The postage stamp problem

Investigation in mathematics together with students and teachers

By Geir Botten, Soer-Troendelag University College, Faculty of Teacher and
Interpreter Education
Abstract
This paper presents work with investigation and inquiry in maths education. The postage
stamp problem is used as an example of an open-ended task in a landscape of investigation.
I discuss both the problem itself and how the problem can be used to enrich the teaching and
learning of mathematics. This includes mathematical thinking, reasoning, arguing and proof in
mathematics.
Key words
The postage stamp problem, inquiry, landscape of investigation, seeking for formulas,
mathematical arguing, proofs.
1. Introduction
In many Norwegian classrooms the pupils work with exercises in their textbooks most of the
time. Nearly all the exercises have a specific method and solution. The last years I have been
working with teachers to develop learning communities with more cooperation and inquiry. I
have used Ole Skovsmoses concept landscape of investigation and invited both students and
teacher into such landscapes. One of my examples in this work has been the postage stamp
problem. In this paper I will present my work with this problem. I will both describe how I
work together with teachers and also present some mathematical aspects connected to the
problem. I will also discuss how such open ended problems more general can enrich the
teaching and learning of mathematics.
The postage stamp problem deal with questions like the following:
Suppose that you are in a specific country where you have an inexhaustible supply of only
two kinds of stamps, say a cent (or kroner1) and b cent (kroner). What amounts can be
made using these stamps? Which amounts cannot be made? Is it possible to predict a
system or formula that tells us which amounts can be made, and which cannot be made as
soon as you know the values of the two kinds of stamps available? If so, how can we
determine this system or that formula?
2. Problem solving, discovery and investigation in mathematics
The topic problem solving was described by George Polya, first in his most famous book
How to solve it? from 1945. Here he presents his view on traditional learning in
mathematics and the importance of using more inductive methods in the learning process. He
writes:
Thus, a teacher of mathematics has a great opportunity. If he fills his allotted time with
drilling his students in routine operations he kills their interest, hampers their intellectual
development, and misuses his opportunity. But if he challenges the curiosity of his
1

In the following I note the value of the stamps a and b, with neither cent nor kroner as denomination.

students by setting them problems proportionate to their knowledge, and helps them to
solve their problems with stimulating questions, he may give them a taste for, and some
means of, independent thinking.
(Preface to How to solve it, 1st edition)
In a speech from the end of 1960-ies about the goals of mathematical education he says:
We wish to develop all the resources of the growing child. And the part that mathematics
plays is mostly about thinking. Mathematics is a good school of thinking. But what is
thinking? The thinking that you can learn in mathematics is, for instance, to handle
abstractions. Mathematics is about numbers. Numbers are an abstraction. When we solve a
practical problem, then from this practical problem we must first make an abstract
problem. Mathematics applies directly to abstractions. Some mathematics should enable a
child at least to handle abstractions, to handle abstract structures. Structure is a fashionable
word now. It is not a bad word. I am quite for it.
(From videotaped lecture, transcribed by Thomas C. O'Brien)
3. Inquiry and landscapes of investigation
Working with exercises in textbooks has been and still is a central part of mathematics
education in almost every classroom. This sort of work is described like this in the article
Adults Resistance to Learning in School versus Adults Competences in Work: The Case of
Mathematics (Wedege and Evans 2006):
The well known school activity of solving problems might serve as an example of these
differences2. In this kind of approach (now traditional in many countries), which might be
called task-directed mathematics education, instruction is directed towards the students
acquisition of procedures, formulae, and concepts, through the teachers presentation of
theory, examples from the textbook, and the solving of tasks set by the teacher or the
book.

Solving so-called problems has no practical meaning: the results are not used for anything
except, maybe, solving more problems. What can be called the task-context is often
sketched as a practical one, but the aim is to find the correct result by using the correct
algorithm, not to solve the practical problem.
As an alternative to this traditional way of working with mathematics in school, inductive
ways of learning mathematics have been introduces (Mellin-Olsen 1987, Skemp 1987,
Fenema et al., 1996). In this article I base my work on perspectives from works about inquiry
in mathematics, mainly Ole Skovsmoses concept landscapes of investigations. In his article
Landscapes of Investigation from 2001 and book Dialogue and Learning in Mathematics
Education: Intention, Reflection, Critique from 2004 he introduces and describes a landscape
of investigation contrasted to the exercise paradigm.
According to many observations, traditional mathematics education falls within the
exercise paradigm. This paradigm is contrasted with landscapes of investigation serving as
invitations for students to be involved in processes of exploration and explanation.
.
2

Differences between informal mathematics and school mathematics.

Moving away from the exercise paradigm and in the direction of landscapes of
investigation may help to abandon the authorities of the traditional mathematics classroom
and to make students the acting subjects in their learning processes. Moving away from
reference to pure mathematics and in the direction of real life references may help to
provide resources for reflection on mathematics and its applications.
(Skovsmose 2001)
There are two basic elements that cannot be ignored when making an inquiry. An inquiry
process cannot be a forced activity, it presupposes the involvement of the participants.
Furthermore, it must be an open process. Students must be invited into a landscape of
investigation in order to become owners and active participants of the inquiry process. The
invitation can be accepted or not an invitation is not an order.

