Maths Gazette PDF

The
Mathematical
Gazette
Sir Wifred H. Cockcroft

1923-1999
Volume 84: Number 499 March 2000

THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION £16.00
CONTENTS (continued)
THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION
Notes 84.01 to 84.28 (continued)
AN ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS
OF ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS Unexpected symmetry in a derived Alexander J. Gray 87
Fibonacci sequence
'I hold every man a debtor to his profession, from the which as A recurrence relation among Fibonacci sums Alexander J. Gray 89
men of course do seek to receive countenance and profit, so ought
they of duty to endeavour themselves by way of amends to be a Some unusual iterations Mark Thornber 90
help and an ornament thereunto.' BACON
When the sum equals the product Leo Kurlandchik and 91
THE COUNCIL Andrzej Nowicki
PRESIDENT Never say never: some mistaken identities Mark J. Cooker 94
Professor John Berry A curious property of the integer 24 M. H. Eggar 96

What do cycles of a given length generate? Mowaffaq Hajja 97
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT Professor Chris Robson
A game with positive and negative numbers M. H. Eggar 98
PRESIDENT DESIGNATE Mr Steve Abbott
CHAIR OF COUNCIL Dr Sue Sanders An inductive proof of the arithmetic mean Zbigniew Urmanin 101
SECRETARY Mr Roy Ashley − geometric mean inequality
TREASURER Mr Paul Metcalf Weighted mean in a trapezium Larry Hoehn 102
REPRESENTATIVES BRANCHES Mr Bob Francis (Chair) A formula for integrating inverse functions S. Schnell and C. Mendoza 103
OF COMMITTEES
CONFERENCES Mr Martin Bailey (Chair) Mathematician versus machine P. Glaister 105
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Ms Sue Jennings (Chair)
On a conjecture of Paul Thompson Tim Jameson 107
PUBLICATIONS Mr Peter Bailey (Chair)
PUBLICITY & MEMBERSHIP Mr David Hodgson (Chair) Maximal volume of curved folding boxes Kenzi Odani 110
TEACHING COMMITTEE Mr Doug French (Chair) More on a sine product formula Walther Janous and 113
Jeremy King
EDITOR IN CHIEF Mr Bill Richardson
On a limit for prime numbers J. A. Scott 115
MEMBERS Mr Robert Barbour Ms Trish Morgan
WITHOUT Mr Neil Bibby Mr Michael Mudge SHM and projections P. Glaister 116
OFFICE Mr David Carter Ms Robyn Pickles Another cautionary chi-square calculation Nick Lord 119
Miss Susie Jameson Mr Tony Robin
More on dual Van Aubel generalisations Michael de Villiers 121
Dr Jim Message
Obituary
OFFICE MANAGER Mrs Marcia Murray Sir Wilfred Cockcroft 1923-1999 Peter Reynolds 123
Correspondence 125
Notices 127
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE OF THE MATHEMATICAL GAZETTE
Editor Mr Steve Abbott Problem corner G. T. Q. Hoare 128
Production Editor Mr Bill Richardson Student problems Tim Cross 135
Reviews Editors Mr Bud Winteridge Other Journals Anne C. Baker 139
Mrs Rosalie McCrossan
Problems Editors Mr Graham Hoare Mr Tim Cross Book Reviews 140
Assistant Editor Mr Gerry Leversha © The Mathematical Association 2000
CONTENTS
Editorial 1
The
THE MATHEMATICAL GAZETTE

Articles
One hundred years on Graham T. Q. Hoare 2
Mathematical
Lewis Carroll − mathematician Canon D. B. Eperson 9
and teacher of children
Gazette
Snubbing with and without eta H. Martyn Cundy 14
The Fermat-Torricelli points of n lines Roy Barbara 24
Continued fractions Robert Macmillan 30
A construction of magic cubes Marián Trenkler 36
The factorial function: Stirling's formula David Fowler 42
A simple energy-conserving model Richard Bridges 51
The Hale-Bopp comet explored H. R. Corbishley 58

with A level mathematics
Notes 84.01 to 84.28

A portrayal of right-angled triangles which I. Grattan-Guinness 66
MARCH 2000
generate rectangles with sides in integral ratio
Circumradius of a cyclic quadrilateral Larry Hoehn 69
A neglected Pythagorean-like formula Larry Hoehn 71
An unexpected reduced cubic equation J. A. Scott 74
Touching hyperspheres D. F. Lawden 75
Comments on note 82.53—a generalised Andrejs Dunkels 79
test for divisibility
A matrix method for a system of A. J. B. Ward 81
linear Diophantine equations
On the application of Whittaker's theorem J. A. Scott 84
Sir Wifred H. Cockcroft
Vol. 84 No. 499
Digital roots and reciprocals of primes Alexander J. Gray 86

1923-1999
(The contents are continued inside the back cover.)
Printed in Great Britain by J. W. Arrowsmith Ltd
ISSN 0025-5572
Volume 84: Number 499 March 2000
THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION £16.00
1
The
Mathematical Gazette
A JOURNAL OF THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION
Vol. 84 March 2000 No. 499
Editorial: It's voting time again!

The time has come to vote for the Fifth Annual Mathematical Gazette
Writing Awards. Please use the address carrier from this issue of the Gazette
to identify the articles and notes of 1999 that impressed you most. The Index
for 1999 will remind you of the many good submissions.
There will again be a prize draw among those who respond. The
prize, worth about £30, will be a copy of the book Mathematics: frontiers
and perspectives, edited by Vladimir Arnold, Michael Atiyah, Peter Lax and
Barry Mazur (AMS, 2000).
Previous Annual Mathematical Gazette Writing Awards
Year Best Article Best Note
Colin Fletcher David Fowler
1996 Two prime centenaries A simple approach to
the factorial function
Ann Hirst and Keith Lloyd Colin Dixon
1997 Cassini, his ovals and a Geometry and the
space probe to Saturn cosine rule
Robert M. Young Robert J. Clarke
1998 Probability, pi, and The quadratic equation
the primes formula
Please indicate, in the spaces provided on the voting form, the titles of
your 3 favourite Articles and your 3 favourite Notes. Note that Matters for
Debate count as Articles. Alternatively, you can just write your choices in a
letter or on a postcard. Each vote will be given equal weighting. The results
will be announced in the July 2000 issue.
Return the form as soon as you can, and definitely by 31st May 2000 to:
Gazette Poll, 91 High Road West, Felixstowe IP11 9AB, UK
STEVE ABBOTT
2 THE MATHEMATICAL GAZETTE
One hundred years on

GRAHAM T. Q. HOARE
David Hilbert, one of the giants of mathematics, delivered a lecture at
the International Congress of Mathematics at Paris in 1900. The first part of
the lecture, a preamble to his announcement of the now-famous 23
problems, began with the words:
‘Who of us would not be glad to lift the veil behind which the future
lies hidden; to cast a glance at the next advances of our science and
at the secrets of its development during future centuries? What
particular goals will there be toward which the leading mathematical
spirits of coming generations will thrive? What new methods and
new facts in the wide and rich fields of mathematical thought will the
new centuries disclose?
History teaches the continuity of the development of science. We
know that every age has its own problems, which the following age
either solves or casts aside as profitless and replaces by new ones. If
we would obtain an idea of the probable development of
mathematical knowledge in the immediate future, we must let the
unsettled questions pass before our minds and look over the
problems which the science of today sets and whose solution we
expect from the future. To such a review of problems the present
day, lying at the meeting of the centuries, seems to me well adapted.
For the close of a great epoch not only invites us to look back into
the past but also directs our thoughts to the unknown future.
The deep significance of certain problems for the advance of
mathematical science in general and the important role which they
play in the work of the individual investigator are not to be denied.
As long as a branch of science offers an abundance of problems, so
long is it alive; a lack of problems foreshadows extinction or the
cessation of independent development. Just as every human
undertaking pursues certain objects, so also mathematical research
requires its problems. It is by the solution of problems that the
investigator tests the temper of his steel; he finds new methods and
new outlooks, and gains a wider and freer horizon.’
Later we find the oft-quoted passage:
‘This conviction of the solvability of every mathematical problem is a
powerful incentive to the worker. We hear within us the perpetual
call: There is the problem. Seek its solution. You can find it by
pure reason, for in mathematics there is no ignorabimus.’
Hilbert considered that the 23 problems he had chosen were those most
likely to stimulate important new advances in mathematics. It redounds to
his perspicacity that much fruitful mathematical activity resulted in
addressing these problems in the twentieth century. As we shall see from
the list below, which we give together with short commentaries and notes,
ONE HUNDRED YEARS ON 3
the so-called problems vary from specific mathematical questions to

programmes of research. Some have been reformulated or extended without
losing their identity. We note the importance Hilbert attached to algebraic
number theory, since the 8th problem, partly, and the 9th, 11th and 12th,
entirely, are devoted to it. Problems 1, 2 and 10 belong to mathematical
logic, whereas 6, 19, 20 and 23 fall within the provinces of applications.
Observe too that topology, then at an early stage of its development, features
strongly. Readers will appreciate that we cannot do justice to Hilbert's
vision in a short article such as this.
Hilbert's Problems
1. Cantor's continuum hypothesis (CH) and well-ordering
¼
1(a). Is 2¼0 = 1? Undecidable. Assuming the consistency of the
Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms for set theory (ZF), the work of K. Gödel (1938)
and P. Cohen (1963) established that both the statement of the hypothesis
¼
(that 2¼0 = 1) and its negation are consistent with ZF. Thus the
hypothesis is completely independent of the axioms of set theory.
1(b). Hilbert also asked whether the continuum of numbers can be well-
ordered. This problem is related to the Axiom of Choice (AC), but in 1963
P. Cohen proved the independence of AC from the other axioms of set
theory, so the problem remains unresolved.
Note: Gödel believed that the AC and the CH were either true or false
and that ZF did not encapsulate what was ‘obviously’ true about set theory.
The task was to think of some new axiom which would determine AC and
CH. He did not succeed in devising such an axiom (the existence of
measurable cardinals was proposed as such, but was not in any sense
‘obvious’) so this remains an unresolved consequence of the Hilbert
challenge.
2. To establish the consistency of the axioms of arithmetic

Gödel's two theorems shattered the Hilbert programme. The second of
these proves that the consistency of a theory at least as strong as arithmetic
cannot be proved within the theory.
3. To show, using only the congruence axioms, whether two tetrahedra

having the same altitude and base area have the same volume
Proved false by M. Dehn (1900).
4. To investigate geometries (metrics) in which the line segment between

any pair of points gives the shortest path between the pair (geodesic)
Considered too vague.
5. Can the assumption of differentiability for the functions defining a
continuous transformation group be avoided?
Reformulated to encompass a larger domain of topological groups, the
problem was solved in the form that a locally Euclidean topological group is
a Lie group by A. Gleason (1952) and by D. Montgomery and L. Zippin

(1955).
Note: If each point of a topological group G has a neighbourhood
homeomorphic to an open set of a given Euclidean space, then G is called a
locally Euclidean group. If the underlying topological space of a
topological group has the structure of a real analytic manifold, where the
group operations (x, y) → xy, x → x−1 are real analytic mappings, then G
is a Lie group.
S. Lie envisaged an approach to solving partial differential equations
analogous to Galois' group-theoretic resolution of algebraic equations.
6. The mathematical axiomatisation of physics

Hilbert considered that physics was too difficult to be left to physicists.
Progress has been minimal, not least because the meaning of 6 is unclear.
Again, Hilbert could not have foreseen the many developments in 20th
century physics. We can record, however, that the axiomatisation of
probability theory was accomplished by A. Kolmogorov and that of
quantum physics by A. Wightman.
7. To establish the transcendence of certain numbers

The following generalisation of Lindemann's theorem was conjectured
by A. O. Gelfond (1929) and proved by A. Baker (1966).
If α1, α2, … , αr, β1, β2, … βr are non-zero algebraic numbers such
that ln α1, ln α2, … , ln αr are linearly independent over the rationals then
β1 ln α1 + β2 ln α2 + … +βr ln αr ≠ 0.
A special case of this, found independently by Gelfond and T.
Schneider (1934), which answers Hilbert's enquiry about the nature of 2 2,
states that if α is an algebraic number ≠ 0, 1 and β is an irrational number,
then αβ is a transcendental number.
8. To investigate problems concerning the distribution of prime numbers; in

particular, to show the correctness of the Riemann hypothesis
Tantalisingly, the Riemann hypothesis evades resolution.
∞
Note: The Riemann zeta function is defined by ζ (s) = ∑1 n−s for
s = σ + iτ ∈ c and σ > 1. This converges when σ > 1, and can be
continued to all of c by a formula giving ζ (1 − s) in terms of ζ (s). The
Riemann hypothesis states that the non-trivial roots of the Riemann zeta
function all lie on the line σ = 12 . Riemann had already noted that, if
ζ (s) = 0, then 0 ≤ Re (s) ≤ 1. He believed, for example, that a proof of
the hypothesis might establish the existence of an infinity of twin primes.
9. To find the most general law of reciprocity in an algebraic number field

Hilbert contributed to this, but it was E. Artin (1927) who established it
for Abelian extensions of q; the non-Abelian case is still open.
Note: The quadratic reciprocity law state that if p, q are different odd
primes then
()()
p q
.
q p
= (−1)(p − 1)(q − 1)/4 ,
where ()
a
p
, Legendre's symbol, is defined for any integer a and any odd
prime p as
 1 if x2 ≡ a (mod p) is solvable for x
()
a
p

=  −1 if x2 ≡ a (mod p) is not solvable for x
 0 if a ≡ 0 (mod p) .

