# My Favorite One-Liners: Part 50

In this series, I’m compiling some of the quips and one-liners that I’ll use with my students to hopefully make my lessons more memorable for them.

Here’s today’s one-liner: “To prove that two things are equal, show that the difference is zero.” This principle is surprisingly handy in the secondary mathematics curriculum. For example, it is the basis for the proof of the Mean Value Theorem, one of the most important theorems in calculus that serves as the basis for curve sketching and the uniqueness of antiderivatives (up to a constant).

And I have a great story that goes along with this principle, from 30 years ago.

I forget the exact question out of Apostol’s calculus, but there was some equation that I had to prove on my weekly homework assignment that, for the life of me, I just couldn’t get. And for no good reason, I had a flash of insight: subtract the left- and right-hand sides. While it was very difficult to turn the left side into the right side, it turned out that, for this particular problem, was very easy to show that the difference was zero. (Again, I wish I could remember exactly which question this was so that I could show this technique and this particular example to my own students.)

So I finished my homework, and I went outside to a local basketball court and worked on my jump shot.

Later that week, I went to class, and there was a great buzz in the air. It took ten seconds to realize that everyone was up in arms about how to do this particular problem. Despite the intervening 30 years, I remember the scene as clear as a bell. I can still hear one of my classmates ask me, “Quintanilla, did you get that one?”

I said with great pride, “Yeah, I got it.” And I showed them my work.

And, either before then or since then, I’ve never heard the intensity of the cussing that followed.

Truth be told, probably the only reason that I remember this story from my adolescence is that I usually was the one who had to ask for help on the hardest homework problems in that Honors Calculus class. This may have been the one time in that entire two-year calculus sequence that I actually figured out a homework problem that had stumped everybody else.

# My Favorite One-Liners: Part 46

In this series, I’m compiling some of the quips and one-liners that I’ll use with my students to hopefully make my lessons more memorable for them. Today’s one-liner is something I’ll use after completing some monumental calculation. For example, if $z, w \in \mathbb{C}$, the proof of the triangle inequality is no joke, as it requires the following as lemmas:

• $\overline{z + w} = \overline{z} + \overline{w}$
• $\overline{zw} = \overline{z} \cdot \overline{w}$
• $z + \overline{z} = 2 \hbox{Re}(z)$
• $|\hbox{Re}(z)| \le |z|$
• $|z|^2 = z \cdot \overline{z}$
• $\overline{~\overline{z}~} = z$
• $|\overline{z}| = |z|$
• $|z \cdot w| = |z| \cdot |w|$

With all that as prelude, we have

$|z+w|^2 = (z + w) \cdot \overline{z+w}$

$= (z+w) (\overline{z} + \overline{w})$

$= z \cdot \overline{z} + z \cdot \overline{w} + \overline{z} \cdot w + w \cdot \overline{w}$

$= |z|^2 + z \cdot \overline{w} + \overline{z} \cdot w + |w|^2$

$= |z|^2 + z \cdot \overline{w} + \overline{z} \cdot \overline{~\overline{w}~} + |w|^2$

$= |z|^2 + z \cdot \overline{w} + \overline{z \cdot \overline{w}} + |w|^2$

$= |z|^2 + 2 \hbox{Re}(z \cdot \overline{w}) + |w|^2$

$\le |z|^2 + 2 |z \cdot \overline{w}| + |w|^2$

$= |z|^2 + 2 |z| \cdot |\overline{w}| + |w|^2$

$= |z|^2 + 2 |z| \cdot |w| + |w|^2$

$= (|z| + |w|)^2$

In other words,

$|z+w|^2 \le (|z| + |w|)^2$.

Since $|z+w|$ and $|z| + |w|$ are both positive, we can conclude that

$|z+w| \le |z| + |w|$.

QED

In my experience, that’s a lot for students to absorb all at once when seeing it for the first time. So I try to celebrate this accomplishment:

Anybody ever watch “Home Improvement”? This is a Binford 6100 “more power” mathematical proof. Grunt with me: RUH-RUH-RUH-RUH!!!

