Rationalization Rant

Every high school math student has been taught how to rationalize the denominator. We tell students not to give an answer like

\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}

because it isn’t fully “simplified.” Rather, they should report it as

\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}.

This is fair, even though the second answer isn’t much simpler than the first. What does it really mean to simplify an expression? It’s a pretty nebulous instruction.

We also don’t consider

\frac{12}{1+\sqrt{5}}

to be rationalized because of the square root in the denominator, so we multiply by the conjugate to obtain

2-2\sqrt{5}.

In this particular example, multiplying by the conjugate was really fruitful and the resulting expression does indeed seem much more desirable than the original expression.

But here’s where it gets a little ridiculous. Our Algebra 2 book also calls for students to rationalize the denominator when (1) a higher root is present and (2) roots containing variables are present. Let me show you an example of each situation, and explain why this is going a little too far.

Rationalizing higher roots

First, when a higher root is present like

\sqrt[5]{\frac{15}{2}},

the book would have students multiply the top and bottom of the fraction inside the radical by 2^4 so as to make a perfect fifth root in the denominator. The final answer would be

\frac{\sqrt[5]{240}}{2}.

Simpler? You decide.

This becomes especially problematic when we encounter sums involving higher roots. It’s certainly possible, using various tricks, to rationalize the denominator in expressions like this:

\frac{1}{2-\sqrt[3]{5}}.

But is that really desirable? The result here is

\frac{1}{2-\sqrt[3]{5}}\cdot\frac{4+2\sqrt[3]{5}+\sqrt[3]{25}}{4+2\sqrt[3]{5}+\sqrt[3]{25}}=\frac{4+2\sqrt[3]{5}+\sqrt[3]{25}}{3},

which is, arguably, more complex than the original expression. Can anyone think of a good reason to do this, except just for fun?

Rationalizing variable expressions

Now, let’s think about variable expressions. Here is a problem, directly from our Algebra 2 book (note the directions as well):

Write the expression in simplest form. Assume all variables are positive.

\sqrt[3]{\frac{x}{y^7}}

The method that leads to the “correct” solution is to multiply the fraction under the radical by \frac{y^2}{y^2}, and to finally write

\frac{\sqrt[3]{xy^2}}{y^3}.

This is problematic for two reasons. (1) This isn’t really simpler than the original expression and (2) this expression isn’t even guaranteed to have a denominator that’s rational! (Suppose y=\sqrt{2} or even y=\pi.) Once again I ask, can anyone think of a good reason to do this, except just for fun??

So how far do we take this?

Is it reasonable to ask someone to rationalize this denominator?

\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}-\sqrt{2}\sqrt[3]{5}+2\sqrt{5}-5^{5/6}}

You can rationalize the denominator, but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader. So how far do we take this? I had to craft the above expression very carefully so that it works out well, but in general, most expressions have denominators that can’t be rationalized (and I do mean “most expressions” in the technical, mathematical way–there are are an uncountable number of denominators of the unrationalizable type). All that being said, I think this would make a great t-shirt:

And I rest my case.

Minnesota Senator loves math!

I really enjoy reading J. Michael Shaughnessy’s column. He’s the president of the NCTM and always has interesting, timely things to say about math and math education. Here’s an excerpt from this week’s column, where he recounts his recent conversation with Senator Al Franken (D-Minn) as he eagerly shared a proof with President Shaughnessy. Go check it out!

 

Seen Any Good Proofs Lately? Raising the Social Currency of Mathematics

We all probably have had a friend or acquaintance, or even a perfect stranger, raving about a book she has just read, or a movie he has recently seen, and then saying, “Oh, you must read this book!” or, “You must see that film!” But how many of us have had this kind of experience in a social occasion where the person exclaimed, “Oh, you must see this proof!” So it was indeed refreshing to meet someone who really likes mathematics, as I did several weeks ago, in what might seem like a very unlikely setting—the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.

On Wednesday mornings when Congress is in session, Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) holds a breakfast gathering in his office for his constituents. Visitors to the breakfast consist primarily of people from Minnesota, but I received an invitation from a mathematics teacher who is spending the year working on the senator’s staff. A famous hearty porridge is served up at these breakfasts, and once guests have begun to circulate, Senator Franken drops in and greets everyone. I had been misinformed and thought that the Senator had been a mathematics major in college. When I asked him about this, he said that the rumor was false, but he agreed that his good grades in math had probably helped him get admitted to college.

After breakfast, the visitors were escorted to a terrace area in the hallway outside the office, where the senator spoke for a few minutes about events being debated in Congress and answered questions. Guests then lined up to have their pictures taken with the senator. I was at the end of the line, and as I shook his hand and introduced myself as the president of NCTM, he said, “Let me show you my geometric proof of the Pythagorean theorem!” Senator Franken then proceeded to grab scratch paper and a pen from one of his staffers and plopped down cross-legged on the hallway carpet. As I sat next to him, he began to sketch out his proof. He explained what he was doing, and why it worked, and I paraphrased each move he made so that it was clear to both of us how he was thinking and what he was doing.