Gauss was the first to solve the quadratic and cubic reciprocity laws.
10. To find an algorithm for deciding whether any given Diophantine

equation has a solution
Following pioneering work by M. Davis, H. Putnam and J. Robinson,
the problem was finally solved, negatively, by Y. Matijaseviè
(1970).
11. To investigate the theory of quadratic forms over an arbitrary algebraic

number field of finite degree
H. Hasse (1929) and C. L. Siegel (1936, 1951) obtained important
results. A. Weil and T. Ono (1964-1965) demonstrated a connexion
between the problem and algebraic groups. Generally, still incomplete.
12. Extension of Kronecker's theorem on Abelian fields to an arbitrary

algebraic field
Poorly posed by Hilbert, the problem was corrected and solved by T.
Takagi. In 1922 he proved the following fundamental theorem: every
Abelian extension of an algebraic number field F is a class field for the field
(corresponding to a congruence class group in F) and, conversely, every
class field E of F is an Abelian extension of F.
Note: Given a group G of automorphisms of a given field L, and K a
subfield of L, the group consisting of all automorphisms of L leaving every
element of K invariant is denoted by G (L / K). A Galois extension is called
an Abelian extension when G (L / K) is Abelian. Kronecker's theorem states
that cyclotomic fields are Abelian extensions of q and, conversely, every
Abelian extension of q is a subfield of a cyclotomic field.
The problem is related to finding functions which, for an arbitrary field,
play the same role as the exponential function for the rational field and
elliptic modular functions for imaginary quadratic fields.
13. To show the impossibility of the solution of the general algebraic

equation of the 7th degree by compositions of continuous functions of two
variables
Solved by V. I Arnol'd (1957) for continuous functions; still unsolved if

analyticity is required.
Note: We mention, in passing, the beautiful results of Kolmogorov and
Arnol'd that arbitrary real-valued continuous functions of any number of
variables can be represented exactly as compositions of a finite number of
such functions of only two variables.
14. To consider invariants which arise when only the transformations of a

subgroup of the totality of linear transformations, the projective linear
group, are permitted
By producing a counter-example, M. Nagata (1958) showed that the
invariants need not be finitely generated.
Note: An invariant is a mathematical object which remains unchanged
under certain kinds of transformation.
Recently there has been renewed activity in invariant theory; it has
widened its scope and has entered the realm of abstract algebra. Indeed
Problem 14, in algebraic language, can be rendered as:
Given fields k , k (x1, … , xn), and K , where k ⊆ K ⊆ k (x1, … , xn),
the problem is to determine whether the ring K ∩ k [ x1, … , xn] , is finitely
generated over K . Here k (x1, … , xn) is the field of rational functions in
(x1, … , xn) with coefficients in k, and k [ x1, … , xn] is the ring of
polynomials with coefficients in k .
15. To establish the foundations of algebraic geometry, in particular,

H. Schubert's enumerative calculus
Solved by B. L. van der Waerden (1938-1940), A. Weil (1950) and
others. In the late 1950s and 1960s, A. Grothendieck rewrote the
foundations of algebraic geometry after Weil.
Note: Algebraic geometry is the study of algebraic curves, algebraic
varieties and their generalisations to n dimensions. Suppose V is an n-
dimensional vector space with scalars in some field F. If W is a subset of V
composed of all points (x1, … , xn) which satisfy each of a set of polynomial
equations {pi (x1, … , xn) = 0}, i ∈ z+, with coefficients in F, then W is
an algebraic variety.
Originally, enumerative calculus was developed for counting the
number of curves touching a given set of curves, and enumerative geometry
refers to Schubert's application of the conservation of number principle [1].
16. To study the topology of real algebraic curves and surfaces

Sporadic results.
17. Suppose f (x1, … , xn) is a rational function with real coefficients that
takes a positive value for any n-tuple (x1, … , xn). The problem is to
determine whether the function f can be written as a sum of squares of
rational functions
Solved, affirmatively, by Artin (1926-1927) for real closed fields. In

1967 DuBois gave a negative solution to the general case. In the same year
Pfister gave the number of squares required.
18. To investigate the existence of non-regular space-filling polyhedra

K. Reinhardt (1928), a student of Hilbert, showed that such a ‘tiling’
exists. In 1910, L. Bieberbach proved that, up to equivalence, there are only
finitely many n-dimensional crystallographic groups.
19. To determine whether the solution of regular problems in the calculus

of variations are necessarily analytic
Solved by S. Bernstein, I. G. Petrovskii, and others.
20. To investigate the existence of solutions of partial differential equations

with prescribed boundary conditions
Hilbert contributed here by resurrecting Dirichlet's problem; a vast
amount of work has been done in this area pre- and post-Hilbert.
Note: This ‘problem’ is closely linked to the 19th.
∂ 2u 2
A typical boundary problem takes the form − ∇ u = f in some
∂t 2
∂u
region R, with u (0, t) = u1 and (0, t) = u2 on the boundary of R.
∂t
An elliptic partial differential equation, for example, is a real 2nd order
partial differential equation of the form:
∂ 2u
( ∂u ∂u
)
n
∑ aij ∂ xi∂ xj + F x1, … , xn, u,

∂ x1
,…,
∂ xn
= 0
i,j = 1
n
such that the quadratic form ∑ aijxixj is non-singular and positive definite.
i, j = 1
Typical examples are the Laplace (Dirichlet's problem) and Poisson
equations. We might, in passing, mention the link with potential theory.
21. To show that there always exists a linear differential equation of the
Fuchsian class with given singular points and monodromy group
Several special cases have been solved, for example by H. Röhrl (1957)
and P. Deligne (1970), but a negative solution was found by B. Bolibruch
(1989).
Note: The first indication of a deep relationship between groups and
differential equations emerged in Riemann's investigation of the
hypergeometric differential equation, which belongs to class of equations of
Fuschian type. As it is linear, and of second order, its solutions are
expressible as a sum of basic solutions, the analytic continuation of which
around each singular point gives rise to more branches of the solution that
depend linearly on those first chosen. The matrix of constants which

characterises this dependence is called a monodromy matrix and the group
generated by these matrices is called the monodromy group of the equation
[2].
22. Uniformisation of complex analytic functions by means of automorphic

functions
Parametrising all algebraic curves (representing simultaneously their x
and y values by functions of a single parameter) became known as the
uniformisation problem. Poincaré conjectured that all but the simplest of
algebraic curves arise from decompositions of the upper half-plane into a
tessellation by polygons. The problem was resolved by H. Poincaré and P.
Koebe (1907). This result underpins much of modern complex analysis
(and complex dynamical systems).
23. To extend the methods of the calculus of variations

Hilbert, and many others, have made contributions to this area, which
has grown apace, especially since the Second World War, and has been
subsumed under optimisation theory (operations research) which includes
such disciplines as control theory, decision theory, linear programming,
Markov chains and queuing theory.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes especially to thank the referees who read the first
draft of this paper and the editor, Stephen Abbott, for their invaluable help.
References
1. E. T. Bell, The development of mathematics, Dover (1992) p. 340.
2. I. Grattan-Guinness (ed.), Companion encyclopaedia of the history of
mathematical sciences, Routledge (1994) pp. 470-471.
Comprehensive sources
E. J. Borowski and J. H. Borwein, Dictionary of mathematics, Collins
(1989).
Eric W. Weisstein, CRC concise encyclopaedia of mathematics, Chapman
and Hall (1999).
Kiyosi Itô (ed.), Encyclopaedic dictionary of mathematics, MIT Press.
GRAHAM T. Q. HOARE
3 Russett Hill, Chalfont St Peter, Bucks SL9 8JY
LEWIS CARROLL − MATHEMATICIAN AND TEACHER OF CHILDREN 9
Lewis Carroll − mathematician and teacher of

children
CANON D. B. EPERSON
It is well known that Lewis Carroll enjoyed the company of children

and entertained them with fantastic stories, whilst on boating expeditions or
on beaches, but his diaries* also reveal that he enjoyed teaching children
mathematics and other school subjects. On April 16th 1855, he recorded his
concern with the education of his younger sister Louisa, who had an aptitude
for mathematics: ‘Went into Darlington − bought Swale's Chamber's Euclid
for Louisa. I had to scratch out a good deal he had interpolated, (e.g.
definitions of words of his own) and put in some he had left out. An author
has no right to mangle the original writer whom he employs: all additional
matter should be carefully distinguished from the genuine text. N. B. Pott's
Euclid is the only edition worth getting − both Capell and Chamber's are
mangled editions.’ Three days later he recorded: ‘Advanced Louisa's
mathematics to simple Equations (third day of Algebra), and the first 12
propositions of Euclid.’ On the next day, he left his home at the rectory of
Croft, and returned to Oxford for the Easter Term.
At this time his own mathematical education was providing him with
problems. He was studying the monumental works of George Salmon on
conic sections, in which he found deficiencies and inconsistencies that
hindered the compilation of his own Notes on Salmon. New subjects also
worried him; ‘I talked over the calculus of variations with Price (his tutor)
today, but without any effect. I see no prospect of understanding the subject
at all.’ Four days later he wrote: ‘I have spent a good deal of the day
puzzling over a difficulty in Salmon’, and again consultation with Price did
not help.
He was happier a few days later when Price lent him a little book on
finite differences by Knuff, ‘by which all kinds of series can be summed: I
have not yet made it out, but it looks very neat.’
Mr Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was then a 23-year-old undergraduate at
Christ Church, Oxford, who had achieved First Class Honours in
Mathematical Moderations and had been appointed a Student of Christ
Church (equivalent to being elected a Fellow of the college), a post that
initiated him into the teaching profession, as his duties included giving
private tuition to younger men. During the summer vacation he had his first
experience of teaching a class of children at the new National School at
* I am indebted to my friend Edward Wakeling for his permission to quote

extensively from volumes I and II of his annotated edition of Lewis Carroll's
Diaries (the private journals of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson), published by the
Lewis Carroll Society. In places, the punctuation has been altered and the the
interested reader may wish to consult the originals.
Croft-on-Tees: ‘I went to the Boys' School in the morning to hear my father

(Archdeacon Dodgson) teach, as I want to begin trying myself soon. Some
of the boys were much more intelligent than I expected.’ On the following
Sunday ‘I took the first and second class of the Boys' School in the morning
− we did part of the life of St. John, one of the “lessons” on Scripture Lives.
I liked my first attempt in teaching very much.’
On the next day he ‘Took the first class alone in Old Testament (part of
Judges). Mr Hobson (the headmaster) wants some assistance in Latin, and
he also proposes that I should teach Coates (who is trying for a Pupil-
teachership) some Algebra—we made no definite arrangements’. On the
next day ‘As there was nothing for me to do in the Boys' School, I took the
second class in the Girls', and liked the experiment very much. The
intelligence of the children seemed to vary inversely as their size. They
were a little shy this first time, but answered well nevertheless.’
During the next week ‘I took the first class of boys: besides this I teach
James Coates Euclid and Algebra on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday
evenings, and read Latin with Mr Hobson on Wednesday evening and
Saturday morning − so that I have tolerable practice in teaching.’ Later he
recorded ‘My scheme of teaching now is
Boys' School Sunday morning.
Girls' school, second class, all other mornings except Saturday
and Friday.
Mr Hobson (Latin) Wednesday evening and Saturday morning.
James Coates (Euclid and Algebra) Tuesday, Thursday and
Friday evening.
besides these, I give the first class in the Girls' School a lesson in sums,
every Friday morning, making about 9 hours teaching per week.’
Presumably this continued until the school closed for the summer
holiday, as the last reference to Croft School in the diary was on Sunday
July 29th: ‘Took the Boy's School in texts for the first time − my regular
work now is with the second class girls.’
It is worth noting that the school was built in 1845 by the National
Society with generous help from the Dodgson family; it consisted of two
large rooms, one for boys and one for girls, catering for 120 pupils. There
were only two teachers, Mr Henry Hobson and his wife Sarah, but it is
thought that Archdeacon Dodgson and other members of his family assisted
regularly with the teaching in an honorary capacity.
On January 29th 1856, he breakfasted with the Revd Henry Swabey in
order to arrange about teaching in his school. ‘We settled that I am to come
at ten on Sunday, and at two on Tuesdays and Fridays to teach sums. I gave
the first lesson there today, to a class of 8 boys, and found it much more
pleasant than I expected. The contrast is very striking between town and
country boys: here they are sharp, boisterous, and in the highest spirits, the
difficulty of teaching being not to get an answer, but to prevent all
answering at once. They seem tractable and in good order: I stayed a short
time afterwards to watch: for want of teachers, the master (Charles

Mayhew) had to conduct two lessons at once, while a third (a writing
lesson) went on by itself.’
On Feb. 1st ‘The Master at St Aldate's School asked if I would join the
first class of girls with the boys. I tried it for today, but I do not think they
can be kept together, as the boys are much the sharpest. This made a class
of 15. I went on with “practice” as before.’ Later ‘Gordon (the Senior
Censor) suggested a question in ancient mathematics; viz. how did the
Romans work multiplication? He, Lloyd, and I, tried it, but could not make
much of it.’ On Feb. 5th he ‘varied the lesson at school with a story,
introducing a number of sums to be worked out. I also worked for them the
puzzle of writing the answer to an addition sum, when only one of the five
rows have been written: this, and the trick of counting alternately up to 100,
either putting on no more than 10 to the number last named, astonished them
not a little.’
This shows that Dodgson was well aware of the value of ‘recreational
mathematics’ in the classroom, and he may have been a pioneer in using
puzzles and tricks in order to retain the interest of children in a subject that
they found difficult, although he may have been using methods similar to
those he had experienced when at school. It is thought that he invented
several puzzles and pastimes, and that he planned after his retirement to
publish a book containing some of them, in his series of Curiosa
Mathematica.
On Feb. 8th he found ‘the school class noisy and inattentive, the novelty
of the thing is wearing off, and I find them rather unmanageable. Showed
them the “9” trick of striking out a figure, after subtracting a number from
its reverse’. (This depends upon the fact that the difference between any
number and its reverse is always a multiple of 9, and so has a digit sum that
is 9 or a multiple of 9.)
On the next day he wrote to Swabey, asking ‘what he considered the
best way for my going on at the school: my idea is to form a new class,
consisting only of the bright and attentive boys and girls: the system of
taking the whole of the two first classes does not answer well’ but when he
met him at the school, he ‘agreed to try a little longer taking the whole of
both classes, and set them sums all round, so as to give each something to
do. I taught them a little about fractions, and explained the trick of the
addition sum.’
The struggle to maintain discipline continued for a few more days; one
day he found the ‘school class again noisy and troublesome. I have not yet
acquired the art of keeping order’, though four days later, ‘School class
better, as I threatened to banish those who did not attend from the lesson’.
A week later he recorded: ‘Class again noisy and inattentive, it is most
disheartening, and I almost think I had better give up teaching there for the
present.’ Three days later he ‘Left word at the school that I shall not be able
to come again for the present. I doubt if I shall try again next term: the good
done does not seem worth the time and trouble.’
Fortunately his association with the children at Croft School ended on a