# My Favorite One-Liners: Part 43

In this series, I’m compiling some of the quips and one-liners that I’ll use with my students to hopefully make my lessons more memorable for them. q Q

Years ago, my first class of students decided to call me “Dr. Q” instead of “Dr. Quintanilla,” and the name has stuck ever since. And I’ll occasionally use this to my advantage when choosing names of variables. For example, here’s a typical proof by induction involving divisibility.

Theorem: If $n \ge 1$ is a positive integer, then $5^n - 1$ is a multiple of 4.

Proof. By induction on $n$.

$n = 1$: $5^1 - 1 = 4$, which is clearly a multiple of 4.

$n$: Assume that $5^n - 1$ is a multiple of 4.

At this point in the calculation, I ask how I can write this statement as an equation. Eventually, somebody will volunteer that if $5^n-1$ is a multiple of 4, then $5^n-1$ is equal to 4 times something. At which point, I’ll volunteer:

Yes, so let’s name that something with a variable. Naturally, we should choose something important, something regal, something majestic… so let’s choose the letter $q$. (Groans and laughter.) It’s good to be the king.

So the proof continues:

$n$: Assume that $5^n - 1 = 4q$, where $q$ is an integer.

$n+1$. We wish to show that $5^{n+1} - 1$ is also a multiple of 4.

At this point, I’ll ask my class how we should write this. Naturally, I give them no choice in the matter:

We wish to show that $5^{n+1} - 1 = 4Q$, where $Q$ is some (possibly different) integer.

Then we continue the proof:

$5^{n+1} - 1 = 5^n 5^1 - 1$

$= 5 \times 5^n - 1$

$= 5 \times (4q + 1) - 1$ by the induction hypothesis

$= 20q + 5 - 1$

$= 20q + 4$

$= 4(5q + 1)$.

So if we let $Q = 5q +1$, then $5^{n+1} - 1 = 4Q$, where $Q$ is an integer because $q$ is also an integer.

QED

On the flip side of braggadocio, the formula for the binomial distribution is

$P(X = k) = \displaystyle {n \choose k} p^k q^{n-k}$,

where $X$ is the number of successes in $n$ independent and identically distributed trials, where $p$ represents the probability of success on any one trial, and (to my shame) $q$ is the probability of failure.

# My Favorite One-Liners: Part 13

In this series, I’m compiling some of the quips and one-liners that I’ll use with my students to hopefully make my lessons more memorable for them.

Here’s a story that I’ll tell my students when, for the first time in a semester, I’m about to use a previous theorem to make a major step in proving a theorem. For example, I may have just finished the proof of

$\hbox{Var}(X+Y) = \hbox{Var}(X) + \hbox{Var}(Y)$,

where $X$ and $Y$ are independent random variables, and I’m about to prove that

$\hbox{Var}(X-Y) = \hbox{Var}(X) + \hbox{Var}(Y)$.

While this can be done by starting from scratch and using the definition of variance, the easiest thing to do is to write

$\hbox{Var}(X-Y) = \hbox{Var}(X+[-Y]) = \hbox{Var}(X) + \hbox{Var}(-Y)$,

thus using the result of the first theorem to prove the next theorem.

And so I have a little story that I tell students about this principle. I think I was 13 when I first heard this one, and obviously it’s stuck with me over the years.

At MIT, there’s a two-part entrance exam to determine who will be the engineers and who will be the mathematicians. For the first part of the exam, students are led one at a time into a kitchen. There’s an empty pot on the floor, a sink, and a stove. The assignment is to boil water. Everyone does exactly the same thing: they fill the pot with water, place it on the stove, and then turn the stove on. Everyone passes.

For the second part of the exam, students are led one at a time again into the kitchen. This time, there’s a pot full of water sitting on the stove. The assignment, once again, is to boil water. Nearly everyone simply turns on the stove. These students are led off to become engineers. The mathematicians are ones who take the pot off the stove, dump the water into the sink, and place the empty pot on the floor… thereby reducing to the original problem, which had already been solved.

# Engaging students: Completing the square

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 comes from my former student Deborah Duddy. Her topic, from Algebra: completing the square.