(more)

 

 

 

Mathematical Pasta

Geek mom author Helene McLaughlin reviews this great geeky book about the mathematics of 92 (!!) different kinds of pasta [hat tip to Tim Chase]:

 

When mixing flour, egg, salt and water to make pasta, I’d guess the only math you consider is how many minutes you have left before the kids will be begging for dinner. I’d guess that you never really contemplated the mathematical beauty of that rigatoni or cavatappi that you are eating. Thats not the way George L. Legendre eats pasta.

In an effort to bring order to the possible chaos of cooking, George L. Legendre takes cooking geek to the next level with his unique book, “Pasta by Design“. Legendre takes 92 of the most familiar types of pasta, categorizes them, determines the complex mathematical equation describing the shape and shows us incredibly intricate computer models for each type of pasta.

(more)

LaTeX in HTML using a Perl script

From Hackaday:

Writing a paper in LaTeX will always result in beautiful output, but if you’d like to put that document up on the web you’re limited to two reasonable options: serve the document as a .PDF (with the horrors involves, although Chrome makes things much more palatable), or relying on third-party browser plugins like TeX The World. Now that [Todd Lehman] has finally cooked up a perl script to embed LaTeX in HTML documents, there’s no reason to type e^i*pi + 1 = 0 anymore.

(more)

 

There are a few other options for getting \LaTeX into your webpages, but they all feel like hacks. In particular, I like the Code Cogs Equation Editor which is a WYSIWYG \LaTeX editor. But of course, if you have a WordPress blog like this one, you can include code inline without much work at all (though WordPress hasn’t implemented a full-fledged interpreter, it’s still pretty decent).

Leap Day Birthday Math

Happy leap day!!!

Here are some leap-day birthday thoughts I discussed with my colleagues and students today:

What’s the probability of a leap year birthday?

The probability that someone is born on a leap day is \frac{1}{365\cdot 4+1}=\frac{1}{1461}\approx 0.000684. Oh wait, that’s not completely true. Leap years don’t really occur every four years. Years divisible by 100 are not leap years, unless also divisible by 400. So, the actual probability is

\frac{100-4+1}{365\cdot 400+100-4+1}= \frac{97}{146097}\approx 0.000639.

What’s the probability of having triplets on a leap day?

One of our RM students is a triplet, born today. What are the chances of that occurring? Well, the statistics on triplets are pretty hard to get right. But let’s say the occurrence of a triplet birth is 1 in 8000. (That’s my informal estimate based on this site and this site.) I think we can say that the probability of being a triplet is 3 times that (right?). Then, the probability of being a triplet born on a leap day is

\left(\frac{100-4+1}{365\cdot 400+100-4+1}\right)\left(\frac{3}{8000}\right)= \frac{291}{1168776000}\approx\frac{1}{4016412} \approx 0.249 \times 10^{-7}.

The current US population is 311,591,917, so that means there are roughly 77 triplets in the US with leap day birthdays. Happy birthday to all of you!

Bonus thought question: Iif you have quadruplets born on a leap day, you get to celebrate 4 birthdays every four years, so doesn’t that average out to one birthday a year?

Half-birthday for those born on August 29

One of my other colleagues has a birthday on August 29th. So today is her half birthday! But it only comes around every four years (roughly). Hooray!

But then that got us thinking about half birthdays: Some people, like those born on August 30th or 31st NEVER have a half birthday. How sad!! This happens to anyone born on August 30th, August 31st, March 31st, October 31st, May 31st, or December 31st. That’s a lot of people without half birthdays.

But wait. When is your actual half birthday? Shouldn’t it be 182.5 days before/after your birthday? That’s not necessarily the same date in the month. For instance, my birthday is May 15. So my half birthday should be November 15, right? Wrong. My half birthday is (May 15 + 182.5 days), which is November 13th or November 14th, depending on if you round up or down. Even accounting for a leap year, it’s still not quite right.

Who else is miscalculating their half birthday? Unless your birthday is in June, April, October, or December, you’re half-birthday isn’t what you think it is. To calculate your half birthday, use this amazing half birthday calculator I just discovered!

Good discussions in the math blog world

Here are two blog posts I saw a few weeks ago. I’ve been following the comments with great interest, and the conversations have been fruitful. You should go check them out and join the conversation!

  • Critical Thinking @ dy/dan — Once again, Dan gives deserved criticism to a contrived textbook problem. Hilarious problem, and fun discussion in the comments.
  • Disagreement on operator precedence for 2^3^4 @ Walking Randomly — The title says it all, but it’s the first time I had ever thought about how 2^3^4 or expressions with carets should be evaluated. Note that it’s clear how 2^{3^4} should be evaluated. We’re just unclear on how 2^3^4 should be evaluated.

A new mathematician

Please meet the world’s newest little mathematician, born (appropriately) on e day!!

 

Hi! I'm Ruthie!

 

This is Ruth Ann Chase, born at 4:03 on February 7th, 2012. She weighed 7.5 lbs and was 21.5 inches long. She’s happy, healthy, and beautiful!

The proud parents