystyle \frac{7}{12} = \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{12} = 0.5 + 0.08333\dots = 0.58333\dots = 0.58\overline{3}$

$\displaystyle \frac{5}{12} = \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{12} = 0.5 - 0.08333\dots = 0.41666\dots = 0.41\overline{3}$

$\displaystyle \frac{11}{12} = 1 - \frac{1}{12} = 1 - 0.08333\dots = 0.91666\dots = 0.91\overline{6}$

Calculator errors: When close isn’t close enough (Part 2)

In the previous post, I gave a simple classroom demonstration to illustrate that some calculators only approximate an infinite decimal expansion with a terminating decimal expansion, and hence truncation errors can propagate. This example addresses the common student question, “What’s the big deal if I round off to a few decimal places?”

(For what it’s worth, I’m aware that some current high-end calculators are miniature computer algebra systems and can formally handle an answer of $\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}$ instead of its decimal expansion.)

Students may complain that the above exercise is artificial and unlikely to occur in real life. I would suggest following up with a real-world, non-artificial, and tragic example of an accident that happened in large part due to truncation error. This incident occurred during the first Gulf War in 1991 (perhaps ancient history to today’s students). I’m going to quote directly from the website http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html, published by Dr. Douglas Arnold at the University of Minnesota. Perhaps students don’t need to master the details of this explanation (a binary expansion as opposed to a decimal expansion might be a little abstract), but I think that this example illustrates truncation error vividly.

On February 25, 1991, during the Gulf War, an American Patriot Missile battery in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, failed to track and intercept an incoming Iraqi Scud missile. The Scud struck an American Army barracks, killing 28 soldiers and injuring around 100 other people. A report of the General Accounting office, GAO/IMTEC-92-26, entitled Patriot Missile Defense: Software Problem Led to System Failure at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia reported on the cause of the failure.

It turns out that the cause was an inaccurate calculation of the time since boot due to computer arithmetic errors. Specifically, the time in tenths of second as measured by the system’s internal clock was multiplied by $1/10$ to produce the time in seconds. This calculation was performed using a 24 bit fixed point register. In particular, the value $1/10$ , which has a non-terminating binary expansion, was chopped at 24 bits after the radix point. The small chopping error, when multiplied by the large number giving the time in tenths of a second, led to a significant error.

Indeed, the Patriot battery had been up around 100 hours, and an easy calculation shows that the resulting time error due to the magnified chopping error was about $0.34$ seconds.

The number $1/10$ equals

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^4} + \frac{1}{2^5} +\frac{1}{2^8} + \frac{1}{2^9} + \frac{1}{2^{12}} + \frac{1}{2^{13}} + \dots$

In other words, the binary expansion of $1/10$ is

$0.0001100110011001100110011001100....$

Now the 24 bit register in the Patriot stored instead

$0.00011001100110011001100$

introducing an error of

$0.0000000000000000000000011001100...$ binary,

or about $0.000000095$ decimal. Multiplying by the number of tenths of a second in $100$ hours gives

$0.000000095 \times 100 \times 60 \times 60 \times 10=0.34$ .

A Scud travels at about $1,676$ meters per second, and so travels more than half a kilometer in this time. This was far enough that the incoming Scud was outside the “range gate” that the Patriot tracked.

Ironically, the fact that the bad time calculation had been improved in some parts of the code, but not all, contributed to the problem, since it meant that the inaccuracies did not cancel.

The following paragraph is excerpted from the GAO report.

The range gate’s prediction of where the Scud will next appear is a function of the Scud’s known velocity and the time of the last radar detection. Velocity is a real number that can be expressed as a whole number and a decimal (e.g., 3750.2563…miles per hour). Time is kept continuously by the system’s internal clock in tenths of seconds but is expressed as an integer or whole number (e.g., 32, 33, 34…). The longer the system has been running, the larger the number representing time. To predict where the Scud will next appear, both time and velocity must be expressed as real numbers. Because of the way the Patriot computer performs its calculations and the fact that its registers are only 24 bits long, the conversion of time from an integer to a real number cannot be any more precise than 24 bits. This conversion results in a loss of precision causing a less accurate time calculation. The effect of this inaccuracy on the range gate’s calculation is directly proportional to the target’s velocity and the length of the the system has been running. Consequently, performing the conversion after the Patriot has been running continuously for extended periods causes the range gate to shift away from the center of the target, making it less likely that the target, in this case a Scud, will be successfully intercepted.