The milieus (1), (3) and (5)

represent the exercise paradigm,
with (1) and (3) providing the
kernel of the school mathematics
tradition and framing certain
patterns of teacher-student
communication. The milieus (2), (4)
and (6) represent landscapes of
investigation, but with different
sorts of meaning producing
references.
(Alr and Skovsmose 2004, page 49-52)
The postage stamp problem can be presented in the exercise paradigm (milieu (1) and (2)),
with a lot of tasks and routine work. But it can also be presented as an invitation to a
landscape of investigation (milieu (2) and (3)).The invitation may be for students at very
different ages. You can introduce the problem for children aged 8-10 and make investigation
together with them. And you can make doctoral studies of the problem. I have used it both for
students in primary school, for students in teacher education and for further education for
teacher working in primary or secondary school. In this article I will concentrate on my work
with teachers in in-service training.
4. My practical work with teachers
I start my invitation to the teachers with this problem:
Suppose that in Norway (or the Slovakian Republic) there is only two sorts of stamps, one
with the value 3 and one 4. There is an inexhaustible supply of both values. What are the
possible charges for sending a letter in that country? On the blackboard I write candidates for
possible prices, putting a cross over the impossible values (marked grey in the following).
After the discussion between me and the teachers, and my writing, we then may see this on
the blackboard:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
The discussion may go like this:

The smallest value we can have is 3, and we can have the both charges 3 and 4. The value 5 is
impossible. Now, 6 is OK with two of value 3, 7 with one of each, 8 with two of value 4 and 9
with three of 3. The participants of the discussion may continue like this and perhaps they will
comment that 12 is a special one since we both can use three of 4 and four of 3. When we
reach 20, the participants are pretty sure that it is possible to use every value higher than 20. I
once presented this for a group of students at the age of 12, when one of the students rather
surprised exclaimed: Why on earth do we have all this different stamps? Why not just use 3
and 4?
We can continue our investigation and look what happens if we use stamps with the value 3
and 5. Through this investigation and discussion we realise that we can use all values except 4
and 7. Thus we have these results, where we list the values which are possible and impossible:
3 and 4:

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3 and 5:

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Now is the time to address the question: Can we prove that it is possible to use every value
higher than 20? How long is it necessary to continue before we are sure? Some helpful hints
could be ideas or questions like:
The system of placing more and more stamps as the prices for sending letters
increase
The connection between the lowest value and the number of amount we can use
straight after each other
If the lowest value of the stamps is 3, what can our conclusion be if we use 3
amounts sequential?
The last question may give the teachers an idea of what constitutes a mathematical proof, and
how we can approach a proof with an informal argument. It might go like this:
If we have a stamp with the value of 3 and another with the value of 5, and we have shown
that we can use the three following prices 8, 9 and 10, we may use an extra stamp with the
value 3 to reach the prices 11, 12 and 13. But then we can use the next three prices, and
the next three i.e. all prices higher than 7.
This means that if we start with two stamps, one with the value of 4 and one with the value 5,
we can be sure that it is possible to use every price higher than a special amount if we can use
4 following prices. We can use all the prices 12, 13, 14 and 15. This leads us to this result:
4-5:

4 5

10 11 12 13 14 15 - - - - - - - -

If we try with 3 and 7, the result will look like this:

3-7:

3 4

10 11 12 13 14 - - - - - - - -

If we summarize, we have this result:

3-4:

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3-5:

3 4

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

4-5:

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3-7:

5. Seeking for formulas

Our next question could now be:
Is there a connection between the values of the stamps, the possible prices, and in particular
the highest price we could not use? Or more specifically: If we have two stamps, one with the
value of 3 and one with the value 8, will there still be a limit so that we could use all prices
above this limit? If so, is it possible to calculate this limit? Can we in a way help the postal
system to find a formula or way to calculate this limit without investigating all the numbers?
Together with pupils and teachers I have found different formulas or ways of calculating this
limit:
1. The difference between the product of the numbers and the sum of them
2. The difference between the product of the second number and one less than the first
and the first one
3. The difference between the product of the first number and one less than the second
and the second one
4. Take he biggest number, multiply it with 2 less than the smallest one, and then add the
result an the difference between the two numbers
5. Take he smallest number, multiply it with 2 less than the biggest one, and then find the
difference between this product and the difference between the two numbers
6. Take 1 less than one of the numbers, multiply by 1 less than the other one. The answer
is 1 less than this product.
The teachers are often very surprised when they discover that so many different ways of
calculating lead to the same answer. The next challenge is to show why all these different
methods give the same answer. This challenge involves both algebraic thinking and
manipulation of algebraic expressions.
For example, the connection between the first formula, c1 ab (a b) , and the two formulas
as results of the rules described in 4 and 5, can be calculated like this:
Suppose that a > b:
c 2 a(b 2) (a b) ab 2a a b ab (a b)
4:
c3 b( a 2) (a b) ab 2b a b ab ( a b)
5:
Thus, c1 c2 c3 , and all three formulas are in fact the same.
A natural question is to ask now is: Is there always such a limit? Some examples will give
an answer to this question. If we start with one stamp with the value of 4 and one with the
value 6, it is easy to see that we never can use prices that are odd numbers. Similar, if we start
with 6 and 9, we can only use values which are multiples of 3. If the two values of the stamps
are relative primes, we will always find a limit which can be calculated in one of the ways