What interesting word problems using this topic can your students do now?

Applying what is learned in the class is very vital in fact it is a process TEKS that teachers need to use to maximize student’s understanding. “When are we going to use this in real life?” and “Why do we need to know this?” are questions that students ask on a daily basis. Connecting material to the real world helps engage students and develops critical thinking. Describing a path of a ball, how far an item can be tossed in the air and how to maximize profits for a company are just some examples of how quadratics can be used in the real world.

One important event happens during high school; students receive their driver’s license. In their written driver’s test, students must know the distance needed to stop a car at certain speed limits. Using an example like the one below will be interesting for the students and help connect lesson material and real life.

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

To begin class and get students involved with their learning, the class will participate in an activity. Each pair of students will have two different cards such as (x+2)^2 and x^2+4x+4, and any variations of these problems. They can only look at the (x+2)^2 card. Students will work out the problem on paper. Students will be asked to remember how to find the area of a square and then set up a square with the dimensions matching the first card. From there, the pairs would use algebra tiles (after knowing what each tile stands for) and attempt to “complete the square”. This activity will be used as an engage and a beginning explore for the students. This activity will help students see completing a square geometrically.

How does this topic extend what your students should have learned in previous courses?

Completing the square is another way of solving/factoring the equation. The process of completing the square is to turn a basic quadratic   equation of ax^2 + bx + c = 0 into a(x-h)^2 + k = 0 where (h,k) is  the vertex of the parabola. Therefore this process is very beneficial because it helps students graph the quadratic equation given. In order to find h and k, students should be able to factor, square a term, find the square root and manipulate the equation.

In solving the equation by completing the square is to subtract the constant off the left side and onto the right side. Then students take the coefficient off the x-term divide it then square it. Students then add this number to both sides of the equations. By simplifying the right side of the equation, students give the perfect square. Then solve the equation left by taking the square root of both sides and determining x.

References:

http://www.classzone.com/eservices/home/pdf/student/LA205EBD.pdf

# What I Learned from Reading “Gamma: Exploring Euler’s Constant” by Julian Havil: Part 18

The Riemann Hypothesis (see here, here, and here) is perhaps the most famous (and also most important) unsolved problems in mathematics. Gamma (page 207) provides a way of writing down this conjecture in a form that only uses notation that is commonly taught in high school:

If $\displaystyle \sum_{r=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^r}{r^a} \cos(b \ln r) = 0$ and $\displaystyle \sum_{r=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^r}{r^a} \sin(b \ln r) = 0$ for some pair of real numbers $a$ and $b$, then $a = \frac{1}{2}$.

As noted in the book, “It seems extraordinary that the most famous unsolved problem in the whole of mathematics can be phrased so that it involves the simplest of mathematical ideas: summation, trigonometry, logarithms, and [square roots].”

When I researching for my series of posts on conditional convergence, especially examples related to the constant $\gamma$, the reference Gamma: Exploring Euler’s Constant by Julian Havil kept popping up. Finally, I decided to splurge for the book, expecting a decent popular account of this number. After all, I’m a professional mathematician, and I took a graduate level class in analytic number theory. In short, I don’t expect to learn a whole lot when reading a popular science book other than perhaps some new pedagogical insights.

Boy, was I wrong. As I turned every page, it seemed I hit a new factoid that I had not known before.

In this series, I’d like to compile some of my favorites — while giving the book a very high recommendation.

# What I Learned from Reading “Gamma: Exploring Euler’s Constant” by Julian Havil: Part 17

Let $\pi(n)$ denote the number of positive prime numbers that are less than or equal to $n$. The prime number theorem, one of the most celebrated results in analytic number theory, states that

$\pi(x) \approx \displaystyle \frac{x}{\ln x}$.

This is a very difficult result to prove. However, Gamma (page 172) provides a heuristic argument that suggests that this answer might be halfway reasonable.

Consider all of the integers between $1$ and $x$.