A quick note of clarification. To verify the binary expansion of $1/10$ , we use the formula for an infinite geometric series.

$S = \displaystyle \left(\frac{1}{2^4} + \frac{1}{2^5}\right) +\left(\frac{1}{2^8} + \frac{1}{2^9}\right) + \left(\frac{1}{2^{12}} + \frac{1}{2^{13}}\right) + \dots$

$S = \displaystyle \frac{3}{2^5} + \frac{3}{2^9} + \frac{3}{2^{13}} + \dots$

$S = \displaystyle \frac{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2^5}}{\quad \displaystyle 1 - \frac{1}{2^4} \quad}$

$S = \displaystyle \frac{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32}}{\quad \displaystyle \frac{15}{16} \quad}$

$S = \displaystyle \frac{3}{32} \times \frac{16}{15}$

$S = \displaystyle \frac{1}{10}$

OK, that verifies the answer. Still, a curious student may wonder how one earth one could directly convert $1/10$ into binary without knowing the above series ahead of time. I will address this question in a future post.

Calculator errors: When close isn’t close enough (Part 1)

Far too often, students settle for a numerical approximation of a solution that can be found exactly. To give an extreme example, I have met quite intelligent college students who were convinced that $\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}$ was literally equal to $0.3$ .

That’s an extreme example of something that nearly all students do — round off a complicated answer to a fixed number of decimal places. In trigonometry, many students will compute $\sin \left( \cos^{-1} 0.3 \right)$ by plugging into a calculator and reporting the first three to six decimal places, like $0.95394$ . This is especially disappointing when there are accessible techniques for getting the exact answer (in this case, $\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{91}}{10}$ ) without using a calculator at all.

Unfortunately, even maintaining eight, nine, or ten decimal places of accuracy may not be good enough, as errors tend to propagate as a calculation continues. I’m sure every math teacher has an example where the correct answer was exactly $\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}$ but students returned an answer of $1.4927$ or $1.5031$ because of roundoff errors.

Students may ask, “What’s the big deal if I round off to five decimal places?” Here’s a simple example — which can be quickly demonstrated in a classroom — of how such truncation errors can propagate. I’m going to generate a recursive sequence. I will start with $\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}$ . Then I will alternate multiplying by $1000$ and then subtracting $333$ . More mathematically,

$a_1 = \displaystyle \frac{1}{3}$

$a_{2n} = 1000 a_{2n-1}$

$a_{2n+1} = a_{2n} - 333$ if $n > 0$

Here’s what happens exactly:

$1000 \times \displaystyle \frac{1}{3} = \displaystyle \frac{1000}{3} = \displaystyle 333\frac{1}{3} = 333.\overline{3}$

$\displaystyle 333\frac{1}{3} - 333 = \displaystyle \frac{1}{3} = 0.\overline{3}$

So, repeating these two steps, the sequence alternates between $\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}$ and $\displaystyle 333\frac{1}{3}$ .

But looks what happens if I calculate the first twelve terms of this sequence on a calculator.

Notice that by the time I reach $a_{11}$ , the terms of the sequence are negative, which is clearly incorrect.

So what happened?

This is a natural by-product of the finite storage of a calculator. The calculator doesn’t store infinitely many digits of $\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}$ in memory because a calculator doesn’t possess an infinite amount of memory. Instead, what gets stored is something like the terminating decimal $0.33333333333333$ , with about fourteen $3$ s. (Of course, only the first ten digits are actually displayed.)

So multiplying by $1000$ and then subtracting $333$ produces a new and different terminating decimal with three less $3$ s. Do this enough times, and you end up with negative numbers.

Full lesson plan: Platonic solids

Over the summer, I occasionally teach a small summer math class for my daughter and her friends around my dining room table. Mostly to preserve the memory for future years… and to provide a resource to my friends who wonder what their children are learning… I’ll write up the best of these lesson plans in full detail.