happier note. When he returned home during the next vacation, he ‘Heard
the singing lesson in the school, about 50 are learning, and there are many
good voices among them: one piece they sang in full harmony. They are
also learning a choral service, which Mr Baker hopes to introduce in church
on weekdays.’
When Dr Henry George Liddell came to Christ Church to reside in the
deanery with his wife and their four young children, Dodgson was a
frequent visitor and soon made friends with Harry their only boy, whom he
met for the first time whilst watching the torpids* from the Christ Church
barge. On March 6th 1856 he recorded: ‘he is certainly the handsomest boy
I ever saw’. In the following summer term he taught Harry how to row, and
on June 3rd he ‘spent the morning at the deanery, photographing the
children’. Later ‘Frank and I, with Harry Liddell, went down to Sandford in
a gig. We rowed with sculls down with Harry as stroke, and he steered
back.’ On June 5th ‘from half-past four to seven, Frank and I made a
boating excursion with Harry and Ina: the latter (the Dean's eldest daughter),
much to my surprise, having got permission from the Dean to come. We
went down to the island, and made a kind of picnic there, taking biscuits
with us, and buying ginger beer and lemonade there. Harry, as before,
rowed stroke most of the way, and (fortunately, considering the wild spirits
of the children) we got home without accident, having attracted by our
remarkable crew a good deal of attention from almost everyone we met.’
Dodgson regarded this as one of the happiest days of his life.
In the Michaelmas term he soon ‘Fell in with Harry and Ina Liddell, and
took them up to see my book of photographs’, and a few days later, ‘Met
Miss Prickett, the governess at the Deanery, walking with Ina, and settled
that I would come over on Wednesday morning, if fine,’ in order to take
photographs. ‘The morning was fair, and I took my camera over to the
deanery, just in time to see the whole party (except Edith) set off with the
carriage and ponies, a disappointment for me, as it is the last vacant morning
I shall have in the term.’ Five days later, as there was a clear sun, he ‘went
to the deanery to take portraits at two, but the light failed, and I only got one
of Harry. I spent an hour or so afterwards with the children and the
governess, up in the schoolroom, making them paper boats, etc.’
When Mrs Liddell informed Dodgson that she intended to send Harry to
Twyford School after Easter, she ‘took me into the schoolroom to see
specimens of his sums and Latin: in the former he is well on.’ A few days
later he ‘Called at the deanery. The Dean and Mrs L. are going abroad for
four months, for his health. The children are to remain in Oxford: Lloyd has
undertaken to teach Harry his Latin and Greek. I offered to teach him sums
etc. but Mrs L. seemed to think it would take up too much of my time. Two
days before the parents sailed for Madeira, he ‘called at the deanery, and
took Harry a Christmas box, a mechanical tortoise: (I gave Ina one the other
day, Mrs Rutherford's children).’ No mention was made of gifts to Alice
* A torpid was the second boat of a college.
and Edith, but one can be sure that they were not forgotten. Five days later
he ‘met Harry and Ina in the Quadrangle, coming home from riding, and
went into the deanery with them, and stayed for luncheon (or rather their
dinner).’
Early in February 1857 whilst ‘walking in the afternoon, I fell in with
Ina Liddell and the governess, and returned with them to the deanery, where
I spent about an hour with the young party in the schoolroom. Miss Prickett
showed me a letter the other day from Mrs Reeve (Mrs Liddell's mother) in
which she expressed great alarm at Harry's learning “mathematics” with me!
She fears the effect of overwork on the brain. As far as I can judge, there is
nothing to fear at present on that score, and I sent a message to that effect.’
On February 8th Dodgson ‘went to chapel in surplice for the first time
since the 14th of October 1855. I read the second lesson in the afternoon.
Harry ran up to me afterwards to tell me “you've got your white gown on,
and you read in the church!” Two days later he recorded ‘my pupil Harry
Liddell is beginning to tire of the arithmetic lesson. I talked the subject over
with the governess, and settled that he had better give up coming to me
unless we succeed better in future.’ But on the next day he ‘spent an hour at
the deanery in the afternoon by Harry's invitation,’ and on the following
morning ‘Harry did well today, it is doubtful how long the change will last.’
In the autumn of the following year Dodgson visited Harry at Twyford
School, and, of course, saw him in Oxford during the school holidays, and
enjoyed his company rowing on the Isis. Undoubtedly he had made an
invaluable contribution to the education of the ‘fine young man’ who came
to call on him in November 1862.
On May 5th 1857 Dodgson recorded in his diary ‘I went to the deanery
in the afternoon, partly to give little Alice a birthday present, and stayed for
tea.’ She was then 5 years old, and had already been photographed more
than once. His friendship with Ina, Alice and Edith naturally developed
after Harry had gone to boarding school, and his visits to the deanery were
so frequent that some suspected that the attraction was Miss Prickett! There
is no evidence that Dodgson ever offered to participate in thr education of
the three young maidens, but his imaginative stories and the word puzzles
that he invented must have developed their appreciation of the English
language and increased their vocabularies. This influence upon children and
adults still continues, and, for this reason, Lewis Carroll is still honoured
100 years after his death.
CANON D. B. EPERSON
Hillrise, 12 Tennyson Road, Worthing, Sussex BN11 4BY
An imperfect issue
No feature on perfect numbers for Math Gaz 496? Then there's always
8128!
A comment from J. H. Evans
Snubbing with and without eta

H. MARTYN CUNDY
In the recent Gazette [1], John Sharp has given us a most entertaining
account of the number η (eta) which is the only real root of the equation
x3 − x2 − x − 1 = 0, and its connection with the snub cube. I have been
investigating this a bit further, with some results that may be of interest.
More about η
John Sharp suggests that η may be a pervasive number like π or e, but
these are transcendental numbers, while η is an ordinary algebraic number,
although its derivation is interesting. η = 1.8392867552… , but, using
Tartaglia's method − putting x = 13 + u + v, we obtain its value explicitly
as
η = 1
3 [1 + (19 + 3 33)
1/3
+ (19 − 3 33)
1/3
].
η does have some useful properties: John Sharp gives some, but here is a
short list:
(η − 1) (η2 − 1) = (η + 1) (η − 1)2 = 2,
(η − 1) (η2 + 1) = 2η,
(η + 1)2 (η − 1) = (η2 − 1) (η + 1) = 2η2,
(η + 1)2 = η (η2 + 1) ,
η + 1 / η = 2 / (η − 1) = (1 + 1 / η)2 ,
η4 + 1 = 2η3 and thus η + 1 / η3 = 2.
With a start near 2, y = 2 − 1 / x3 on iteration converges rapidly to η. The
general equation of this type,
xn = xn − 1 + xn − 2 + … + x + 1 = (xn − 1) / (x − 1)
gives x = 2 − 1 / xn, which approaches 2 steadily with increasing n.
If we set η − 1 = t , we obtain the equation t 2 (t + 2) = 2, and we
shall find this more meaningful and useful as an aid to the process of
snubbing, to which I now turn.
A more general approach

Measurements of significant features of the snub cube are not too
difficult to make, but most people find themselves baffled by the snub
dodecahedron and wonder how to get started on it. Let me tell two stories
which may help.
(i) Can you discover from local measurements how big the earth is?
SNUBBING WITH AND WITHOUT ETA 15
Eratosthenes had to do some travelling about Egypt to make his

estimate, but I was brought up in a generation (before metrication) that
was taught the following myth. If you go to East Anglia (where there
are lots of zero contours, a spot height of 2 indicates a ‘hill’, and there
is even a trig. point labelled −1) there are long stretches of level water.
Put three posts in a straight stretch, one mile apart. All the posts stick
equally far out of the water, but, due to the curvature of the earth, the
middle one is 8 inches above the line of sight of the other two. From
this and the geometrical theorem in Figure 1, which states that
KA.KB = KC.KD we have at once that 8ins. × earth's diameter =
(1 mile)2. The diameter is therefore given by d = 5280 × 12 / 8 miles
= 7920 miles, which is surprisingly accurate!
A
C D
K
FIGURE 1
(ii) A friend recently was making a model with wooden balls of the carbon
molecule with 60 atoms, called a buckyball. (They are arranged like
the points on a football where hexagons and pentagons meet.) He
could not get the angles right, nor find how big the model would be.
We need the same theorem.
Every uniform polyhedron has equal edges and every vertex alike.
Since the vertices are all alike, they are on a sphere whose centre is their
centroid. So the neighbours of a vertex A, say B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, all lie on two
spheres: the circumsphere of the polyhedron, and a sphere with centre A and
radius equal to the edge-length. Two spheres meet in a plane circle. So the
Bi form a plane cyclic polygon called the vertex figure of A. If we know its
shape and how much the vertex A lies above it, we can deduce all about the
polyhedron.
Snub polyhedra
We will confine our attention to the snub polyhedra that have 4
equilateral triangular faces and a (possibly different) regular polygonal face
surrounding each vertex. There are 6 of these (described in detail in [2]) if
we include the icosahedron (which is a snub tetrahedron). The other 5 (in a

notation that is described in the next paragraph) are:
| 2 3 4 snub cuboctahedron
| 2 3 5 snub icosidodecahedron
| 2 3 5/2 great inverted snub icosidodecahedron
| 2 3 5/3 great snub icosidodecahedron
and finally one with its triangles reflexed
| 2 3/2 5/3 great inverted retrosnub icosidodecahedron (!).
These can be seen illustrated in all their glory in [2], nos. 17, 18, 113,
116, 117. Figure 2 shows the snub cube (or, better, snub cuboctahedron).
All of these occur in enantiomorphic pairs, that is, with left-handed or right-
handed twists, making mirror-images of one another. As to the names, the
snub cube is related to the octahedron in the same way as it is to the cube; it
contains faces in the planes of both solids. To be fair, then, it is preferred to
call it the snub cuboctahedron, and so on. Some people use other names, but
the numerical code is definitive. All these polyhedra can be generated by
reflections in the sides of spherical triangles, and the numbers give the
angles of these triangles. Thus | 2 3 5/2 indicates the use of a triangle with
angles π / 2, π / 3, 2π / 5, see [2, 3].
The side of a convex regular polygon with p sides (a p-gon) subtends an
angle of 2π / p at its centre K . The pentagram, or regular star-pentagon, has
sides subtending 4π / 5, so it is convenient to label it as a 5/2-gon; an m / n-
gon will have m vertices equally spaced on a circle, joined by edges to
neighbours n points away.
FIGURE 2
If every edge is of length 2 units, the vertex figures of all these

polyhedra have the form shown here in Figure 3: for i = 1 to 4 the angle
BiKBi + 1 will be 2θ , say, where θ is slightly greater than π / 6. B1B5 will be a
diagonal of a p-gon so that ∠B1AB5 = π(1 − 2/ p) and ∠B1KB5 = 2(π − 4θ).
Let the radius KBi = ρ. Then from B1KB2 we have ρ sin θ = 1, and
from B1KB5 and B1AB5 we have 2c = B1B5 = 2ρ sin 4θ = 4 cos π / p.
Therefore
sin 4θ
= c = 2 cos (π / p) . (1)
sin θ
Let t = 2 cos 2θ , so that t + 2 = 4 cos2 θ . These equations combine to
give
t 2 (t + 2) = c2 = 4 cos2 (π / p) . (2)
For the six polyhedra listed above, p = 3, 4, 5, 5/2, 5/3 (5/2 reversed), 5/3;
but in the last two the vertex figure is crossed; the theory holds, but it is not
easy to see what. is happening! See [2].
So in equation (2) c2 is equal to 1, 2, τ2, τ−2, where τ = ( 5 + 1) / 2 is
the golden ratio. John Sharp used the letter φ for this number − a
transatlantic name, but the English use of τ is commoner.
B2
B3 K
A
B1
ρ ρ
θ θ
K
B1 1 1 B2
B4
A
B5
ρ K
π − 4θ
ρ
B1 π
p
B5
FIGURE 3
Resulting measurements
Well, after all that, what use is t ? This is where Figure 1 comes into its
own. Let h be the height of the vertex A above the plane of the Bi, and let d
be the diameter of the snub polyhedron (Figure 4). Then h (d − h) = ρ2
and h2 + ρ2 = 4. At once we have d = 4 / h (a result we could also get
from the similarity of triangles ABD, AKB), and
h2 = 4 − ρ2 = 4 − cosec2 θ = 4 1 − ( 1
2 − t
= )
4 (1 − t)
2 − t
.
Therefore R, the radius of the circumsphere of the snub polyhedron is given
by
2 − t
R = .
1 − t
A
h
B, Bi
ρ K ρ
d−h
D
FIGURE 4
To find the circumscribing polyhedron

Here, as John Sharp showed, we need the radius of the sphere touching
the faces of the polyhedron we are seeking, the in-radius, which, following
Coxeter [4], we denote by 2R. We are interested in two possible polyhedra:
that with the p-gon as face, and that with the triangle as face belonging to
the dual polyhedron. Which triangle depends on which enantiomorph we
have, but the choice does not affect the measurements. It is immediate that
for a p-gon 2R2 = R2 − cosec2 (π / p) = 1 / (1 − t) − cot 2 (π / p), and for a
triangle 2R2 = 1/ (1 − t) − 13 . If the edge of the circumscribing polyhedron is
2e, we need to find this from our knowledge of the radius 2R of its shared in-
sphere. The polyhedron {p, q} has p-gonal faces and q-gonal vertex figures.
If O is its centre, V a vertex, E the midpoint of an edge, and F the centre of a
face, again following [3], we name the radii OV = 0R, OE = 1R,
OF = 2R. VE = e, sincet 2e is the length of an edge. We need
∠EOF = ψ, where π − 2ψ is the dihedral angle. First we need
∠VOE = φ. In the diagram (Figure 5), since V, K, O, V′, E are coplanar,
∠VV′K = φ, so V′K = 2e cos φ is the radius of the vertex figure, which is
a q-gon with edge-length 4e cos (π / p), so its radius is
2e cos (π / p) cosec (π / q). Therefore cos φ = cos (π / p) cosec (π / q). The
rest is straightforward, but tiresome.
sin 2 φ = 1 − cos2 (π / p) cosec2 (π / q) = k 2 cosec2 (π / q) ,
where k 2 = sin 2 (π / q) − cos2 (π / p) = sin 2 (π / p) − cos2 (π / q).
Then 0R = e cos φ = (e sin (π / q)) / k, and
1R
2
= OE2 = e2 (sin 2 (π / q) − k 2) / k 2 = (e2 cos2 (π / p)) / k 2.
Finally
2R
2
= 0R2 − VF2 = e2 sin 2 (π / q) / k 2 − e2 cosec2 (π / p)
= (e2 / k ) cos2 (π / q) cot 2 (π / p) .
2
[ 1/ (1 − t) − cot2 (π/ p)]

So cot 2 ψ = (cos2 (π/ q)) / k 2 = OF2 / FE2 = ,
e2 cot 2 π/ p
leading to e2 cos2 (π / p) = k 2 [ tan2 (π / p) / (1 − t) − 1] , or, finally
 sin 2 (π / p)   tan2 (π / p) 
e2 =  2 − 1  − 1 .
 cos (π / q)  1 − t 
O
K φ
V F
e
E φ
e V′
FIGURE 5
Angle of twist
We now know the sizes of the polyhedra which enclose the snub
polyhedron, with faces containing its non-snub faces of a {p, q}. These
faces lie on similar faces of the enclosing polyhedron − the case − but are
twisted in relation to them. We now find the angle of twist. This looks
formidable until we spot the secret. The polygons are forced to twist
because one triangle edge links adjacent p-gons, with its midpoint on OM,
where M is the midpoint of the separating edge of the case. (See Figure 6).
The central plane through this edge bisects PP′, which lies in a plane
perpendicular to it. (If you have made a model of a snub cube, this is seen
very clearly.) If (x, y) as shown in the figure are coordinates of P in its face,
with origin M, we have x2 cos2 ψ + y2 = 1; x = e cot (π/ p) − cosec(π/ p) cosα;
y = cosec(π/ p) sin α, where α is the inclination of 2OP to the x-axis. These
equations lead to the quadratic in cos α:
k 2 cos2 α + 2e cos α cos (π / p) cos2 (π / q) −
(e2 cos2 (π / q) + sin 2 (π / p)) cos2 (π / p) = 0.
e P
y
M α
x L 2O
π p
P′
e
M
(P′) L (P)
x cos ψ
2O
ψ ψ
O
FIGURE 6
2
Inserting the value of e and a little manipulation produces for the positive
root of this quadratic
sin (π / p) 1
k cosec (π / p) cos α = − cos (π / q) − cos2 (π / p),
1 − t 1 − t
i.e. cosα = [ sin (π/ p)/ k] [ 1R′ sin (π/ p)−2 R cos(π/ q)] , where 1R′ = R2 − 1 is
now the mid-radius of the snub polyhedron. This result is so unexpectedly
simple that one wonders if there is a simpler way of getting it!
The angle of twist is π / p − α, and is given in the accompanying table.
Snubber's kit: [(34, p) only. For others, see [2] and be amazed].
Equations: Snub {p,3}; edge length 2 units.
t 2 (t + 2) = 4 cos2 (π / p). 0R2 = 1 + 1 / (1 − t). 1R = 1 / 1 − t .
If a {p, q} with edges of length 2e contains the p-gonal faces of the snub
(p, q are now interchangeable), then
1 π π π
2R = − cot 2 . k 2 = sin 2 − cos2 .
2
1 − t p p q
π π
e = 2R k tan sec .
p q
Twist of snub on a p-gonal face is β = π / p − α, where
π π π
k cos α = sin 1R sin − 2R cos  .
p p q
TABLES: numerical results for snub edge = 2
TABLE 1 p = 3, c2 = 1
t Polyhedron R {p, q} e 2R k twist angle
−1 Same tet. 3/ 2 {3, 3} 1 1/ 6 1
2 2 0
1/τ Icosa. 2+τ {3, 3} τ2 2 τ2 / 3 22·23°
−τ Great icosa. 3−τ {3, 3} 2 / τ2 3 / τ2 22·23°
TABLE 2 p = 4, c2 = 2
1
0·839287 Snub cube 2·687427 Cube 2·285227 2·285227 2 16·468°
Octahedron 2·972103 2·426712 20·315°
TABLE 3 p = 5, c2 = τ2
1 −1
0·943151 Snub 4·311675 Dodecahedron 1·778973 3·961832 2τ 13·106°
dodeca. Icosahedron 2·748341 4·154179 19·518°
TABLE 4 p = 5 / 2, c2 = τ−2
2τ
1
0·399021 (W.113) 1·632161 Gt Stellated 6·216529 1·248350 27·108°
dodecahedron
Great 5·230732 1·153524 24·515°
icosahedron
−0·505561 (W.116) 1·290040 Gt Stellated 3·721987 0·747415 10·155°
dodecahedron
Great icosa. 2·608352 0·575214 4·420°
−1·893460 (W.117) 1·160003 Gt Stellated 2·439766 0·489933 3·672°
dodecahedron
Great icosa. 0·551694 0·110786 0·544°
Notes on the tables