• About half of these numbers won’t be divisible by 2.
• Of those that aren’t divisible by 2, about two-thirds won’t be divisible by 3. (This isn’t exactly correct, but it’s good enough for heuristics.)
• Of those that aren’t divisible by 2 and 3, about four-fifths won’t be divisible by 5.
• And so on.

If we repeat for all primes less than or equal to $\sqrt{x}$, we can conclude that the number of prime numbers less than or equal to $x$ is approximately

$\pi(x) \approx \displaystyle x \prod_{p \le \sqrt{x}} \left(1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)$.

From this point, we can use Mertens product formula

$\displaystyle \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{\ln n} \prod_{p \le n} \left(1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)^{-1} = e^\gamma$

to conclude that

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{\ln n} \prod_{p \le n} \left(1 - \frac{1}{p} \right) \approx \displaystyle \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{\ln n}$

if $n$ is large. Therefore,

$\pi(x) \approx x \displaystyle \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{\ln \sqrt{x}} = 2 e^{-\gamma} \displaystyle \frac{x}{\ln x}$.

Though not a formal proof, it’s a fast way to convince students that the unusual fraction $\displaystyle \frac{x}{\ln x}$ ought to appear someplace in the prime number theorem.

When I researching for my series of posts on conditional convergence, especially examples related to the constant $\gamma$, the reference Gamma: Exploring Euler’s Constant by Julian Havil kept popping up. Finally, I decided to splurge for the book, expecting a decent popular account of this number. After all, I’m a professional mathematician, and I took a graduate level class in analytic number theory. In short, I don’t expect to learn a whole lot when reading a popular science book other than perhaps some new pedagogical insights.

Boy, was I wrong. As I turned every page, it seemed I hit a new factoid that I had not known before.

In this series, I’d like to compile some of my favorites — while giving the book a very high recommendation.

# What I Learned from Reading “Gamma: Exploring Euler’s Constant” by Julian Havil: Part 16

Let $\pi(n)$ denote the number of positive prime numbers that are less than or equal to $n$. The prime number theorem, one of the most celebrated results in analytic number theory, states that

$\pi(x) \approx \displaystyle \frac{x}{\ln x}$.

This is a very difficult result to prove. However, Gamma (page 172) provides a heuristic argument that suggests that this answer might be halfway reasonable.

Consider all of the integers between $1$ and $x$.

• About half of these numbers won’t be divisible by 2.
• Of those that aren’t divisible by 2, about two-thirds won’t be divisible by 3. (This isn’t exactly correct, but it’s good enough for heuristics.)
• Of those that aren’t divisible by 2 and 3, about four-fifths won’t be divisible by 5.
• And so on.

If we repeat for all primes less than or equal to $\sqrt{x}$, we can conclude that the number of prime numbers less than or equal to $x$ is approximately

$\pi(x) \approx \displaystyle x \prod_{p \le \sqrt{x}} \left(1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)$.

From this point, we can use Mertens product formula

$\displaystyle \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{\ln n} \prod_{p \le n} \left(1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)^{-1} = e^\gamma$

to conclude that

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{\ln n} \prod_{p \le n} \left(1 - \frac{1}{p} \right) \approx \displaystyle \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{\ln n}$

if $n$ is large. Therefore,

$\pi(x) \approx x \displaystyle \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{\ln \sqrt{x}} = 2 e^{-\gamma} \displaystyle \frac{x}{\ln x}$.

Though not a formal proof, it’s a fast way to convince students that the unusual fraction $\displaystyle \frac{x}{\ln x}$ ought to appear someplace in the prime number theorem.

When I researching for my series of posts on conditional convergence, especially examples related to the constant $\gamma$, the reference Gamma: Exploring Euler’s Constant by Julian Havil kept popping up. Finally, I decided to splurge for the book, expecting a decent popular account of this number. After all, I’m a professional mathematician, and I took a graduate level class in analytic number theory. In short, I don’t expect to learn a whole lot when reading a popular science book other than perhaps some new pedagogical insights.

Boy, was I wrong. As I turned every page, it seemed I hit a new factoid that I had not known before.

In this series, I’d like to compile some of my favorites — while giving the book a very high recommendation.