This was the first lesson that I taught to this audience: constructing the five regular polyhedra and inductively deriving Euler’s formula. This lesson plan is written in a 5E format — engage, explore, explain, elaborate, evaluate — which promotes inquiry-based learning and fosters student engagement.

Platonic Solids Lesson

Engaging students: Distinguishing between inductive and deductive reasoning

In my capstone class for future secondary math teachers, I ask my students to come up with ideas for engaging their students with different topics in the secondary mathematics curriculum. In other words, the point of the assignment was not to devise a full-blown lesson plan on this topic. Instead, I asked my students to think about three different ways of getting their students interested in the topic in the first place.

I plan to share some of the best of these ideas on this blog (after asking my students’ permission, of course).

This student submission again comes from my former student Caitlin Kirk. Her topic, from Geometry (and proof writing): distinguishing between inductive and deductive reasoning.

C. Culture: How has this topic appeared in pop culture (movies, TV, current music, video games, etc.)?

Inductive and deductive reasoning are often used on TV, radio, or in print in the form of advertising.

Deductive Reasoning

Man: What’s better, faster or slower?

All kids: Faster!

Man: And what’s fast?

Boy: My mom’s car and a cheetah.

Girl: A space ship.

Man: And what’s slow?

Boy: My grandma’s slow.

Man: Would you like her better if she was fast?

Boy: I bet she would like it if she was fast.

Man: Hmm, maybe give her some turbo boosters?

Boy: Or tape a cheetah to her back.

Man: Tape a cheetah to her back, it seems like you’ve thought about this before.

Narrator: It’s not complicated, faster is better. And iPhone 5 downloads fastest on AT&T 4G.

Deductive reasoning, which applies a general rule to specific examples, can be seen in advertisements like the AT&T commercial above. The kids establish in their conversation that faster things are better. The narrator says that iPhone 5 downloads fastest on AT&T 4G. Thus the viewer is left with the conclusion that AT&T 4G is better. This commercial’s deduction can be summed up as follows:

Faster things are better.

AT&T 4G is faster.

AT&T 4G is better. (conclusion)

Inductive Reasoning

Hotch: Sprees usually end in suicide. If he’s got nothing to live for, why wouldn’t he end it?

Reid: Because he’s not finished yet.

Reid: He’s obviously got displaced anger and took it out on his first victim.

Hotch: The stock boy represented someone. We need to know who. What about the other victims.

Reid: Defensive.

Hotch: Was he military?

Garcia: Negative.

Hotch: He’s lashing out. There’s got to be a reason. Rossi and Prentiss, dig through his house. Reid and JJ, get to the station. Morgan and I will take the crime scene. This guy’s got anger, endless targets and a gun. And from the looks of it, he just got started.

Inductive reasoning, which uses specific examples to make a general rule, can be seen frequently in episodes of TV shows or movies that involve crime scene investigation. The show Criminal Minds features a special unit of the FBI that profiles criminals. They do this by interviewing criminals who have already been caught and then inducing general rules about all criminals in order to catch the one they are looking for. Conversations among the profilers, like the one above, lead to inductive reasoning that can be summed up as follows:

He has nothing to live for.

He doesn’t want to commit suicide.

He wasn’t in the military.

He has displaced anger.

He has endless targets.

He has a gun.

He is a dangerous man who will hurt more people. (conclusion)

C. Culture: How has this topic appeared in high culture (art, classical music, theatre, etc.)?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

-The Declaration of Independence

July, 4, 1776

The Declaration of Independence was drafted as a deductive argument as to why the United States can and should be a country independent of Great Britain. Thomas Jefferson drafted the declaration with a series of premises leading to four different conclusions.

George III is a tyrant
The colonies have a right to be free and independent states
All political connections between Britain and the colonies should be dissolved
The “united states” have the right to do all things that free nations do

These four conclusions then serve as premises for the final conclusion that the United States is now an independent country. The declaration is a great example of deductive reasoning because it takes specific examples, such as the 27 grievances against the monarch, and makes logical conclusions, such as “George III is a tyrant,” from the examples. Its deduction can be plainly seen.

The Declaration of Independence is a great example of high culture to use in the classroom because every student who is educated in the United States will have some knowledge of this document. Therefore learning to analyze it “mathematically” in terms of deductive versus inductive reasoning, is a great engagement tool.