shown above. Discussion connected to this solution may give the teachers a better
understanding of mathematical proof and refutation.
7. The postage stamp problem mathematical aspects
The postage stamp problem is within the field of additive number theory in mathematics. In
his book Discovering Mathematics The Art of Investigation from 1987 Anthony Gardiner
use the postage stamp problem as one of his central examples. He introduces and describes
the problem in different ways, proposes many exercises connected to the problem and also
presents solutions to many aspects of the problem. He uses the notion good and bad numbers,
good if it can be obtained by combining the two numbers, a and b, and bad if it cannot be
obtained. And he introduces a cut-off point as a number where the bad numbers come to an
end.
In exercise 3, page 122, he invites the reader to investigate the situation if a = 5 and b = 2, by
completing the table
Total amount
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Can be made
v
v
Cannot be made
x
In later exercises he invites the reader to explain why for example 3 is the cut-off point when
a = 5 and b = 2. He also shows that 8 is the cut-off point when a = 5 and b = 3, and 11 when
a = 5 and b = 4. He argues like we did in our investigation, and his examples, exercises and
work can be summarized as follows:
In the first example we can stop when we get two good numbers in a row, namely 4 and 5.
With an extra stamp with the value 2, we can obtain 6 and 7, and then the next two, and
the next two and so on. Hence, if a = 5 and b = 2, then 3 is the cut-off point. In the
example with a = 5 and b = 3 we can stop when we get three good numbers in a row,
namely 8, 9 and 10. With an extra stamp with the value 3, we can obtain 11, 12 and 13,
and then the next three, and the next three and so on. Hence, if a = 5 and b = 3, then 8 is
the cut-off point. And in the third example with a = 5 and b = 4 the first time we get four
in a row is with the values 12, 13, 14 and 15, and therefore 12 is the cut-off point.
Gardiner presents the result like this:
a = 5 and b = 2
Number 0 1
Good?
v
Bad?
x

2
v

4
v

5
v

a = 5 and b = 3
Number 0
1
Good?
v
Bad?
x
a = 5 and b = 4
Number 0 1
Good?
v

3
v

x
2

5
v

6
v

x
3

4
v

8
v

9
v

10
v

x
5
v

8
v

9
v

10 11 12 13 14 15
v
v v v v

Bad?

x
(Gardiner, page 152)

He gives a lot of exercises studying the pattern and symmetries in these tables. Gardiner also
proves that if a and b are relatively primes, there always is a cut-off point. He also shows a
way of calculating these cut-off points. The whole proof is presented at page 141-161 in his
book.
8. Ending comment
In Gardiners book the postage stamp problem is presented as a problem to be solved, and the
author gives a lot of exercises to investigate and work with the problem. He gives answer to
all the exercises and he presents the formulas and proofs. All the investigations are however
within the paradigm of exercise, mainly in milieu (1) in Skovsmoses matrix (working with
pure mathematics in the paradigm of exercise). In my work I have invited teachers and
students into a landscape of investigation, and almost all of them have accepted my invitation.
During our exploration we (teachers, students and I) have learnt more about learning
communities with cooperation and inquiry. Our discussions have included mathematical
thinking, reasoning, arguing and proofs in mathematics. Together we have work like
mathematicians do (or ought to do).
References
Alroe, H and Skovsmose, O (2004) Dialogue And Learning In Mathematics Education:
Intention, Reflection, Critique. Kluwer Academic Publisher. Dordrecht
Botten, G. (1999) Meningsfylt matematikk naerhet og engasjement i laeringen. Caspar
forlag. Bergen

Fennema et al., 1996 E. Fennema, T.P. Carpenter, M.L. Franke, L. Levi, V.R. Jacobs and S.B.
Empson, A longitudinal study of learning to use children's thinking in mathematics education,
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 27 (1996), pp. 403434
Gardiner, A. (1987). Discovering Mathematics The Art of Investigation. Oxford Science
Publications. Oxford
Mellin-Olsen, S. 1987: The Politics of Mathematics Education. Dortrecht:
Reidel Publ.
Polya, G. (1945). How to Solve It: a New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Princeton
University Press. New Jersey.
Polya, G. (1969). The Goals of Mathematical Education. Lecture presented to in-service and
pre-service mathematics education students, transcribed by Thomas C. O'Brien in 2001.

http://mathematicallysane.com/analysis/polya.asp

Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics.

Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Skovsmose, O. (2001) Landscapes of Investigation ZDM: The International Journal on

Mathematics Education Volum 33, number 4/2001, page 123-132