# Predicate Logic and Popular Culture: Index

I’m doing something that I should have done a long time ago: collecting a series of posts into one single post. The following links comprised my series on using examples from popular culture to illustrate principles of predicate logic. My experiences teaching these ideas to my discrete mathematics students led to my recent publication (John Quintanilla, “Name That Tune: Teaching Predicate Logic with Popular Culture,” MAA Focus, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 27-28, August/September 2016).

Unlike other series that I’ve made, this series didn’t have a natural chronological order. So I’ll list these by concept illustrated from popular logic.

Logical and $\land$:

• Part 1: “You Belong To Me,” by Taylor Swift
• Part 21: “Do You Hear What I Hear,” covered by Whitney Houston
• Part 31: The Godfather (1972)
• Part 45: The Blues Brothers (1980)
• Part 53: “What Does The Fox Say,” by Ylvis
• Part 54: “Billie Jean,” by Michael Jackson

Logical or $\lor$:

• Part 1: Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Logical negation $\lnot$:

• Part 1: Richard Nixon
• Part 32: “Satisfaction!”, by the Rolling Stones
• Part 39: “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together,” by Taylor Swift

Logical implication $\Rightarrow$:

• Part 1: Field of Dreams (1989), and also “Roam,” by the B-52s
• Part 2: “Word Crimes,” by Weird Al Yankovic
• Part 7: “I’ll Be There For You,” by The Rembrandts (Theme Song from Friends)
• Part 43: “Kiss,” by Prince
• Part 50: “I’m Still A Guy,” by Brad Paisley
• Part 76: “You’re Never Fully Dressed Without A Smile,” from Annie.

For all $\forall$:

• Part 3: Casablanca (1942)
• Part 4: A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
• Part 34: “California Girls,” by The Beach Boys
• Part 37: Fellowship of the Ring, by J. R. R. Tolkien
• Part 49: “Buy Me A Boat,” by Chris Janson
• Part 57: “Let It Go,” by Idina Menzel and from Frozen (2013)
• Part 65: “Stars and Stripes Forever,” by John Philip Sousa.
• Part 68: “Love Yourself,” by Justin Bieber.
• Part 69: “I Will Always Love You,” by Whitney Houston.
• Part 74: “Faithfully,” by Journey.
• Part 79: “We’re Not Gonna Take It Anymore,” by Twisted Sister.
• Part 87: “Hungry Heart,” by Bruce Springsteen.

For all and implication:

• Part 8 and Part 9: “What Makes You Beautiful,” by One Direction
• Part 13: “Safety Dance,” by Men Without Hats
• Part 16: The Fellowship of the Ring, by J. R. R. Tolkien
• Part 24 : “The Chipmunk Song,” by The Chipmunks
• Part 55: The Quiet Man (1952)
• Part 62: “All My Exes Live In Texas,” by George Strait.
• Part 70: “Wannabe,” by the Spice Girls.
• Part 72: “You Shook Me All Night Long,” by AC/DC.
• Part 81: “Ascot Gavotte,” from My Fair Lady
• Part 82: “Sharp Dressed Man,” by ZZ Top.
• Part 86: “I Could Have Danced All Night,” from My Fair Lady.

There exists $\exists$:

• Part 10: “Unanswered Prayers,” by Garth Brooks
• Part 15: “Stand by Your Man,” by Tammy Wynette (also from The Blues Brothers)
• Part 36: Hamlet, by William Shakespeare
• Part 57: “Let It Go,” by Idina Menzel and from Frozen (2013)

Existence and uniqueness:

• Part 14: “Girls Just Want To Have Fun,” by Cyndi Lauper
• Part 20: “All I Want for Christmas Is You,” by Mariah Carey
• Part 23: “All I Want for Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth,” covered by The Chipmunks
• Part 29: “You’re The One That I Want,” from Grease
• Part 30: “Only You,” by The Platters
• Part 35: “Hound Dog,” by Elvis Presley
• Part 73: “Dust In The Wind,” by Kansas.
• Part 75: “Happy Together,” by The Turtles.
• Part 77: “All She Wants To Do Is Dance,” by Don Henley.
• Part 90: “All You Need Is Love,” by The Beatles.