E. Technology: How can technology be used to effectively engage students with this topic?

Crime Scene Games & Deductive Reasoning: https://sites.google.com/a/wcsga.net/mock-trial/crime-scene-games-deductive-reasoning

This website contains links to several crime scene investigation games. Several of the games require students to collect clues, compare evidence, and then determine who is responsible for committing a given crime. These games are great for having students use their deductive skills. A couple of the other games require students to review given qualities of a criminal and inductively decide who the criminal in a scenario is based on these broad statements.

This website could be used to engage students easily. Having students play a game, especially one like these where they cannot pick out the mathematical skill they are using, is a great way to get students to abandon their potential distaste for a topic and be involved. After the students have completed a game and solved their crime, the teacher can smoothly transition into a geometrical lesson on inductive and deductive reasoning. The teacher will have activated the students’ knowledge of reasoning through a fun game. They will then be in a better position to learn a new, mathematical application of the reasoning they just used.

Engaging students: Finding the area of a square or rectangle

I plan to share some of the best of these ideas on this blog (after asking my students’ permission, of course).

This student submission comes from my former student Alyssa Dalling. Her topic, from Geometry: finding the area of a square or rectangle.

D. How have different cultures throughout time used this topic in their society?

For three thousand years, the Great Pyramid of Giza was the world’s tallest man-made structure. It is also the oldest structure of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. It was built by cutting huge stones into rectangles then placing each stone into place to create the base. It is believed by many that the pharaoh Khufu had his vizier Hemon create the design for the great Pyramids. What is amazing about the design of the Pyramid of Giza is that each of the four sides of the base has an average error of only 58 millimeters in length. Meaning the base is almost a perfect square!
It would be fun to start the engage with introducing the Pyramid of Giza and explaining the facts above. Then students would be given the dimensions of other pyramids where they would have to find the area of the base to see whether they created a square or rectangular pyramid. This would get them excited about this topic because students would be exploring math that has actually been used in real life.

The Mesoamericans also built pyramids with square and rectangular bases. The picture above is in a city known as Chechen Itza which is located in the Mexican state of Yucatan. It is called El Castillo, and also known as the Temple of Kukulkan. Unlike the Egyptian pyramids though, the Mayan pyramids were usually meant as steps to get to a temple on top. The pyramids consisted of several square bases stacked onto each other with steps up each side. El Castillo consists of nine square terraces each about 8.4 feet tall. The main base of the pyramid is approximately 55.3 meters (181 feet).
What would be fun to do is have students find the area of each level and compare it to all the levels on the pyramid. I feel students would have fun seeing just how big this type of structure is and understanding the planning it took to create the different levels in this pyramid.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramids#Nigeria

B. How can this topic be used in your students’ future courses in mathematics or science?

Finding the area of squares and rectangles will be used a lot in Algebra and Algebra II. One example in Algebra is when students start solving for unknown variables. A student would be asked to find the area of a square when they have two unknown sides.
The following is an example engage problem students would use the finding the area of a square or rectangle to solve.

Principal Smith has decided the school needs a new practice basketball court. The current practice court is a square with an area of 144 square feet. She wants the new court to be a rectangle twice as long as it is wide. Find the length of all the sides of both the old court and the new court and find the area of the new court.

$x^2 = 144$

So $x = 12$

Then $x(2x) = 2x^2 = 2(12)^2 = 288$

The square court has sides of 12.

The rectangular court has sides of 12×24 and an area of 288 square feet.

Engaging students: Equation of a circle

I plan to share some of the best of these ideas on this blog (after asking my students’ permission, of course).

This student submission comes from my former student Alyssa Dalling. Her topic, from Precalculus: the equation of a circle.

A. How could you as a teacher create an activity or project that involves your topic?

A fun way to engage students and also introduce the standard form of an equation of a circle is the following:

Start by separating the class into groups of 2 or 3
Pass each group a specific amount of flashcards. (Each group will have the same flashcards)
Each flashcard has a picture of a graphed circle and the equation of that circle in standard form
The students will work together to figure out how the pictures of the circle relate to the equation

This will help students understand how different aspects of a circle relate to its standard form equation. The following is an example of a flashcard that could be passed out.