Tetrahedron. 3 real roots for t . t = −1 means 2θ = 2π / 3 so that B4 will
coincide with B1 and B5 with B2. So triangle KB5B1 will just be triangle
KB1B2 repeated turned over. So at vertex A we have 2 ordinary equilateral
triangles and one covered three times; finally we arrive at the original
tetrahedron covered 5 times—a rather peculiar icosahedron! t = τ−1 gives
us what we expected, but t = −τ reminds us of what we have probably
forgotten. There are in fact two ways of dividing the edges of the core
octahedron of the stella octangula in the ratio τ : 1. It may be divided
Gr
eat
Tet
ico
rah
edr
sah
on
face
edr
on
fac
τ3 icosa- 22.2°
hedron
e
face
1
τ2 2
τ l
with ine of i
of s secon ntersec
tella d te ti
octa trahe on
τ2 ngu dron
la
τ4
FIGURE 7
internally, giving the familiar icosahedron, or externally, giving the great

icosahedron, a beautiful polyhedron with star-pointed vertices. Its edges are
parallel to those of the internal icosahedron. See Figure 7 and the fuller
discussion below.
The snub cube. The inverse ratio giving the edge of the snub cube as a
fraction of the encasing cube is 0·4375933…. John's eagle eye found a
similar number in a remote place—Figure 174 in [5]. It would indeed be
miraculous if a number which is the root of a cubic equation should turn up
in the entirely Euclidean process of locating a tetrahedron in a
dodecahedron. Such has not happened; the ratio here is
1 / (τ 2) = 0·437016…
The starry snubs. The negative roots for t here again correspond to vertex
figures which cross over, i.e., which have intersecting sides. The resulting
polyhedra have intricate intersecting faces, triangles and pentagrams. There
are 8 other uniform snub polyhedra involving more complicated vertex
figures.
Central inversion
Under this transformation in which each point of a solid is mapped to its
reflection in the centre, every snub polyhedron is transformed into its
enantiomorph, and the encasing polyhedron, usually symmetrical, remains
unchanged. Thus both enantiomorphic snubs are inscribable in the same
case. But there is one exception where the opposite situation occurs. A
regular tetrahedron is not centrally symmetrical; its central inverse is a
second tetrahedron with edges perpendicular to those of the first. The two
together form the beautiful 8-pointed star which Kepler named the stella
octangula. The core common to both tetrahedra is an octahedron with edges
half as long. But here the snub polyhedron is symmetrical—an icosahedron
—which must therefore be inscribable in both tetrahedra, i.e. in the core
octahedron of the stella octangula. Indeed, as John Sharp has so delightfully
reminded us, its 12 vertices lie one on each edge of this core octahedron,
dividing it in the ratio τ : 1. But there are 12 other points dividing these
sides externally in the same ratio τ : 1 (i.e. τ : −1) and they will be the
vertices of another symmetrical icosahedron, the great icosahedron whose
faces are 20 pentagrams. This is a regular polyhedron, pictured in [2] no. 4l.
References
1. John Sharp, Have you seen this number?, Math. Gaz. 82 (July 1998) pp.
203-214.
2. Magnus J. Wenninger, Polyhedron models, Cambridge University Press
(1971).
3. H. S. M. Coxeter, Uniform polyhedra, Phil. Trans. 246 (1954) pp. 40l-
450.
4. H. S. M. Coxeter, Introduction to geometry, Wiley (1961) §10.4.
5. H. Martyn Cundy and A. P. Rollett, Mathematical models, Oxford
University Press (1961).
H. MARTYN CUNDY
2 Applerigg, Kendal, Cumbria LA9 6EA
Use it or lose it!!

His mind may have been trapped in an aged body, but it was active, and he
retained his sense of humour − usually at his own expense. Two years ago he wrote:
‘I am settling down into an untidy compromise between the venerable and the
decrepit’. 18 months ago the Mathematical Gazette printed an article by him headed
‘An algorithm for square roots: an episode in the campaign against dotage’.
From an appreciation of Rev. L. M. Brown in The Scotsman, April 1999.
The Fermat-Torricelli points of n lines

ROY BARBARA
For convenience, if P, P′ are points in the Euclidean plane r2, [PP′] will
denote the closed segment {(1 − λ) P + λP′ ∈ r2 : 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1}.
Excluding the endpoints, we get the open segment ] PP′ [ . Further, if Px is a
half line, ] Px will stand for Px − {P}.
The problem
S = {Li, i = 1, … , n} denotes a set of n (≥ 2) distinct lines in r2.
Further, we associate with each Li a positive real number mi called its
weight. f will denote the function r2 → r, f (X) = ∑i = 1 mid (X, Li), where
n
d (X, Li) is the distance from X to Li. A question of interest is to minimise f ,

i.e. to find α = minimum f (X) and to determine the set of X, denoted by
FT (S), such that f (X) = α. In the extremal case where the Li are all parallel,
by projection in the common direction of the Li, the problem reduces to
finding the Fermat points of n collinear points; one easily finds that FT (S) is
either a line Li or a closed band formed by two adjacent lines Li, Li + 1. From
now on, we assume the (most general) hypothesis, which is that
the Li are not all parallel
Some terminology
∪ Li is the boundary.
n
See Figure 1, b = Λ = r2 − b is the interior.
i=1
A vertex is the intersection of at least two distinct lines Li. If two vertices
V, V′ lie on some line Li such that ] VV′ [ contains no vertex, V, V′ are
adjacent vertices. In such a case, [VV′] is a side and P ∈ ] VV′ [ is a side-
∞−CHORD RAY-POINT
L1
Y
RA
X
VERTE VERTE
X
DE
L2 SIDE-POINT
SI
L3 ZONE
DE
PERIM
CHORD ETER
SI
L4 VER
TEX
L5 L6
FIGURE 1
THE FERMAT-TORRICELLI POINTS OF N LINES 25
point. A half line Vx ⊆ some Li , containing exactly one vertex V , is a ray,

and P ∈ ] Vx is a ray-point. A segment [PQ] where P, Q ∈ b and
] PQ [ ⊆ Λ is a chord. A half line Px where P ∈ b and ] Px ⊆ Λ is an
∞-chord.
n
Let Z = ∩ Zi ,
i=1
where Zi denotes one of the two closed half planes
defined by Li; such a closed convex set Z, if non-empty, is a zone; a
perimeter is the boundary of a bounded zone, hence a convex polygon.
The main result and examples

Theorem The function f always attains its minimum value α at a vertex.
Exactly three cases are possible:
1) α is reached at precisely one vertex V0 and FT (S) = {V0}.
2) α is reached at precisely two adjacent vertices V1, V2 and
FT (S) = [ V1V2] .
3) α is reached at precisely the r (≥ 3) vertices of a perimeter and
FT (S) = Z0, where Z0 denotes the compact convex zone delimited by
the perimeter.
Note: The theorem provides an effective procedure to determine α and

FT (S). Indeed, the vertices being finite in number, denote them by
V1, … , Vs. Compute f (V1) , … , f (Vs) and find α = min f (Vj). Compare
s
j=1
α to each f (Vj) and deduce FT (S), finding that, α is equal to precisely one,
precisely two, or at least three, of the f (Vj).
For the first three examples, T denotes a triangle ABC where, as usual,
the side lengths are denoted by a, b, c (a opposite to A, etc.), and where
ha, hb, hc denote the lengths of the altitudes (ha : from A to BC, etc.). We
take S = {L1, L2, L3}, where L1 is the line BC, L2 is CA, and L3 is AB.
Example 1 We choose m1 = m2 = m3 = 1. Then f (A) = ha; f (B) = hb;

f (C) = hc.
(i) Suppose, say, ha < hb, hc. Then A is the unique point in the plane of
which the sum of the distances from the sides of T is a minimum.
(ii) Suppose T is isosceles with apex angle A less than π / 3. Then,
ha > hb = hc. The theorem provides: FT (S) = [BC] . In particular,
d (X, L2) + d (X, L3) is constant for all X ∈ [BC] .
(iii) Suppose T equilateral. Then, f (A) = f (B) = f (C). Here FT (S) is the
convex hull of A, B, C (interior and boundary of T ). In other words,
every point inside T minimises f . We get the familiar property that the
sum of the distances from a point inside an equilateral triangle, to the
sides, is a constant.
Example 2 We take m1 = a; m2 = b; m3 = c. Then, f (A)(= aha) = f (B)

= f (C) = 2 × area T . We conclude that f is constant inside T , which
expresses that f (X) = 2 × area T , for all X inside T .
Example 3 We take now m1 = 1 / ha; m2 = 1 / hb; m3 = 1 / hc. Then, f (A)

= f (B) = f (C) = 1. According to the theorem, f has constant (minimum)
value 1 inside T . Let I denote the incentre of T and r the inradius of T . We
must have f (I) = 1. Since f (I) = (1 / ha) r + (1 / hb) r + (1 / hc) r, we get
the familiar formula:
1 1 1 1
= + + .
r ha hb hc
In examples 4 and 5, the weights are all 1.
Example 4 (Corollary) Let A1… An denote a convex regular polygon. We

take S as the set of lines A1A2, A2A3, … , AnA1. Clearly, by an argument of
symmetry, f (A1) = f (A2) = … = f (An). We conclude that f is constant
(minimum) inside the polygon A1… An. (This seems not to be trivial if n is
odd: case of a pentagon, heptagon, etc.)
Example 5 See Figue 2. More generally, let T1, … , Tr be arbitrary regular

polygons. We take S as the union of all the sides of the Ti . We assume that
the corresponding polygonal regions have a non-empty common intersection
I0. Then, FT (S) = I0.
I0
I0
T3
T1 T1
T2 T2
FIGURE 2
Proof of the Theorem

Note first the following: the zones cover the set {P ∈ r2: P is either a
vertex, a side-point, a ray-point, or interior to a (bounded or unbounded)
zone}; given two distinct points P, Q, then, P, Q lie in a same zone if and
only if ] PQ [ is not traversed by any line Li. (A set A is said to traverse a set
B (at A ∩ B) if A ∩ B and B − A are both non-empty.)
→
P0 Let P, R be distinct points. Consider PR as an x-axis, with arbitrary
origin O ∈ line PR. For X ∈ [PR] , x denotes the abscissa of X. Let L be a
line.
(i) If L does not traverse ] PR [ (possibly L = line PR), then, for some
a, b ∈ r, d (X, L) = a . x + b (for all X ∈ [PR] ). Furthermore, a
does not depend on O.
(ii) If L traverses ] PR [ at Q, let a, b, a′, b′ ∈ r such that
d (X, L) = ax + b if X ∈ [PQ]
d (X, L) = a′x + b′ if X ∈ [QR] ,
then, a < 0 and a′ = −a > 0.
Proof If L is parallel to PR, (i) is obvious as d (X, L) is constant. We
assume now that L intersects the line PR at angle θ , for x = x0. Then,
d (X, L) = | x − x0 | sin θ = (− sin θ) (x − x0) if x ≤ x0
= sin θ (x − x0) if x ≥ x0.
(i) and (ii) immediately follow.
P1 Let [PQ] ⊆ zoneZ (e.g. side; chord). Then, f is a linear transformation

on [PQ] . In particular, f is either constant or strictly monotonic on [PQ] .
→
Proof Consider PQ as an x-axis, with an arbitrary origin O ∈ line PQ. Let
x denote the abscissa of X ∈ [PQ] . By P0, as Li does not traverse ] PQ [ ,
d (X, Li) = ai x + bi for some ai , bi ∈ r. Hence, f (X) = Ax + B, with
n n
A = ∑i = 1 miai ; B = ∑i = 1 mibi .
P1′ (Corollary) Let [PR] ⊆ zone Z. If f is minimum at Q ∈ ] PR [ , then

f is minimum on [PR] .
P2 Let half line Px ⊆ zone Z (e.g. ray; ∞-chord). Then f strictly increases
→
on Px. In particular, f is never minimum on ] Px.
→
Proof No line Li traverses ] Px. Hence, as X describes Px, d (X, Li) is
constant or increasing. Since the Li are not all parallel, at least for one i ,
d (X, Li), and hence f (X), strictly increases.
P2′ (Corollary) f is not minimum, at any ray-point, or at any X interior to

an unbounded zone. (Such points lie in some ] Px, where Px lies in some
zone Z.)
→
P3 Let P, R be distinct points. Consider PR as an x-axis, with some origin
O ∈ line PR. x denotes the abscissa of X ∈ [PR] . Suppose Q ∈ ] PR [ is
such that: P, Q are in the same zone; Q, R are in the same zone; and PR are
in different zones (at least one Li traverses ] PR [ at Q). Set f (X) = Ax + B
if X ∈ [PQ] and f (X) = A′x + B′ if X ∈ [Q, R] . Then A < A′.
Proof For convenience, we assume labelling such that for j ≤ r, Li

traverses ] PR [ at Q, and, for j > r , Lj does not traverse ] PR [ . For j > r ,
write d (X, Lj) = αj x + βj (X ∈ [PR] ). For 1 ≤ i ≤ r , using P0, write

d (X, Li)= −aix + bi (ai > 0) if X ∈ [PQ] and d (X, Li) = ai x + bi ′ if
r r
X ∈ [QR] . Clearly, A = ∑i = 1 mi (−ai ) + ∑j > r mjαj; A′ = ∑i = 1 mi ai + ∑j > r mjαj.
Hence, A < A′.
P4 Let P, Q be points not lying in the same zone. Assume f (P) minimum.
Then, f (P) < f (Q).
→
Proof (P4) Consider PQ as an x-axis, with some origin O ∈ line PQ. x
denotes the abscissa of X ∈ [PQ] . The set I of points R, where ] PQ [ is
traversed by (at least) one line Li is nonempty and finite. Let R1, … , Rr
(r ≥ 1) be the elements of I, in this order, from P to Q. Set R0 = P;
Rr + 1 = Q. For i = 0, … , r , Ri, Ri + 1 ∈ same zone. By P1, f (X) = Ai x + Bi,
if X ∈ [ Ri, Ri + 1] . As f (R0) minimum, f (R0) ≤ f (R1). We deduce A0 ≥ 0.
By P3, A0 < A1 <… < Ar. Hence, for 1 ≤ i ≤ r , Ai > 0, so f strictly
increases on [ Ri, Ri + 1] . Now, f (R0) ≤ f (R1) < f (R2) <… < f (Rr + 1) , so
f (P) < f (Q).
P4′ Corollary If P, Q ∈ FT (S), then, P, Q lie in a same zone*.
P5 If f is minimum at three different vertices V1, V2, V3, then f is minimum

at an interior point P ∈ Λ.
Proof Vi , Vj ∈ same zone. By P1, f is constant (minimum) on [ViVj] .
Clearly, [ViVj] is either a side or a chord. We consider two cases:
Case 1: Some [ViVj] is a chord: f is minimum at any P ∈ ] Vi Vj [ ⊆ Λ.
Case 2: [V1V2] , [V2V3] , [V3V1] are all sides: We note here that V1, V2, V3
are not collinear (otherwise, if, say, Vj is between Vi and Vk , Vi and Vk would
not lie in a same zone). In such a situation, one can see that V1V2V3 must
be a perimeter. Let U ∈ ] V2, V3 [ ; f (U) is minimum. By P1, f is constant
(minimum) on [UV1] . In particular, f is minimum at any point
P ∈ ] U V1 [ ⊆ Λ.
Now, we conclude the proof of the theorem:

Set α = minimum f (X), X ∈ r2. By elementary topology, we know that α
is reached.
Case 1: α is reached at O ∈ Λ.
Clearly, O lies in a unique zone Z (O is interior to Z). By P2′, Z is
bounded. Claim FT (S) = Z. Indeed, let P ∈ FT (S). O and P must lie in
a same zone. Hence, P ∈ Z. Conversely, let P ∈ Z. P lies on some chord
C ⊆ Z, C containing O. By P1′, f is minimum on C, hence at P.
For the rest, we assume FT (S) ⊆ b. By P2′, α is only reached at side
points, and, or, vertices.
* The reason for which I write ‘a zone’ instead of ‘the zone’ is that a give point (namely, a
boundary point) may lie in different zones.
Case 2: α is reached at some side point ∈ ] V1V2 [ :

By P1′, f is minimum on [ V1, V2] . By P5, a is not reached at a third
vertex. Claim FT (S) = [ V1V2] . Otherwise, α would be reached at a side
point P ∈ ] VV′ [ such that side [VV′] ≠ [ V1V2] , that is, V or V′ ≠ V1
and V2. By P1′, f would be minimum on [ V, V′] and hence at 3 different
vertices, contradicting P5.
Case 3: α is only reached at vertices:

α is reached, say, at V . Claim FT (S) = {V }. Otherwise, let
V′ ∈ FT (S), V′ ≠ V . V and V′ must lie in a same zone. By P1, f must be
constant (minimum) on [VV′] , hence minimum at P ∈ ] VV′ [ . Since
either P is a side point or P ∈ Λ, we get a contradiction.
Remark
The results in this note can be generalised to other functions f ,
providing f is assumed to be convex and zonewise linear. A theorem of the
convexity of the minimum set can be found in [1].
Acknowledgement
I am indebted to the referee for all his suggestions, as well as to Dr
Faruk Abi-Khuzam for introducing me to the problem and finding various
applications.
Reference
1. Luenberger: Introduction to Linear and Nonlinear Programming (p.
119).
ROY BARBARA
Department of Mathematics, University of Beirut, Lebanon
A mistake we could all make

COMMON MISTAKES IN TESTS
At seven: calculate the money left over from 54p after buying five pencils at
10p (52 per cent wrong, most of those answering 44p).
From an article in The Times, 18 December 1998.
SCHOOL TEST RESULTS

Sir, Apparently, “the tests cannot be bettered as a way of giving ... information
on children's progress” according to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
(report, today). However, one of the ‘common mistakes’ criticised in your report is
made by seven-year-olds, who ‘calculate the money left over from 54p after buying
five pencils at 10p’ as 44p.
What would their answer have been after buying five pencils at 10p each?
I remain Sir, yours, etc.
Letter to The Times, 19 December 1998, both sent in by Frank Tapson.
Continued fractions
ROBERT MACMILLAN
Consider the vulgar fraction 257/47. We can convert it to an integer

plus proper fraction. If we now invert the fractional part and repeat the
process on it, we get
257 / 47 = 5 + 22 / 47 = 5 + 1 / (47 / 22)
47 / 22 = 2 + 3 / 22 = 2 + 1 / (22 / 3)
and 22 / 3 = 7 + 1 / 3.
The original fraction can thus be expressed in the form
5 + 1 / (2 + 1 / (7 + 1 / 3)) ,
which is called a continued fraction (CF). Since it is uniquely defined by
the numbers 5,2,7,3, such a continued fraction list is conventionally written
[5;2,7,3], the first number being the integer part. Since 3 = 2 + 1 / 1, we
see that this CF could also be expressed as [5;2,7,2,1]: similarly, every finite
CF has two forms, ending either with d (greater than 1) or with d − 1, 1.*
Continued fractions are of interest not only because they can be used to
express any fraction in a form independent of number base, but also because
their iterative derivation and evaluation make them useful for computation.
Every fraction can be converted into a CF of finite length, whereas most
fractions, such as 5/3, require infinite decimals for their exact representation.
For example, 101/97 has for its CF [1;24,4], whereas the decimal has a
recurring part with 96 digits.
Continued fractions used to be regarded as little more than interesting
mathematical curiosities but, more recently, the advent of computers and the
discovery of methods of prime factorisation involving the CF algorithm
have shown that they can be of practical value. This article shows how to
derive and evaluate continued fractions and indicates some of their
properties, but no attempt is made to give all the proofs, since these are
readily available in texts such as Chapter 10 of the excellent book by
Kenneth Rosen [1].
Finite continued fractions

Using symbols to express the form of the computation above, we have
* In general, a continued fraction is an expression of the form

b1
a1 +
b2
a2 +
a3 +…
where the numbers ai , bi may be real or complex numbers. If all the bi are equal to1 and if
a1 is an integer and aj is a positive integer for j > 1, then it is a simple continued fraction;
this article is restricted to simple continued fractions.
CONTINUED FRACTIONS 31
1
x(0)/ y(0) = a(0) + = a(0) + 1/ (x(1)/ y(1))
a(1) + 1
a(2)+ … 1
+ 1
a(n−1)+ 1
a(n),
with n = 3 in that case.
Putting C (k) = [ a (0) ; a (1) , a (2) , … , a (k)] as the first k + 1 terms
of the continued fraction list, we can write, as a general term,
x (k) y (k + 1) a (k) x (k + 1) + y (k + 1)
= a (k) + =
y (k) x (k + 1) x (k + 1)
with a (k) = INT (x (k) / y (k)).
Since the fractions are in their lowest terms, we can equate the
denominators to find
x (k + 1) = y (k) , (1)
and equate numerators to find
x (k) = a (k) x (k + 1) + y (k + 1) ,
so y (k + 1) = x (k) − a (k) x (k + 1) = x (k) − a (k) y (k) (2)
with a (k + 1) = INT (x (k + 1) / y (k + 1)) . (3)
Also from an earlier fromula. These recurrences express x, y and a in terms
of their previously known values, starting with x (0), y (0), and a (0) and can
thus be used to find the CF of any fraction. The equations are readily
programmed into a loop which repeats until k = n, and each value of a (k)
is either printed as it is found, or stored in an array for C (n).
To find the CF of a decimal number, it is only necessary to express it as
a fraction with an integer numerator and the appropriate power of 10 as the
denominator, then reduce this to its lowest terms. For example, 0.3125 =
3125/10000 = 5/16 and the CF is found to be [0;3,5].
To evaluate a finite CF, the reverse process can be used, the recurrence
relations required being
y (k − 1) = x (k) (1a)
and x (k − 1) = y (k) + a (k − 1) x (k) . (2a)
Initially x (k) = x (n) = a (n) and y (k) = y (n) = 1, and the equations
above can be programmed into a loop which is repeated until k = 0, giving
x (0) / y (0) as the required value of the CF. For example, evaluating [0;3,5]
gives 5/16 = 0.3125. Evaluating a CF will always give a fraction expressed
in its lowest terms. The CF [3;7,16] = [3;7,15,1] has the value 355/113, the
well known approximation to π, and [0;3,7,16] = 113/355, its reciprocal.
Convergents
Every rational number can be expressed as a fraction with integral
numerator and denominator and can therefore be represented by a finite CF.
For an irrational number, however, this is not so, and the CF has an infinite
number of terms. Increasing the number of terms used gives progressively
better approximations to its value.
As an example, consider the CF for e, which is
[2;1,2,1,1,4,1,1,6,1,1,8,1,1,10, …].
The values of C (k) are called the convergents to e, and they can be
computed as below:
C (0) = 2/ 1 = 2.0 C (5) = 87/ 32 = 2.71875 C (10) = 2721/ 1001
C (1) = 3/ 1 = 3.0 C (6) = 106/ 39 = 2.71795 = 2.7182817
C (2) = 8/ 3 = 2.67 C (7) = 193/ 71 = 2.7182796 C (11) = 23225/ 8544
C (3) = 11/ 4 = 2.75 C (8) = 1264/ 465 = 2.7182796 = 2.718281835
C (4) = 19/ 7 = 2.714 C (9) = 1457/ 536 = 2.7182836
These approximations to the true value of the CF are alternately greater
and less than it. Each convergent is the best approximation having a
denominator no greater than its own: any better approximation requires a
larger denominator.
Similarly, the CF for π, of which we previously quoted only the first
three terms, actually extends to infinity, the first eleven terms being
[3;7,15,1,292,1,1,1,2,1,3, … ],
from which we can find C (10) = 4272943/1360120 = 3.14159265359 …
Instead of computing the convergents, as above, by finding C (k) for
progressively larger values of k , it is more convenient and elegant to
evaluate successive convergents by using recurrence relations which
compute C (k) from C (k − 1) and a (k). These relations are as follows and
their validity is best proved by induction (see [1]).
If C (k) = r (k) / s (k)
then r (k) = a (k) r (k − 1) + r (k − 2)
and s (k) = a (k) s (k − 1) + s (k − 2) .
From a (0) and a (1) we can derive r (0), r (1) and s (0), s (1) as follows:
C (0) = r (0) / s (0) = a (0) , so r (0) = a (0) and s (0) = 1
C (1) = r (1) / s (1) = a (0) + 1 / a (1) ,
so r (1) = a (0) a (1) + 1 and s (1) = a (1) .
These equations can be programmed into a repeating loop which prints
r (k) / s (k) and continues until k = n (or until a(k) = 0, when k = n + 1).
When the a (k) of the CF are large it is clear that the CF will converge
more rapidly, and it is apparent that the best approximations are when a (k),
the first term to be cut off, is a large number. That is why [3;7,16] gives
such a good approximation to π, since the CF has been cut off at the large
number 292. Similarly, Feigenbaum's number, central to chaos theory and
equal to 4.6692016..., is approximated well by the CF [4;1,2] = 4.667, since
the next term is 43 and, taking two more terms, we find [4;1,2,43,2] =
4.66920, the next term being 165.
Periodic continued fractions

Since the golden ratio, φ, is defined by
1
φ = 1 + ,
φ
we can see immediately that it is represented by the CF
[1;1,1,1,1,1, … ],
the most slowly convergent of all CFs, the convergents being, as is well
known, the ratio of successive Fibonacci numbers: 1/1, 2/1, 3/2, 5/3, 8/5,
13/8, 21/13, 34/21, 55/34, 89/55 …. The CF for φ is really a periodic one so
it can be written [1;'1'], where the single quotes enclose the repeating
portion, having in this case the period 1. It can be shown that every
quadratic irrational has a periodic CF.
The general quadratic irrational has the form (x + z) / y (where x, y, z
are integers, y ≠ 0, z > 0 are non-square), which is analogous to the form
x / y for the general rational number; this suggests a possible form of
recurrence to produce the CF, A (k), equal to [ a (0) ; a (1) , a (2) , … a (k)] ,
namely:
with A (k) = (x (k) + z) / y (k)

and a (k) = INT (A (k))
put x (k + 1) = a (k) y (k) − x (k)
and y (k + 1) = (z − (x (k + 1))2) / y (k)
then a (k + 1) = INT (A (k + 1)) .
Again, it can be proved by induction that a (k), so derived, is the k th
partial quotient in the CF of (x + z) / y.
In the particular case x (0) = 0 and y (0) = 1, we have A (0) = z, so
these recurrences enable us to find the CF of the square root of any integer
which, like every purely quadratic irrational, is periodic and of the form
[ a (0) ; ' a (1) , a (2) , a (3) , … , a (k) ']
where the period is k . Furthermore, it can be shown that a (k) = 2a (0) and
that the sequence of terms from a (1) to a (k − 1) is palindromic. Thus the
CF of a square root always has the form
[ a (0) ; ' a (1) , a (2) , a (3) , … , a (3) , a (2) , a (1) ,2a (0) '] .
To compute the CF of a square root, it is only necessary to program the

last recurrences above in a loop which starts with x(0) = 0 and y(0) = 1, and
repeats until a (k) = 2a (0). We can immediately find that 2 = [ 1 : '2'] ,
which is, of course, Hero's approximation; and 3 = [ 1; ' 1,2 '] ,
5 = [ 2; ' 4 '] and 7 = [ 2; '1,1,1,4 '] . It can also be shown, without
difficulty, that, more generally,
(n2 + 1) = [ n; '2n '] (n2 − 1) = [ n − 1; '1, 2(n − 1) ']
(n2 + n) = [ n; '2, 2n '] (n2 − n) = [ n − 1; '2, 2(n − 1) ']
(n2 + 2) = [ n; ' n,2n '] (n2 − 2) = [ n − 1; '1, n − 2,1,2(n − 1) ']
For example, 11 = [ 3; '3,6 '] , 20 = [ 4; '2,8 '] , 47 = [ 6; '1,5,1,12 ']
but 46 = [ 6; '1,3,1,1,2,6,2,1,1,3,1,12 '] .
To find the convergents of a square root, it is probably more convenient
not to stop the loop repetition when a (k) = 2a (0), but to continue finding
successive values of a (k) and, as each one is found, to use the recurrences
already applied above to compute the next value of C (k). In this way we
can find the convergents of 2 as 3/ 2 = 1.5, 7/ 5 = 1.4, 17/ 12 = 1.4167,
41/ 29 = 1.4138 and 99/ 70 = 1.4143 and those of 3 are 2/ 1 = 2.0,
5/ 3 = 1.67, 7/ 4 = 1.75, 19/ 11 = 1.727, 26/ 15 = 1.7333, 71/ 41 = 1.7317 and
97/ 56 = 1.7321. These two converge relatively slowly. 38, on the other
hand, converges rapidly: by the fourth convergent, 33294/5401, we already
have the root accurate to 7 significant figures.
Conclusion
We have seen how a CF can be used to convert a decimal to a fraction
by finding the CF of the decimal and evaluating it. The process of
computation is in fact closely similar to that of finding the highest common
factor of numerator and denominator, using the Euclidean algorithm, and
dividing out. In the eighteenth century CFs were used to find solutions to
Pell's equation
p2 − hq2 = 1.
If r (k) / s (k) is a convergent of h, then it can be shown that all solutions
are given by p = r (k) and q = s(k) for suitable k . The full details are in [1].
In more recent years, methods using the CF algorithm have been
devised to accomplish the factorisation of large numbers, an important
matter for public key systems of security coding. Consider the equation
x2 ≡ y2 (mod n)
with 0 < y < x < n and x + y < n. Under these conditions n must divide
x2 − y2 = (x + y) (x − y) and, since it does not divide either (x + y) or
(x − y), the highest common factor of n and (x + y) and that of n and
(x − y) must be divisors of n that do not equal 1 or n. We can now make n
equal to the number to be factorised and use the CF algorithm to find x and
y, as described in [1]. Other, more powerful, techniques based on CF
expansions are to be found in [2].
Acknowledgment
I am indebted to the referee for trapping some errors and making several
helpful suggestions which I have used.
References
1. Kenneth H. Rosen, Elementary number theory and its applications, (3rd
edn.), Addison-Wesley (1992).
2. H. Riesel, Prime numbers and computer methods for factorisation,
Birkhaüser, Boston (1985).
ROBERT MACMILLAN
43 Church Road, Woburn Sands, Bucks MK17 8TG
Within a few orders of magnitude . . .