DeMorgan’s Laws:

• Part 5: “Never Gonna Give You Up,” by Rick Astley
• Part 28: “We’re Breaking Free,” from High School Musical (2006)

Simple nested predicates:

• Part 6: “Everybody Loves Somebody Sometime,” by Dean Martin
• Part 25: “Every Valley Shall Be Exalted,” from Handel’s Messiah
• Part 33: “Heartache Tonight,” by The Eagles
• Part 38: “Everybody Needs Somebody To Love,” by Wilson Pickett and covered in The Blues Brothers (1980)
• Part 46: “Mean,” by Taylor Swift
• Part 56: “Turn! Turn! Turn!” by The Byrds
• Part 63: P. T. Barnum.
• Part 64: Abraham Lincoln.
• Part 66: “Somewhere,” from West Side Story.
• Part 71: “Hold On,” by Wilson Philips.
• Part 80: Liverpool FC.
• Part 84: “If You Leave,” by OMD.

Maximum or minimum of a function:

• Part 12: “For the First Time in Forever,” by Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel and from Frozen (2013)
• Part 19: “Tennessee Christmas,” by Amy Grant
• Part 22: “The Most Wonderful Time of the Year,” by Andy Williams
• Part 48: “I Got The Boy,” by Jana Kramer
• Part 60: “I Loved Her First,” by Heartland
• Part 92: “Anything You Can Do,” from Annie Get Your Gun.

Somewhat complicated examples:

• Part 11 : “Friends in Low Places,” by Garth Brooks
• Part 27 : “There is a Castle on a Cloud,” from Les Miserables
• Part 41: Winston Churchill
• Part 44: Casablanca (1942)
• Part 51: “Everybody Wants to Rule the World,” by Tears For Fears
• Part 58: “Fifteen,” by Taylor Swift
• Part 59: “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together,” by Taylor Swift
• Part 61: “Style,” by Taylor Swift
• Part 67: “When I Think Of You,” by Janet Jackson.
• Part 78: “Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us Now,” by Starship.
• Part 89: “No One Is Alone,” from Into The Woods.

Fairly complicated examples:

• Part 17 : Richard Nixon
• Part 47: “Homegrown,” by Zac Brown Band
• Part 52: “If Ever You’re In My Arms Again,” by Peabo Bryson
• Part 83: “Something Good,” from The Sound of Music.
• Part 85: “Joy To The World,” by Three Dog Night.
• Part 88: “Like A Rolling Stone,” by Bob Dylan.
• Part 91: “Into the Fire,” from The Scarlet Pimpernel.

Really complicated examples:

• Part 18: “Sleigh Ride,” covered by Pentatonix
• Part 26: “All the Gold in California,” by the Gatlin Brothers
• Part 40: “One of These Things Is Not Like the Others,” from Sesame Street
• Part 42: “Take It Easy,” by The Eagles

# Lessons from teaching gifted elementary school students (Part 8a)

Every so often, I’ll informally teach a class of gifted elementary-school students. I greatly enjoy interacting with them, and I especially enjoy the questions they pose. Often these children pose questions that no one else will think about, and answering these questions requires a surprisingly depth of mathematical knowledge.

Here’s a question I once received, in the students’ original handwriting:

Here’s the explanation that my students told me (but didn’t write down): they wanted me to add adjacent numbers on the bottom row to produce the number on the next row, building upward until I reached the apex of the triangle. For example, the lower-left portion of the triangle would build like this (since 1+4=5, 4+9=13, 9+16=25, etc.):

56

18   38

5    13    25

1     4     9     16

Then, after I reached the top number, they wanted me to take the square root of that number. (Originally, they wanted me to first multiply by 80 before taking the square root, but evidently they decided to take it easy on me.)

And, just to see if I could do it, they wanted me to do all of this without using a calculator. But they were nice and allowed me to use pencil and paper.

And I produced the answer in less than five minutes.

I’ll reveal how I got the answer so quickly in this series. In the meantime, I’ll leave a thought bubble if you’d like to think about it on your own.