Source: http://www.mathwarehouse.com/geometry/circle/equation-of-a-circle.php

C. How has this topic appeared in high culture (art, classical music, theatre, etc.)?

Circles have been used through history in many different works of art. One such type is called a tessellation. The word Tessellate means to cover a plane with a pattern in such a way as to leave no region uncovered. So, a tessellation is created when a shape or shapes are repeated over and over again. The pictures above show just a few examples of how circles are used in different types of art. A good way to engage students would be to show them a few examples of tessellations using circles.

Source: http://mathforum.org/sum95/suzanne/whattess.html

E. How can technology be used to effectively engage students with this topic?

Khan Academy has a really fun resource for using equations to graph circles. At the beginning of class, the teacher could allow students to play around with this program. It allows students to see an equation of a circle in standard form then they would graph the circle. It gives hints as well as the answer when students are ready. The good thing about this is that even if a student goes straight to the answer, they are still trying to identify the connection between the equation of the circle and the answer Khan Academy shows.

http://www.khanacademy.org/math/trigonometry/conics_precalc/circles-tutorial-precalc/e/graphing_circles

Square roots with a calculator (Part 11)

This is the last in a series of posts about square roots and other roots, hopefully providing a deeper look at an apparently simple concept. However, in this post, we discuss how calculators are programmed to compute square roots quickly.

Today’s movie clip, therefore, is set in modern times:

So how do calculators find square roots anyway? First, we recognize that $\sqrt{a}$ is a root of the polynomial $f(x) = x^2 - a$ . Therefore, Newton’s method (or the Newton-Raphson method) can be used to find the root of this function. Newton’s method dictates that we begin with an initial guess $x_1$ and then iteratively find the next guesses using the recursively defined sequence

$x_{n+1} = x_n - \displaystyle \frac{f(x_n)}{f'(x_n)}$

For the case at hand, since $f'(x) = 2x$ , we may write

$x_{n+1} = x_n - \displaystyle \frac{x_n^2 -a}{2 x_n}$ ,

which reduces to

$x_{n+1} = \displaystyle \frac{2x_n^2 - (x_n^2 -a)}{2 x_n} = \frac{x_n^2 + a}{2x_n} = \frac{1}{2} \left( x_n + \frac{a}{x_n} \right)$

This algorithm can be programmed using C++, Python, etc.. For pedagogical purposes, however, I’ve found that a spreadsheet like Microsoft Excel is a good way to sell this to students. In the spreadsheet below, I use Excel to find $\sqrt{2000}$ . In cell A1, I entered $1000$ as a first guess for $\sqrt{2000}$ . Notice that this is a really lousy first guess! Then, in cell A2, I typed the formula

=1/2*(A1+2000/A1)

So Excel computes

$x_2 = \frac{1}{2} \left( x_1 + \displaystyle \frac{2000}{x_1} \right) = \frac{1}{2} \left( 1000 + \displaystyle \frac{2000}{1000} \right) = 501$ .

Then I filled down that formula into cells A3 through A16.

Notice that this algorithm quickly converges to $\sqrt{2000}$ , even though the initial guess was terrible. After 7 steps, the answer is only correct to 2 significant digits ( $45$ ). After 8 steps, the answer is correct to 4 significant digits ( $44.72$ ). On the 9th step, the answer is correct to 9 significant digits ( $44.7213595$ ).

Indeed, there’s a theorem that essentially states that, when this algorithm converges, the number of correct digits basically doubles with each successive step. That’s a lot better than the methods shown at the start of this series of posts which only produced one extra digit with each step.

This algorithm works for finding $k$ th roots as well as square roots. Since $\sqrt[k]{a}$ is a root of $f(x) = x^k - a$ , Newton’s method reduces to

$x_{n+1} = x_n - \displaystyle \frac{x_n^k - a}{k x_n^{k-1}} = \displaystyle \frac{(k-1) x_n^k + a}{k x_n^{k-1}} = \displaystyle \frac{k-1}{k} x_k + \frac{1}{k} \cdot \frac{a}{x_n}$ ,

which reduces to the above sequence if $k =2$ .

See also this Wikipedia page for further historical information as well as discussion about how the above recursive sequence can be obtained without calculus.