“Proton Armageddon” [News and Analysis, “In Brief”, January] contains an
error. The lower limit for the lifetime of a proton is described as being 100 billion
trillion years longer than the age of the universe. In fact, the lifetime of a proton is at
least 100 billion trillion times longer than the age of the universe. We apologize for
the confusion.
From Scientific American, April 1999. Spotted by Nick Lord who comments
that if they are going to make a mistake, make a big one!
Not before time?

A postmark spotted by Chris Pease, who speculates
on the ‘true’ meaning of the date. Seven days
before the start of April 1999? Or perhaps, an
alternative to 7.4.99 BC, in which case, should the
Guinness Book of Records be informed of a
candidate for the slowest delivery?
Excremental growth?
There are 6.8 million dogs in Britain and each day 10 000 tons of dog mess are
deposited in public places.
From The Times 3 June 1999 and gleaned by Brian Midgley who has averaged
this as 3.3 lbs per pooch (or 1.5kg) which seems somewhat out of proportion.
1 in 4 = 4 in 1? Perhaps schools have to offer reciprocal funding!

. . . and one in four classrooms would have a computer as part of a technological
revolution.
. . . there will be a minimum of four of them in every primary and secondary
classroom.
From The Times 6 March 1999, sent in by Frank Tapson.
A construction of magic cubes

MARIÁN TRENKLER
In this paper a magic cube of order n is a 3-dimensional matrix

Qn = {qn (i, j, k); 1 ≤ i, j, k ≤ n} containing natural numbers 1,2, … n3 such
that the sums of the numbers along each row (n-tuple of elements having the
same coordinates on two places) and also along each of its four great
diagonals are the same. This contrasts with a previous article [1] which
considered magic cubes with no requirement for the diagonal sums.
In Figure 1 a magic cube Q3 is depicted. The sum of the three numbers
in every row is 42. The sums of the numbers on the diagonals (the triplets
{8, 14, 20}, {19, 14, 9}, {10, 14, 18} and {6, 14, 22}) are 42 too.
22 2 18
12 25 5 C
C 11 27 4
8 15 19 B 7 14 21 B
9 13 20
24 1 17 A 23 3 16
10 26 6
FIGURE 1 − Magic cube Q3
Using a pair of orthogonal Latin squares, it was proved that such

matrices of order n exist for each n ≠ 2. Probably the first mention of a
magic cube (of order 4) appeared in a letter from Fermat on April 1, 1640
(see [2, p. 365].) More information on magic squares and cubes can be
found in books [2] and [3]. In this paper we describe, in three steps, a
construction of a magic cube Qn for every integer n ≠ 2. (In a similar way
we can construct a magic square Mn for every integer n ≠ 2.)
Step 1.
If n is an odd integer, then a magic cube Qn can be constructed using the
following formula
qn (i, j, k) = [ (i − j + k − 1) − n i − j +nk − 1  ] n2 +
[ (i − j − k) − n i − nj − k  ] n + [ (i + j + k − 2) − n i + j +nk − 2  ] + 1.
The symbol x denotes the integer part of x.
The formula was derived using two mutually orthogonal Latin squares
of odd order n, Rn = {r (i, j) = (i + j + a) − i + nj + a } and
Sn = {s (i, j) = (i − j + b) − i − nj + b } where a and b are two constants
and the formula is taken from [1, p. 57]. This formula can be rewritten as
q∗n (i, j, k) = s (i, s(j, k)) n2 + s (i, r(j, k)) n + r (i, r(j, k)) + 1
The constants a and b were chosen so that for m = (n + 1) / 2
s (m, s (m, m)) = s (m, r (m, m)) = r (m, r (m, m)) = n−1
2 .
The proof of the correctness of our formula is similar to [1, p. 58]. The sum
A CONSTRUCTION OF MAGIC CUBES 37
on every diagonal is the same because for each triple (i, j, k) from the
definition of Qn it follows (¯x denotes the number n + 1 − x)
2
qn (i, j, k) + qn (¯ i , ¯ j, ¯k ) = ∑ (n − 1) nk + 2 = n3 + 1
k=0
and ( )
qn n +2 1 , n +2 1 , n +2 1 = n 2+ 1 .
3
(n3 + 1) n(n3 + 1)
The sum of numbers on each diagonal is (n −2 1) n3 +( 1) + 2 = 2 .
Step 2.
If n = 4k, k = 1, 2, 3, …, then a magic cube Qn can be constructed
by the following formulas
qn (i, j, k) = (k − 1)n2 + (j − 1)n + i if I(i, j, k) is odd,
qn (i, j, k) = (n − k)n2 + (n − j)n + (n − i) + 1 if I(i, j, k) is even,
where I(i, j, k) = (i + 2(in− 1)  + j + 2(jn− 1)  + k + 2(kn− 1) ).
In Figure 2 a magic cube Q4 is depicted. The sums of the four numbers
in each row are 130. The sums of the numbers on the diagonals (the
quadruples {1, 43, 22, 64}, {4, 42, 23, 61}, {13, 39, 26, 52} and {16, 38, 27,
49}) are 130 too.
49 15 14 52
32 34 35 29
D 48 18 19 45 12 54 55 9 D
1 63 62 4 C 37 27 26 40 C
B 21 43 42 24 B 8 58 59 5
60 6 7 57 A 41 23 22 44
25 39 38 28 61 3 2 64
56 10 11 53 20 46 47 17
36 30 31 33
13 51 50 16
FIGURE 2 − Magic cube Q4
The proof of the correctness of our formulas follows from the following
three facts:
(i) No two elements with different coordinates are the same because
I (i¯ , ¯ j, ¯k) is odd, if and only, if I (i, j, k) is odd.
(ii) The sums of numbers in the rows are the same, because, for every odd
coordinate i (or j, or k ):
qn (i, j, k) + qn (i + 1, j, k) = n3 or n3 + 2
qn (i, j, k) + qn (i, j + 1, k) = n − n + 1 or n + n + 1
3 3
qn (i, j, k) + qn (i, j, k + 1) = n3 − n2 + 1 or n3 + n2 + 1.
In every row there are n / 4 pairs of elements whose sum is n3 (or
n3 − n + 1 or n3 − n2 + 1) and the same number of pairs whose sum
is n3 + 2 (or n3 + n + 1 or n3 + n2 + 1).
(iii) The sums on the diagonals are the same, because, for every triple
(i, j, k):
qn (i, j, k) + qn (i¯ , ¯ j, ¯k) = n3 + 1.
Step 3.
If n = 4k + 2, k = 1, 2, 3, …, then a construction of a magic cube
Qn starts from a magic cube Qn/2 and an auxiliary cube Vn = {vn (i, j, k)} of
order n. First we describe the construction of Vn. In Figure 3 six layers of
V6 are shown.
0 5 5 0 6 5 7 2 2 7 1 2
3 6 3 6 3 0 4 1 4 1 4 7
3 5 5 0 3 5 4 2 2 7 4 2
6 0 3 6 6 0 1 7 4 1 1 7
6 0 0 6 3 6 1 7 7 1 4 1
3 5 5 3 0 5 4 2 2 4 7 2
1st Layer 2nd Layer
0 5 5 6 0 5 7 2 2 1 7 2
3 6 0 3 3 6 4 1 7 4 4 1
6 0 3 6 6 0 1 7 4 1 1 7
3 5 5 0 3 5 4 2 2 7 4 2
6 0 3 6 6 0 1 7 4 1 1 7
3 5 5 0 3 5 4 2 2 7 4 2
3rd Layer 4th Layer
5 0 5 0 6 3 2 7 2 7 1 2
3 6 3 6 3 0 4 1 4 1 4 7
0 3 3 6 3 6 7 4 4 1 4 7
5 6 5 0 0 5 2 1 2 7 7 2
5 0 5 3 3 5 2 7 2 4 4 2
3 6 0 6 6 0 4 1 7 1 1 7
5th Layer 6th Layer
FIGURE 3
This cube consists of 27 cubelets of order 2, each containing the numbers 0,
1, … ,7. The arrangements of the numbers in cubelets is such that the sums
of numbers in each row and each diagonal are the same, i.e. 21.
If n = 6 (2k + 1) for k = 1, 2, 3, … , then Vn is obtained by the
composition of (2k + 1)3 copies of V6 such that
vn (i, j, k) = v6 (i − 6 i −6 1  , j − 6 j −6 1  , k − 6 k −6 1 ) for all1 ≤ i, j, k ≤ n.
If n = 6 (2k + 1) + 4 for k = 0, 1, 2, …, then our construction
starts from Vm, where m = n − 4 and six matrices (in pairs of orders
m × m × m × 2 and m × 2 × 2 and 2 × 2 × 2) called blocks. Blocks


A = {a(i, j, k)} and A = {¯a (i, j, k)} , 1 ≤ i, j ≤ m, 1 ≤ k ≤ 2,

¯ (i, j, k)} , 1 ≤ i ≤ m, 1 ≤ j, k ≤ 2,
B = {b(i, j, k)} and B = {b

C = {c(i, j, k)} and C = {¯ c (i, j, k)} , 1 ≤ i, j, k ≤ 2
are defined by relations
a (i, j, k) = b (i, j, k) = c (i, j, k) = vm (i, j, k) ,
¯ (i, j, k) = ¯c (i, j, k) = 7 − vm (i, j, k) ,
a¯ (i, j, k) = b
for all define elements with coordinates (i, j, k).
The auxiliary cube V consists of a cube Vm, three pairs of blocks A and
 n
  
A, six pairs of B and B and four pairs of C and C. The blocks C and C are
situated by the vertices of Vn, blocks B and B are situated by the edges of Vn

and blocks A and A at the opposite faces of Vm. In Figure 4a there are the
first two layers of the auxiliary cube Vn, in Figure 4b there are the x-th, for
x = 3, 4, 5, … , n − 2, layers and in Figure 4c there are the last two (the
(n − 1)-th and the n-th) layers.

Every diagonal of Vn is formed from diagonals of C, Vm and C. It
follows from this construction that the sum of numbers in every row and
every diagonal of Vn is greater by 14 than the sum in any row of Vm.
c (1,1, x) c (1,2, x) b (1,1, x) … b (m,1, x) ¯c (1,1, x) ¯c (1,2, x)
c (2,1, x) c (2,2, x) b (1,2, x) … ¯c (2,1, x) ¯c (2,2, x)
b (m,2, x)
b (1,1, x) b (1,2, x) a (1,1, x) ¯ (1,1, x) b
… a (1, m, x) b ¯ (1,2, x)
… … … … … … …
b (m,1, x) b (m,2, x) a (m,1, x) … a (m, m, x) b¯ (2m,1x) b¯ (m,2, x)
¯ (1,1, x) … b
¯c (1,1, x) ¯c (1,2, x) b ¯ (m,1, x) c (1,1, x) c (1,2, x)
¯ (1,2, x) … b
¯c (2,1, x) ¯c (2,2, x) b ¯ (m,2, x) c (2,1, x) c (2,2, x)
FIRST AND SECOND LAYER OF Vn, x = 1, 2.

b (x,1,1) b (x,1,2) a (x,1,1) … a (x, m,1) ¯ (x,1,1)
b ¯ (x,1,2)
b
b (x,2,1) b (x,2,2) a (x,1,2) … a (x, m,2) ¯ (x,2,1)
b ¯ (x,2,2)
b
a (x,1,1) a (x,1,2) vm (1,1, x) … vm (1, m, x) a¯ (x,1,1) a¯ (x,1,2)
… … … … … … …
a (x, m,1) a (x, m,2) vm (m,1, x) … vm (m, m, x) ¯a (x, m,1) ¯a (x, m,2)
¯ (x,1,1) b
b ¯ (x,1,2) ¯a (x,1,1) … ¯a (x, m,1) b (x,1,1) b (x,1,2)
¯ (x,2,1) b
b ¯ (x,2,2) a¯ (x,1,2) … a¯ (x, m,2) b (x,2,1) b (x,2,2)
(x + 2)-th LAYER OF Vn, x = 1, 2, … , m

¯c (1,1, x) ¯c (1,2, x) ¯ (1,1, x) …

b ¯ (m,1, x)
b c (1,1, x) c (1,2, x)
¯c (2,1, x) ¯c (2,2, x) ¯ (1,2, x) …
b ¯ (m,2, x)
b c (2,1, x) c (2,2, x)
¯ (1,1, x) b
b ¯ (1,2, x) a¯ (1,1, x) … a¯ (1, m, x) b (1,1, x) b (1,2, x)
… … … … … … …
¯ (m,1, x) b
b ¯ (m,2, x) a¯ (m,1, x) … a¯ (m, m, x) b (m,1, x) b (m,2, x)
c (1,1, x) c (1,2, x) b (1,1, x) … b (m,1, x) ¯c (1,1, x) ¯c (1,2, x)
c (2,1, x) c (2,2, x) b (1,2, x) … b (m,2, x) ¯c (2,1, x) ¯c (2,2, x)
(n − x + 2)-th LAYER OF Vn, x = 1, 2

FIGURE 4
If n = 6 (2k + 1) + 8, then we repeat the previous construction.
We define a magic cube Qn by the following relation
qn (i, j, k) = vn (i, j, k) n8 + qn/2 (i +2 1  , j +2 1  , k +2 1 ) .
3
A construction of magic squares

