The 11-10-11 Triangle

Today’s date, 11-10-11, reminded me to re-visit a recent post that posed the question “Which triangle is more equilateral:  the 10-10-11 triangle, or the 10-11-11 triangle?”

The original post elicited lots of great comments from readers, who weighed in on what they thought the question meant and how they might go about trying to answer it.  I offered one approach, and an answer to the question, in this follow up post.

As a math teacher, there are many reasons I try to create problems like this.  Here are a few that I think are important.

First and foremost, in order to address this question, a significant amount of thought must be put into deciding what the question means.  This process involves analysis, synthesis, reflection, and ideally discussion, all of which will be substantially mathematical in nature.

A second, related, virtue is that there is no obviously correct interpretation of what this question means.  Mathematics is often viewed in stark terms:  answers are either right or wrong.  But the certitude of mathematics comes only after we agree on mathematical models for our given problem.  There is often great debate about what those models should look like; the history of mathematics is full of such debate.

Problems like this one invite students into the modelling process, where they can discuss and debate the validity of various approaches.  Moreover, the problem allows solvers to create multiple different models to explore, compare, and contrast.  And in the end, we can pose and explore meta-mathematical question like “Which model most closely aligns with our intuitions?” and “Which model is the most useful?”

Lastly, this problem demonstrates one role creativity plays in mathematics.  A simple response to the question, one I heard many times, is “Neither of these triangles are equilateral.  They are both equally unequilateral.”  Given our rigid definition of what equilateralmeans, this response is technically correct.  But by relaxing our ideas about equilateral, by allowing ourselves to ponder what the phrase “more equilateral” might mean, by thinking creatively about what kinds of questions we can ask, we create an opportunity to explore, and possibly uncover, some new mathematical ideas.

Biographies of Female Mathematicians

This is another nice resource provided by the School of Math and Statistics at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland:  a collection of biographies of female mathematicians.

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Indexes/Women.html

There are around 150 mathematicians profiled here.  Each profile consists of a biography, a list of references, and links to other internet resources on the individual.

Among those profiled here are Maria Agnesi (of the Witch of Agnesi cubic curve), Emmy Noether (of Noetherian Ring fame), and Mary Ellen Rudin (topologist, and wife of Walter Rudin, a noted figure in Real Analysis).

A general collection of biographies is also available, as well as a fun-to-browse library of curves.

Mathematical Art and Architecture

The website of BitArtWorks contains a wealth of mathematical art.

http://www.BitArtWorks.com

There are many examples of art in various categories, such as paths, strange attractors, and sticks, as seen here at the right.

There are also several series of spirolaterals.  A spirolateral is a figure formed through a repeated process of straight line segments and fixed angles.

Plenty of material here to admire and inspire!

A Mathematical Tribute to Richard Geller

Richard Geller, a  longtime math teacher and math team coach at Stuyvesant High School, recently passed away.  I only knew Richard professionally, but it was easy to see that he was a good man and a good teacher.  His dedication to his students, his school, and the math team was always apparent.

At a math circle one evening, Richard shared with me a lovely solution to a challenging problem that I’ll never forget.  I share it here as a tribute to him.

There are lots of famous concurrencies in triangles.  The medians of a triangle all intersect at the centroid; the angle bisectors at the incenter; and the perpendicular bisectors at the circumcenter.  We say that each set of lines is concurrent.

A less intuitive concurrency is that of a triangle’s altitudes, which all intersect at the triangle’s orthocenter.  It’s harder to see because you often have to rethink your notion of  altitude to see them intersect.

Not only is it harder to see the concurrency of the altitudes, but it’s harder to prove it as well.  There are many well-known methods, like using Ceva’s Theorem or areas, but they are rather complicated.  To me, the orthocenter was never as accessible as the circumcenter, incenter, or centroid.  Until Richard showed me this proof.

Start with an ordinary triangle.  We want to show that the altitudes of this triangle all intersect at a single point.

First, we create a new triangle by rotating three copies of our original around the midpoints of each side.  What we are doing is creating a new triangle whose medial triangle is our original triangle.

Now the magic:  construct the perpendicular bisectors of the new triangle.

The amazing fact here is that the perpendicular bisectors of the new triangle are the altitudes of the original triangle!  As long as we know that the perpendicular bisectors of any triangle are concurrent (which is fairly easy to prove), we know that the altitudes of any triangle are concurrent, too!

Richard didn’t invent this theorem or this proof, but he taught it to me, and for that I’ll be forever grateful.  When I share it with students, I think of him.  And from now on, when I show students the Geller Technique, I’ll wrap it up with one of Richard’s favorite phrases:  Math is #1!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: