Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    The Gentle Art of Mathematics
    The Gentle Art of Mathematics
    The Gentle Art of Mathematics
    Ebook265 pages3 hours

    The Gentle Art of Mathematics

    By Dan Pedoe

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    This lighthearted work uses a variety of practical applications and puzzles to take a look at today's mathematical trends. In nine chapters, Professor Pedoe covers mathematical games, chance and choice, automatic thinking, and more.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherDover Publications
    Release dateDec 27, 2012
    ISBN9780486164069
    The Gentle Art of Mathematics

    Related to The Gentle Art of Mathematics

    Titles in the series (100)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Mathematics For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • UNLIMITED

      The Math That Takes Newton Into the Quantum World

      Feb 28, 2019

      In my 50s, too old to become a real expert, I have finally fallen in love with algebraic geometry. As the name suggests, this is the study of geometry using algebra. Around 1637, René Descartes laid the groundwork for this subject by taking a plane,

      9 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Twin Prime Hero: Rags, riches, and fame in mathematics.

      Dec 29, 2016

      Yitang “Tom” Zhang spent the seven years following the completion of his Ph.D. in mathematics floating between Kentucky and Queens, working for a chain of Subway restaurants, and doing odd accounting work. Now he is on a lecture tour that includes st

      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Math After COVID-19

      Apr 28, 2020

      Math After COVID-19
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Math’s Beautiful Monsters: How a destructive idea paved the way for modern math.

      Apr 3, 2014

      Much like its creator, Karl Weierstrass’ monster came from nowhere. After four years at university spent drinking and fencing, Weierstrass had left empty handed. He eventually took a teaching course and spent most of the 1850s as a schoolteacher in B

      10 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      How to Make Sense of Contradictory Science Papers

      Jun 2, 2021

      The science you can come across today can often appear to be full of contradictory claims. One study tells you red wine is good for your heart; another tells you it is not. Over the past year, COVID-19 research has offered conflicting reports about t

      6 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      How I Rewired My Brain to Become Fluent in Math: Sorry, education reformers, it’s still memorization and repetition we need.

      Oct 2, 2014

      I was a wayward kid who grew up on the literary side of life, treating math and science as if they were pustules from the plague. So it’s a little strange how I’ve ended up now—someone who dances daily with triple integrals, Fourier transforms, and t

      11 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Myth of 'I'm Bad at Math'

      Oct 28, 2013

      The Myth of 'I'm Bad at Math'
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Euclid as Founding Father: We hold this mathematics to be self evident.

      Oct 13, 2016

      Despite the man’s awkward gestures, unkempt hair, and ill-fitting suit, it was one of the most extraordinary speeches that Reverend John Gulliver had ever heard. It was March 1860, and the venue was Norwich, Connecticut. The following morning Gullive

      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Math of Living Things

      Jun 23, 2021

      It’s hard to argue with the famously authoritative Oxford English Dictionary, but its definition of physics as the “branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of non-living matter and energy” is incomplete because physics studies livi

      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Kolmogorov Complexity and Our Search for Meaning

      Aug 2, 2018

      Was it a chance encounter when you met that special someone or was there some deeper reason for it? What about that strange dream last night—was that just the random ramblings of the synapses of your brain or did it reveal something deep about your u

      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Scientific Paper Is Obsolete

      Apr 5, 2018

      The scientific paper—the actual form of it—was one of the enabling inventions of modernity. Before it was developed in the 1600s, results were communicated privately in letters, ephemerally in lectures, or all at once in books. There was no public fo

      18 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Quark Of Habit

      Dec 1, 2022

      A round 400 BC, the Greek philosopher Democritus proffered the idea that all matter was composed of indivisible, featureless constituents. He described them using the Greek word for “uncuttable”: atomos. Two thousand years later, scientists found tha

      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Blossom Theory

      Dec 2, 2020

      Blossom Theory
      6 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      How Math’s Most Famous Proof Nearly Broke

      Dec 20, 2018

      Andrew Wiles gave a series of lectures cryptically titled “Modular Forms, Elliptic Curves, and Galois Representations” at a mathematics conference in Cambridge, England, in June 0f 1993. His argument was long and technical. Finally, 20 minutes into t

      8 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for The Gentle Art of Mathematics

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      The Gentle Art of Mathematics - Dan Pedoe

      MATHEMATICS

      CHAPTER I

      MATHEMATICAL GAMES

      MANKIND has always been fascinated by the ordinary integers, the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, . . . . . At a very early age the normally endowed human being is made aware that he possesses 5 fingers on each hand and 5 toes on each foot. Sooner or later he believes that he himself is a unique individual; that he represents the number 1. The biological significance of the number 2 becomes only too clear. A mystic significance grows around the number 3. To bridge players 4 is a basic integer, and similarly 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 all have their devotees. A favourite pastime in the not too distant past was to attach numbers to the letters of the alphabet so that, when you added up the numbers corresponding to the letters, the name of your enemy was shown to add up to the Number of the Beast, which is 6 6 6, according to Revelations. Much has been written on the association of integers with remarkable events. Good use was made of this knowledge by a Mr. Galloway, a Fellow of the Royal Society, when the Council of that august body first resolved to restrict the number of yearly admissions to the Society to fifteen men of science and noblemen ad libitum. Why fifteen, asked Mr. Galloway? He then continued, with true Victorian thoroughness:

      Was it because fifteen is seven and eight, typifying the Old Testament Sabbath, and the New Testament day of the resurrection following? Was it because Paul strove fifteen days against Peter, proving that he was a doctor both of the Old and the New Testament? Was it because the prophet Hosea bought a lady for fifteen pieces of silver? Was it because, according to Micah, seven shepherds and eight chiefs should waste the Assyrians? Was it because Ecclesiastes commands equal reverence to be given to both Testaments — such was the interpretation — in the words Give a portion to seven, and also to eight? Was it because the waters of the deluge rose fifteen cubits above the mountains? — or because they lasted fifteen decades of days? Was it because Ezekiel’s temple had fifteen steps? Was it because Jacob’s ladder has been supposed to have had fifteen steps? Was it because fifteen years were added to the life of Hezekiah? Was it because the feast of unleavened bread was on the fifteenth day of the month? Was it because the scene of the Ascension was fifteen stadia from Jerusalem? Was it because the stone-masons and porters employed on Solomon’s temple amounted to fifteen myriads?

      As this is not a book devoted only to mathematical curiosities we shall not spend too much time on these shallow numerists, which is what Cocker, the author of a famous 17th-century arithmetic book, called these numbermongers. In this chapter we consider the way in which ordinary integers can be represented, and describe a number of mathematical problems and games which arise from this representation.

      The numbers we use in ordinary life are expressed in the scale of ten. Perhaps there is no need to stress this. Twenty means twice ten, thirty means three times ten, and so on. We use words like a hundred for ten times ten, a thousand for ten times a hundred, a million for a thousand thousand. The mathematician prefers to use unambiguous symbols instead of words, if he can, and writes

      100 = (10). (10) = 10²,

      where . is used as the symbol for multiplication, and the index 2 is used to show that 10 is multiplied by itself twice. With this notation

      1000 = 10 . 10 . 10 = 10³,

      and

      1,000,000 = 10⁶.

      The number 9824, say, stands for

      9. 10³ + 8. 10²+ 2 . 10 + 4.

      The position of the digits as we move from left to right in a number indicates which powers of ten are involved, and when we assess any number with a largish set of digits, like 54623108, we do a rapid mental calculation. We begin at the right, and mark off the digits in sets of three, so that we have

      54, 623, 108,

      and then we know that the number is fifty-four million, six hundred and twenty-three thousand, one hundred and eight. Or, since there are 8 digits involved, we also know that the number can be represented, using powers of 10, as

      5 . 10⁷ + 4 . 10⁶ + 6 . 10⁵ + 2 . 10⁴

      + 3. 10³ + 1.10² + 0.10 + 8.

      We note that the highest index involved is one less than the total number of digits.

      How can we represent a general number with n digits? Here n represents any integer, such as 1, 2, 3, . . . . . We require n different symbols for the n digits. There are advantages in using a single symbol, with a digit suffix to distinguish one symbol from any other. We could use

      a0, a1, a2, a3, . . . . . , an−1,

      to represent n digits. We have brought in the cipher, or zero, 0, for use with the digits. We shall see that it is useful. The number with n digits will be written

      an−1 an−2 an−3 . . . . . a3 a2 a1 a0

      in the ordinary way, where the position of each digit is significant, as in ordinary numbers. We then know that the number represented is

      10n−1. an—1 + 10n−2. an−2 + . . . + 10² . a2 + 10¹ . a1 + a0.

      The suffixes have indicated the power of 10 by which the corresponding digit is to be multiplied.

      We make use of this discussion to solve a digital problem which runs as follows:

      Find the smallest integer which is such that if the digit on the extreme left is transferred to the extreme right, the new number so formed is one and a half times the original number.¹

      If the number were 5364, the digit on the extreme left is 5, and after transfer to the extreme right the number is 3645. But this is not the solution. The interest of this problem lies in the fact that the answer is so very large, and in the even more pertinent fact that a method of solution which is not systematic and logical will hardly obtain the result in a finite time! All the same, the reader is invited to have a go before he studies the solution. Since answers are usually given in examinations on the higher mathematics, we state the result: the smallest number satisfying the conditions is

      1, 176, 470, 588, 235, 294.

      When we transfer the digit from the extreme left to the extreme right we have

      1, 764, 705, 882, 352, 941,

      and a moment’s calculation will show that this second number is indeed one and a half times the first one.

      The solution we now describe is fairly long, but all the steps in it are simple ones. A much shorter solution will follow, and the reader may turn to the shorter one first, if he so desires. We first write down the unknown number, and it is convenient to assume that it is a number of n + 1 digits, rather than a number of n digits. The second assumption is no more general than the first. The number will be

      an an−1 an−2 . . . . . a2 a1 a0,

      and the digit on the extreme left being an, when we transfer it to the extreme right we obtain the number

      an−1 an−2 . . . . . . . a2 a1 a0 an.

      Since we do not wish to be restricted by the positions of the various a’s in each number, we write the given number in the form

      10n . an + 10n−1 . an−1 + . . . . + 10 . a1 + a0.

      We note that each of the various a’s is less than or equal to 9. This point will be significant later. When we have transferred the digit, the new number is

      10n . an−1 + 10n−1. an−2 + . . + 10² . a1 + 10 . a0 + an .

      By the given conditions of the problem, this new number is 3/2 times the one we started with, and so we arrive at the equation:

      3(10n . an + 10n−1 . an−1 +. . . .+ a0)

      = 2(10n . an−1 + 10n−1 . an−2 + . . + 10 . a0 + an).

      We notice that an occurs on both sides of this equation, and all that we do now is to collect together the terms containing an on to one side, using the elementary rules of algebra taking over to the other side changes plus into minus, and so on. No higher mathematics is involved, so far. We obtain

      (3 . 10n − 2) an

      = (2 . 10 − 3) (10n−1 . an−1 + 10n−2 . an−2 + . . + a0),

      or

      (3. 10n − 2) a n = 17(10n−1. an−1 + 10n−2 . an−2 + . . + a0).

      This rearrangement has been purely mechanical, guided, of course, by mathematical intuition. But no logical argument has entered into the scheme. We now begin! The expressions on each side of the equation are integers. We know that integers can be factorised in only one way into their lowest factors, and these integers, which cannot be factorised any more, are called prime numbers. For example 30 = 6 . 5, and 5 cannot be factorised any more, and is prime, but 6 = 3 . 2, and so 30 = 5 . 3 . 2, when factorised into prime numbers. The first primes are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, . . . . The prime integer 17 occurs in our equation, on the right-hand side. When the numbers on the left-hand side are factorised, 17 must occur amongst the factors. But an, as we remarked earlier, is a digit lying between 1 and 9. The prime factor 17 must therefore arise from the factorisation of the number 3 . 10n − 2. In other words,

      3 . 10n − 2 is exactly divisible by 17.