Similarly we find that a magic square Mn = {mn (i, j); 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n} of
odd order n can be constructed using the following formula
mn (i, j) = [ (i − j − n−1
2 ) − n i − j +n  ] n + [ (i + j + n −2 3 ) − n i + j +n  ] + 1,
n−1
2
n−3
2
and, for n = 4k, by the formulas

mn (i, j) = (i − 1)n + j if I(i, j) is odd,
mn (i, j) = (n − i)n + (n − j) + 1 if I(i, j) is even,
where I (i, j) = (i + 2(i n− 1)  + j + 2(j n− 1)  ) .
Remark
Analogous formulas can be derived for magic d -dimensional
hypercubes of order n ≠ 4k + 2, for every integer k ≥ 1, and every d ≥ 4.
(See [1].) For example, if d = 4 and n is odd, then we start from the
formula
q∗n (i, j, k, l) = s (i, s (j, s (k, l))) n3 + s (i, s (j, r (k, l))) n2 +
s (i, r (j, r (k, l))) n + r (i, r (j, r (k, l))) + 1.
Let n = 4k + 2 for k = 1, 2, 3, … . Analogously to a magic cube

Qn, we can construct a magic square Mn of order n = 4k + 2. It is
constructed using Mn/2 and an auxiliary square Wn = {wn (i, j)}. The
construction of Wn starts from W6 (situated in the middle of Figure 5). For
example, in Figure 5, W10 is depicted which was obtained using W6. If
n = 6 (2k + 1) + 4 or 6 (2k + 1), then (to preserve the sum of numbers
on its diagonals) the last two rows are changed. The elements of Mn are
mn (i, j) = wn (i, j) n4 + mn/2 (i +2 1  , j +2 1 ) .
2
1 2 1 2 0 3 0 3 2 1
0 3 0 3 2 1 2 1 3 0
1 0 1 2 0 3 0 3 2 3
2 3 0 3 2 1 2 1 1 0
0 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 1
3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 2
0 2 1 0 2 3 0 3 3 1
3 1 2 3 0 1 2 1 0 2
3 0 2 0 1 2 1 2 0 3
2 1 3 1 3 0 3 0 1 2
FIGURE 5 − AUXILIARY SQUARE V10
References
1. M.Trenkler, Magic cubes, Math. Gaz. 82 (March 1998) pp. 56-61.
2. W. S. Andrews, Magic squares and cubes, Dover, New York (1960).
3. W. H. Benson, O. Jacoby, Magic cubes, new recreations, Dover, New
York (1981).
MARIÁN TRENKLER
©afárik University, Jesenná 5, 041 54 Ko¹ice, Slovakia
Baby boom
The most recent figures are deeply alarming. Nearly one in 100 girls aged
between 13 and 15 between 1995 and 1996 got pregnant − up by 11%.
From The Times, 13 December 1998 and spotted by Frank Tapson, who asks
‘11% of what?’
Formula 1 devalues the £

He values the man as much as machine, one reason why he recruited the world's
best driver on the highest salary − $20 million (around £1.2 million) a year.
From The Times, 4 May 1999, sent in by Frank Tapson.
Negative growth
. . . These figures coincide to establish that the yew grows about a foot in girth
every 30 years. Rich or poor soil can add or subtract about five feet to this figure.
From The Times 6 October 1998, sent in by Frank Tapson.
A fishy tale
Then on another trip we took a whole ton, with several other hauls of 200 stone.
From The Times 2 January 1999 spotted by Frank Tapson who wonders if it
implies that 1 ton is bigger than 200 stone? For younger readers, 1 ton is 160 stone.
The factorial function: Stirling's formula

DAVID FOWLER
How big is n!? For example, to pluck a number out of thin air, what is
the order of magnitude of 272!?
This is the third note of a series on the factorial. The two previous notes
[1] and [2] dealt with the factorial function x! while here we only consider
n! when n is an integer, but its main results also apply to non-integer
arguments. This note is longer and more elaborate than the previous ones,
but the principal result is in the opening section. Only aficionados need go
any further.
n
The plan is very straightforward: integrating by parts gives ∫1 log t dt =
n log n − (n − 1). On the other hand, approximating the same integral
n
∫1 log t dt by the trapezium rule gives something very much like log n!. This
gives an identity which we then exponentiate.
So we start with
k+1
∫k log t dt = 1
2 (log k + log (k + 1)) + ek
by a one-step application of the trapezium rule, where we must find out just
how big the error term ek can be. (Proper analysis is all about error terms!)
There is a general estimate for one step of the process applied to a function
f:
|∫ |
a+h 3
h
f (t) dt − (f (a) + f (a + h)) ≤ h sup |f ″ (x)| ,
a 2 12 x ∈ [a, a + h]
and a proof of this will be given later. In the case of our integral, h = 1 and
d2 2
( 2)
dt 2 log t = −1 / t , so that |ek | ≤ 1 / 12k . Hence ∑ ek will converge (by
n−1
comparison with ∑ 1 / k ), and so sn = ∑1 ek will tend to a limit s as n
2
tends to infinity. Also log x is ‘convex downwards’ — its graph lies above
all of its chords — so all of the ek are positive, and sn will increase to s.
Putting all of this together,
n
∫1 logt dt = 12 log1 + log2 + … + log(n − 1) + 12 logn + sn
1
= logn! − logn + sn
2
and
n
∫1 log t dt = n log n − (n − 1)
so
log n! = (n + 1
2 ) log n − n + 1 − sn
THE FACTORIAL FUNCTION: STIRLING'S FORMULA 43
and therefore, exponentiating and using the result that ea log b

= ba,
n! = n(n + 2 )e−ne(1 − sn) = λnn(n + 2 )e−n,
1 1
where λn = e(1 − sn) will decrease to some limit λ > 0 as n tends to infinity.
In fact, we shall show below that λ = 2π so that, for large n, we arrive at
Stirling's formula, either in the logarithmic form given earlier, or in the
multiplicative form
n! ∼ 2nπ
e()
nn
,
which gives an underestimate for n!. (Here f ∼ g as n → ∞ means that

f (n)
g(n) → 1 as n → ∞. Their absolute difference may be large, but their
relative error f (n)g(n)
− g(n)
, becomes small.)
Back now to our ‘randomly’ chosen example of 272!; it was in fact
chosen specially for convenience, since e = 2.7183…, so
272! ∼ 2π 272 (
272 272
2.718… )
and we can estimate this easily. (A lot of science in general, and
mathematics in particular, is more meaningful if we have some idea of how
big things are, how close together things are, etc.)
First, by mental arithmetic,
2π ≈ 6 14 = 25 4 = 2.5, which is smaller than it should be, and
272 ≈ 256 = 16, again smaller, and
( 2.718… ) ≈ ( 2.72
272 272
) = 100272, also smaller,
272 272
and our formula gives an underestimate. So we should expect that

2.5 × 16 × 100272 = 4 × 10545
should be an underestimate for 272!.
Next and boringly, evaluating it using a pocket calculator (though a bit
of special manipulation may be necessary to get the answer out) gives
272! ≈ 4.90927… ×10 ,
545
also an underestimate.
Finally, my personal computer can produce the exact value:
4 91077 75488 33688 95232 71661 18754 61955 68214 16195
48789 25656 54460 51695 24519 12348 09306 31406 19315 46608
97339 55555 21886 63186 49961 20305 14101 29305 12020 38931
33375 31545 34412 98132 63073 29390 10373 33664 88089 73549
75755 99796 32836 30443 52849 27493 28267 91661 18697 41812
42313 86429 31079 89404 54836 03454 58203 61221 64128 22298
29519 11515 27297 28254 15061 05307 70249 78972 01682 96491
31942 63614 21090 85550 56425 17848 51393 20167 76733 04186
95064 19795 77258 62474 98611 55053 49324 93984 49320 24411
88988 27907 73061 48222 04505 83307 87840 00000 00000 00000
00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000.
(This number prompts the question: how many zeros does n! finish with?)
Having got this first expression for the approximation so simply, we
should now go on to estimate the error more and more precisely, and so
refine this estimate. In fact
n! ∼ 2nπ
nn
e ( )(
1 +
1
12n
+
1
288n2
−
139
51840n3
−
571
2488320n4
+ … , )
where this infinite series is not convergent, but ‘asymptotic’, and these kinds
of series are important for describing and evaluating functions that tend to
infinity. For large n, the absolute values of the terms of such series start by
decreasing rapidly but, further on, they eventually start increasing. However
the partial sums give remarkably good and efficient approximations to the
function. For example, the first digits, rounded, arising from using this
series for 272! are
272! = 4 91077 75488 33689… ,
one term 4 90927 32525 25454…
two terms: 4 91077 73190 85664…
three terms: 4 91077 75494 88017…
four terms: 4 91077 75488 33892…
five terms 4 91077 75488 33686…
and the accuracy is improved for larger values of n.
This note will end with a first step in the refinement of the formula.
Interlude: A bit of history

James Stirling gave a more general version of the formula for log n! as
Proposition 28 of his Methodus Differentialis (1730).* Translated,
simplified, and with the notations made to look a bit more familiar, this
reads:
To find the sum of any number of logarithms, whose numbers
are in arithmetic progression.
Let x + d , x + 3d , x + 5d , x + 7d , …, z − d , denote any
numbers in arithmetic progression, whose common difference
is 2d . Then the sum of the logarithms set forth will be equal to
the difference of the following two series
z logz z d 7d 3 31d 5 127d 7 511d 9
− − + − + − + etc
2d 2d 12z 360z3 1260z5 1680z7 1188z9
and
* This section is entirely based on [5], which also contains details of correspondence between
Stirling, De Moivre, and Euler. I am grateful to Dr Ian Tweddle for help and explanations.
x logx x d 7d 3 31d 5 127d 7 511d 9

− − + − + − + etc.
2d 2d 12x 360x3 1260x5 1680x7 1188x9
As an illustration, he specialised this: Put x = d = 12 and z = n + 12 ,
which gives the integers from 1 to n; and the second series, in x, will now
sum to a number which, without explanation, Stirling set equal to − 12 log 2π
(‘half of the logarithm of the circumference of the circle whose radius is
unity’).* Then, ignoring the terms in powers of 1 / z since these will be small
for large z, we get
log1 + log2 + … + logn ∼ (n + 12 ) log (n + 12 ) − (n + 12 ) + 12 log2π
and, exponentiating,
( )
n+ 1
n + 12 2
n! ∼ 2π .
e
This variant is slightly more accurate than the usual version of the formula
that we have been considering here.
At the same time that Stirling was deriving these formulae, De Moivre
was exploring a problem in gambling, which led him to estimating the size
of the middle coefficient of the binomial expansion of (1 + x)2n, namely
()
2n
n
=
(2n)!
n! n!
, and some of his results were included in a Supplement to his
Miscellanea Analytica, published in 1730, a few months after Stirling's
book. He noticed the occurrence of the same numbers 12, 360, 1260, and
1680 in his own results, and adapted his methods to the sums of logarithms.
Among other results, he found that
log(n − 1)! = (n − 12 ) logn + 12 log2π − n + 12n
1
− 360n
1
3 + 1260n5 − 1680n7 + etc
1 1
which, after adding the term log n to both sides, yields the logarithmic
version of the formula we have been considering here. His methods were
rather less rigorous than Stirling's, but he did evaluate the multiplier 2π
using another of Stirling's results. The first known explicit occurrence of the
actual multiplicative version that we have been dealing with is in a letter
from Euler to Goldbach dated 23 June 1744. These manipulations of
Stirling, De Moivre, and Euler are quite remarkable, considering the
methods available to them at their time.
Mopping up
Two details have been left over. (These involve some elementary but
elaborate manipulations and should be omitted by anyone who is satisfied
by the derivation so far, though the first is very pretty.)
• The evaluation of the multiplier λ.
* This series is not convergent (its terms increase rapidly from 7/360 onwards) but
asymptotic. When summed up to and including its smallest term, it gives
2 log 2 − 2 − 12 + 360 = −0.9189…,
1 1 1 1 7
a tolerably good approximation to
− 12 log 2π = −0.9046….
There are many ways of doing this. Here is one using Wallis' product:
π 2 2 4 46 6 2n 2n
= lim . . . . . . … . .
2 n→∞ 1 3 3 5 5 7 2n − 1 2n + 1
= lim
n→∞
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2 2 4 4 4 46 6 6 6
. . . . . . . . . . . .… .
1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7
2n
.
2n 2n
.
2n
2n − 1 2n 2n 2n + 1 ( )
= lim
24n (n!)4 1
n → ∞ (2n!)
.
2 2n + 1
= lim
n→∞
(( ) (n! 4
n ( ne )n
.
2n!
2n 2
2n ( 2ne )
)( .
24n n2 ( ne )
.
4n
2n + 1 2n ( 2ne )4n ))
= lim ( n
n → ∞ 2(2n + 1)
) 4 −2
= λ .λ 14 ,
so λ = 2π.
(There is a nice derivation of Wallis' product using the reduction formula
π/2
In = ∫0 sin n t dt , n ≥ 2, but enough is enough; one must stop somewhere!)
• The estimate of the error in the trapezium rule.*

We start by deriving a form of Taylor's theorem using integration by
parts. (This, as for so many proofs of different varieties of Taylor's theorem,
will be rather like a rabbit pulled out of a hat, but there is no space here for
more exploration and explanation.)
a+x (a + x − t)n − 1 (n)
∫a (n − 1)!
f (t) dt
a+x
 (a + x − t)n − 1 (n − 1)  a+x (a + x − t)n − 2 (n − 1)
= 
 (n − 1)!
f (t)
a
+ ∫a (n − 2)!
f (t) dt
a+x
xn − 1  (a + x − t)n − 2 (n − 2) 
= − f (n − 1) (a) +  f (t)
(n − 1)!  (n − 2)! a
a+x (a + x − t)n − 3 (n − 2)
+ ∫a (n − 3)!
f (t) dt
= …
xn − 1 (n − 1) xn − 2 (n − 2)
=− f (a) − f (a) − … −xf ′(a) − f (a) + f (a + x)
(n − 1)! (n − 2)!
so
xn − 1 (n − 1) a + x (a + x − t)n − 1
f (a + x) = f (a) + xf ′(a) +… + f (a) + ∫ f (n) (t)dt
(n − 1)! a (n − 1)!
where this final integral is the remainder term. (Proper analysis is all about
* This is a standard result, but I have included it here for completeness and because I would
have difficulty in giving an impromptu proof of it.
remainder terms, another name for error terms!)