      It is this mathematical deduction which enables us to solve our problem.

      Since 2 is not divisible by 17, an assertion equivalent to the one above is:

      3 . 10n on division by 17 leaves remainder 2.

      It will be remembered that n is one of the things we are trying to find, since the unknown number contains n + 1 digits. To find n, all that we have to do is to carry out a long-division sum, until we obtain the remainder 2. We begin with n = 1, of course, and see that it will not do, since 3 . 10 = 30 does not leave remainder 2 on division by 17. When we try n = 2, so that we are dividing 3 . 10² = 300 by 17, we merely add another 0 to the number we are dividing. Hence we divide 3 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . with an indefinite number of 0’s until we obtain the remainder 2. The actual long-division is shown below.

      We find that the smallest value of n which will do is n = 15. That is, we find that 3 . 10¹⁵ is divisible by 17 with remainder 2, or

      3 . 10¹⁵ − 2 is exactly divisible by 17.

      The quotient, as the working shows, is 176470588235294. If we look back at the equation which first started us on this division, we see that, since n = 15,

      Now, the number on the left, if we add 10¹⁵ . a15 to it, is the number we are looking for! To make it as small as possible we must take a15 = 1, and then the number is

      1, 176, 470, 588, 235, 294.

      The details of the long division are now given:

      We now give a much shorter solution of this digital problem. We assume once more that the number we are trying to find is

      N = an an−1 an−2 . . . . . a2 a1 a0,

      and that

      3N/2 = an−1 an−2 . . . . . a2 a1 a0 an .

      We consider the recurring decimal

      x = an . an−1 an−2 . . . . a2 a1 a0 an an−1 . . . a1 a0,

      where the recurring digits are precisely those which occur in N (the theory of recurring decimals will be described in Chapter VII). We now have

      x/10 = . an an−1 . . . . . a1 a0 an an−1 . . . . a1 a0 . . . . . ,

      whereas

      x − an = . an−1 an−2 . . . . a1 a0 an an−1 an−2 . . . a0 an . . . .

      The first decimal, x/10, is a pure recurring decimal in which the digits which recur are those in N, and the second decimal x − an is also a pure recurring decimal in which the digits which recur are those in 3N/2. It follows that

      so that

      17x = 20 an .

      For the least value of the unknown integer N take an = 1, and then x = 20/17. If the reader has never worked out a decimal of this kind, he should do so. It is a pure recurring decimal, with a sequence of figures which recurs right from the beginning, after the decimal point. It is, in fact

      x = 1 . 1764705882352941 1764705882352941 . . . . . .

      which is usually written

      x = 1 . i76470588235294i.

      If we now look back at the definition of x, we see that

      N = 1, 176, 470, 588, 235, 294,

      as found previously.

      Both of these proofs have their points. The first is more elementary, but more tedious; the second uses the theory of infinite decimal expansions, and so overcomes the difficulty involved in the shift of an integer from the extreme left to the extreme right, by making the set of integers follow after one another in an infinite series. Each method will find its defenders, and yet the problem itself is one which most mathematicians would call trivial, because it leads nowhere, and does not fit into a general theory. The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to problems which are aspects of a general theory.

      , would be represented by the decimal 0.4 instead of by 0.333 . . . as in our present notation. It is certainly hard to justify the use of 10 as a base for numbers, with 12 pennies in a shilling, 20 shillings in a pound, 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, 1,760 yards to a mile, and so on. A serious attempt was made in Victorian times to persuade Parliament that we should go over to a decimal currency. Readers of Trollope will remember that the Chancellor of

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1