x
Apply this to the function F (x) = ∫ a f (t) dt , so F′ (x) = f (x),
F″ (x) = f ′ (x), etc.:
h2 1 a+h
F(a + h) = F(a) + hf (a) + f ′(a) + ∫ (a + h − t)2 f ″ (t)dt.
2 2 a
Now eliminate the term in f ′ (a) by using the Taylor series for f (x):
a+h
f (a + h) = f (a) + h f ′(a) + ∫a (a + h − t) f ″(t) dt
so that
h h 1 a+h
F(a + h) − F(a) = f (a) + f (a + h) + ∫ (a + h − t)2 f ″ (t)dt
2 2 2 a
h a+h
− ∫ (a + h − t)f ″(t)dt
2 a
h 1 a+h
= (f (a) + f (a + h)) + ∫ (a + h − t)(a − t)f ″ (t)dt,
2 2 a
and this last integral gives the error term for the approximation of the
integral using a one-step trapezium rule. But if h ≥ 0 and t ∈ [a, a + h] ,
then (a + h − t) ≥ 0 while (a − t) ≤ 0 and hence
|
1 a+h
2 a∫
1 a+h
|
(a + h − t)(a − t)f ″ (t)dt ≤ ∫ (a + h − t)(t − a) |f ″ (t)| dt
2 a
1 a+h h3
2 ∫a
≤ (a + h − t)(t − a)dt × sup | f ″ (x)| = sup |f ″ (x)| ,
x ∈[a, a + h] 12 x ∈[a, a + h]
the estimate that we wanted.
A refined approximation
Let us start again, and estimate the error ek a bit more delicately.* We
have
log n! = (n + )
2 log n −
1
n + 1 − sn
k+1
where sn =
n−1
∑1 ek and ek = ∫k logt dt − 12 (logk + log(k + 1)). Setting
k+1
∫k log t dt = [ t log t − t ] kk + 1
and simplifying, we find
ek =
2k + 1
2
log
k (
k + 1
− 1. )
Now
( 11 +− xx ) = 2 (x + x3 + x5 + … )
3 5
log for |x| < 1,
in which we substitute
* This section is based on [3].
1 1 + x k + 1
x = , so =
2k + 1 1 − x k
and
ek =
2k + 1
2
log
k+1
k ( )
−1
= (2k + 1)
1
( +
1
+
1
2k + 1 3(2k + 1)3 5(2k + 1)5
+ … −1 )
1 1 1
= + + + ….
3(2k + 1)2 5(2k + 1) 7(2k + 1)6
4
Manipulate this series to find upper and lower bounds for ek. First increase
each term to give
1 1 1
ek < + + + …
3 (2k + 1)2 3 (2k + 1)4 3 (2k + 1)6
=
1
3(2k + 1)2 (
1+
1
+
1
(2k + 1)2 (2k + 1)4
+ … =
1 1
−
1
12 k k + 1 ) ( )
after a bit of reorganisation. Now go the other way round:
ek > ( 1
3 (2k + 1) 2
+ 2
1
3 (2k + 1)4
+ 3
1
3 (2k + 1)6
+ … )
=
1
=
1
>
1 1
−
1
3(2k + 1) − 1 12k + 12k + 2 12 k + 12 k + 1 + 121
2 2 1 (. )
(This last step is a bit more involved. Working backwards
( 1
−
1
k + 12 k + 1 + 12
1 1
= ) 1
1
1
= 2
1
(k + 12 )(k + 1 + 12 ) k + (1 + 6 ) k + 121 (1 + 121 )
1
12 12
= > ,
12k 2 + 14k + (1 + 121 ) 12k 2 + 12k + 2
since 2k − 11
12 > 0.)
Thus we have established that
1 1
(
12 k + 12
1
−
1
k + 1 + 1
12
) < ek <
1 1
12 k(−
1
k + 1
. )
Adding these for k = 1, 2, 3, … and using again the notations
n−1 ∞
sn = ∑1 ek and s = ∑1 ek we get
1 1
< s < ,
13 12
∞
while adding for k = n, n + 1, n + 2, …, and writing , t n = ∑ n ek , we get
1 1
< tn < .
12n + 1 12n
So, finally,
log n! ≈ n +( 1
2 )
log n − n + 1 − s + t n.
Exponentiating, inserting the value e1 − s = λ = 2π and combining these

two results, we get the refined estimate
2nπ
e ()
n n 1/(12n + 1)
e < n! < 2nπ
e
e ()
n n 1/(12n)
.
We can add this to our collection of estimates for 272!:

4 91077 70887 06842 ... < 272! < 4 91077 75495 11548 ...,
matching the accuracy of two and three terms of the asymptotic expansion
quoted earlier.
Coda
An asymptotic expansion for ∑ f (n) can be found using refinements of
the procedure here, in which we find some expression for the error ek of one
step of the trapezium approximation. The most efficient way is to express it
in terms of sums of multiples of the derivatives of f , in a procedure credited
to Euler and MacLaurin, and two extracts from letters between Stirling and
Euler about this form a nice conclusion to our story. First, from Stirling to
Euler, 16 April 1738 [5, pp. 144-5], in reply to an earlier letter in which
Euler had described some of his results:
Most pleasing to me was your theorem for summing series by
means of the area of a curve and derivatives or fluxions of
terms for it is general and well-suited for application. I
immediately perceived of extending it to very many types of
series, and what is extraordinary, it approximates very rapidly
in most cases. Perhaps you have not noticed that my theorem
for summing logarithms is nothing more than a special case of
your general theorem.* But this discovery was all the more
pleasing to me because I had also thought about the same
matter some time ago; but I did not proceed beyond the first
term ...
At this point you should be advised that in due course Mr
MacLaurin, Professor of Mathematics at Edinburgh, will be
publishing a book on fluxions. He has communicated to me
some of its pages which have already been printed. In these he
has two theorems for summing series by means of derivatives
of the terms, one of which is the self-same result that you sent
me; I have informed him of this. Although he had willingly
promised that he would acknowledge this in his preface, I
nevertheless submit to your judgement whether you wish to
publish your letter in our Philosophical Transactions.
* Tweddle remarks about this, [5, p. 158 n. 15], that in fact it is De Moivre's version which
comes from Euler's formula.
and then, in reply, from Euler to Stirling, 27 July 1738 [5, p. 146]:
… in this matter I have very little desire for anything to be
detracted from the fame of the celebrated Mr MacLaurin since
he probably came upon the same theorem for summing series
before me, and consequently deserves to be named as its first
discoverer. For I found the theorem about four years ago, at
which time I also described its proof and application in greater
detail to our [Saint Petersburg] Academy; my dissertation on
this ... will shortly see public light in our Commentarii which
come out each year.
What a nice friendly bit of jostling over an issue of precedence. If only

Newton, Leibniz, and their associates could have behaved like that!
Postscript
A simplified version of the contents of the first section of this note, with the
fussy but important details omitted, should be a standard exercise in any
introduction to analysis, and some version of Stirling's formula should be
proved in any serious course, perhaps as an extended exercise. In fact this
derivation is in the book [4] by Stirling (no relation!), as Exercise 10 on
p. 134, but I have replaced the evaluation of the multiplier, 2π, his
Example 11, by the use of Wallis' product.
References
1. D. H. Fowler, A simple approach to the factorial function, Math. Gaz.
80 (1996) pp. 378-381.
2 D. H. Fowler, The factorial function: the next steps, Math. Gaz. 83
(1999) pp. 53-58.
3. H. Robbins, A remark on Stirling's formula, American Mathematical
Monthly 62 (1955) pp. 26-29.
4. D. S. G. Stirling, Mathematical analysis, a fundamental and
straightforward approach, Ellis Harwood & John Wiley, Chichester,
Brisbane, & Toronto (1987).
5. I. Tweddle, James Stirling: ‘This about series and such things’, Scottish
Academic Press, Edinburgh (1988).
DAVID FOWLER
Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL
QED Requiescat In Pace

The long-running BBC science programme QED has decided to change its
name to Living Proof after it was discovered that many viewers hadn't the faintest
idea of what the title meant. A BBC spokesman said: “I think that in the Sixties and
Seventies − in the days of grammar schools − a lot of people would have known, but
not now.”
From the Sunday Telegraph 26 September 1999, by Nick Lord.
A SIMPLE ENERGY-CONSERVING MODEL 51
A simple energy-conserving model

exhibiting elastic restitution
RICHARD BRIDGES
From the date of my own A level studies (many moons ago!) I have
been dissatisfied with the presentation of the law of elastic restitution. The
title Newton's ‘Experimental’ Law implies that it is a purely empirical
phenomenon, yet if there is a wide range of conditions in which it is
approximately valid (and it isn't worth using at all if this isn't true), then
there must be some reason for it. Equally unsatisfactorily, the law implies
loss of energy in most circumstances. Even in my school days I could see
that the usual argument about conversion into heat, sound etc didn't really
hold water, as this process couldn't conceivably be instantaneous. A recent
article by O'Connor [1] stimulated me to crystallise my thoughts on the
subject [2], and I was later able to develop a simple and plausible
mechanical model exhibiting restitution, which also conserved energy [3].
My presentation in [3] was mainly focussed on the physical consequences of
the model, and solution of the differential equations involved was
numerical. Yet, in the simplest case, the model is amenable to fairly elegant
exact analytical techniques, which it is the aim of this paper to present.
Apart from the interest of the model, the methods used are a nice illustration
of the role of normal modes in the solution of simultaneous linear
differential equations—a topic approachable by A level students of Further
Maths, or by first-year undergraduates.
The basic model

My contention in [2] was that the energy lost in inelastic rebound goes
initially into internal vibrational modes of the rebounding system. In [3] I
developed a one-dimensional model of a ‘ball’ in which two point-masses
m / 2 are connected by a massless ideal spring of stiffness k I (I: internal), and
interact with a wall or other ‘balls’ through outwardly directed springs of
stiffness k S (S: surface)—see Figure 1.
While moving freely such a system is able to vibrate about its centre of
mass, the springs k S playing no part. Interaction with a rigid wall is
modelled by fixing the end of one k S spring to the wall: the system then has
two degrees of freedom, and therefore two vibrational modes of different
frequencies. When the ‘ball’ is first incident on the wall these modes are
excited to different amplitudes and phases, and when the interaction ends
(when the compression-only k S spring goes slack) the motion smoothly
transfers into a centre of mass velocity plus some amplitude of the free
oscillation mode.
Dimensionless displacement
7
kS 5
m
2
4
kI
m
2 3
kS
2
−0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Dimensionless time
FIGURE 1: Rebound with k R = 2, e = 0.882
Analysis of the model

If a body of mass m compresses a spring of stiffness k against a rigid
wall, then its extension x (in the horizontal plane, or in the absence of
gravity) obeys the differential equation
mx¨ + kx = 0 (1)
± iωt
A solution of the form x = αe yields:
+ k) α = 0 (−ω2m (2)
whence ω = k / m. Such a model exhibits perfect elasticity: if it is
incident on the wall with an initial velocity v, a half cycle of SHM takes
place in time τ = π / ω and it rebounds with velocity v so that the
coefficient of restitution e = 1, assuming of course the mass does not hit
the wall.
Two bodies of mass m / 2 connected to each other by a spring of
stiffness k I and repelled from a rigid wall by a spring of stiffness k S have
displacements x1 and x2 obeying differential equations:
1 ¨
2 mx1 + k Sx1 − k I (x2 − x1) = 0
1 ¨
2 mx2 + k I (x2 − x1) = 0. (3a)
These may be rewritten as the matrix equation:
Mx¨ + KCx = 0 (3b)
where the column vector x and 2 × 2 matrices M and KC (C: Constrained)
are:
x =
()
x1
x2
M = ( m/2 0
0 m/2 ) KC =
( k S + k I −k I
−k I kI ) .
When the spring k S is not compressed, the system vibrates freely and the k S
term is dropped from KC giving KF.
Generalisation to n masses
Systems with n masses (possibly different) joined in a line by springs
obey an equation of very similar form to (3b). The vectors and matrices are
n-dimensional, M being diagonal and K being tri-diagonal and symmetric
(retaining the symmetry of K is useful, and is the reason for not
automatically dividing (3a) by m. If the masses differ, this breaks the
symmetry of K).
If we substitute a solution of the form x = αe±iωt into (3b) we obtain:
(−ω2M+ KC ) α = 0 (4)
Unlike (2), this is a matrix equation, for which ω must obey the
characteristic equation:
det (−ω2M + KC) = 0.
This is an nth degree equation in ω2 whose solutions, the eigenvalues,
are the n natural vibrational frequencies of the system. Each eigenvalue ωi
has a corresponding eigenvector direction αi representing the mode of
vibration. Replacing KC with KF in (4) and (5) leads to the vibrational
frequencies and modes of the free system. Since det (KF) = 0 one of the
solutions for ω is zero, corresponding to the translational motion α0 (which
has all components equal), leaving only n − 1 free vibrational modes of
frequency ωFi and eigenvector directions αFi .
A standard piece of matrix manipulation shows that, since M is diagonal
and KC (or KF) is symmetric, the eigenvector directions αi corresponding to
distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal and may be chosen to be normalised, in
the sense that αTi Mαj = mδij (ie equal to 0 unless i = j, when equal to m).
m is arbitrary, but should be of the dimensions of a mass—the total mass of
the system, Trace (M), is a suitable value. The eigenvectors are then
dimensionless.
Modelling the collision

The three stages of the collision, (I) before (during which there is no
vibration), (II) during and (III) after the impact, may be described by:
(I) x (t) = −vtα0 (6a)
n
(II) x (t) = ∑ bi sin (ωit) αi (6b)
i=1
n−1
(III) x(t) = (+ evt + c0)α0 + ∑ (ci sin (ωF t) + di cos (ωF t)) aF
i i i
(6c)
i =1
The bi , ci and d i all have the dimensions of length. The impact stage (II) is
assumed to start at t = 0 when x1 becomes 0. It ends after time τ, the
collision duration, determined by x1 first becoming 0 again. Component 1
of (6b) gives:
n
x1 (τ) = ∑ bi sin (ωiτ) αi1 = 0. (7)
i=1
The stages are required to join on to each other smoothly in the sense that x
and ˙x maintain the same value across t = 0, also ensuring that energy is
conserved. The b coefficients are thus determined by:
n
(I) ˙x (0) = −vα0 = ∑ biωiαi = ˙x (0) (II)
i=1
The b coefficients may be projected out one by one by taking the scalar
product of the above equation with αTj M:
vαTj Mα0 = −bjωjαTj Mαj = −mbjωj ⇒ bj = −vαTj Mα0 / mωj. (8)
Note that the bi are proportional to the initial velocity v. The c and d
coefficients in (6c) of the system after rebound may be found by taking the
scalar product with αTFj M of the equations:
n
(II) x (τ) = ∑ bi sin (ωiτ) αi
i=1
n−1
= (evτ + c0) α0 + ∑ (ci sin (ωFi τ) + d i cos (ωFi τ)) αFi = x(τ) (III)
i =1
n
(II) ˙x (τ) = ∑ ωibi cos (ωiτ) αi
i=1
n−1
= evα0 + ∑ ωFi (ci cos (ωFi τ) − d i sin (ωFi τ)) αFi = ˙x (τ) (III)
i =1
and then solving simultaneously. The details are messy, but it is clear that
the ci and d i, like the bi , are proportional to v, which leads to the linearity of
the restitution law. Finding the restitution coefficient is easy, however; the
scalar product with αT0M gives:
n n
1
∑ ωibi cos (ωiτ) αT0Mαi = − ∑ cos (ωiτ) (αT0Mαi / m)
2
e = . (9)
mv i=1 i=1
We therefore have a compact exact expression for the coefficient of
restitution in systems of this type. Evaluating it is not as straightforward as
might appear, as the eigenvalues and vectors of the n-dimensional equation
(4) have to be found, and the awkward trigonometrical equation (7) has to
be solved for the collision duration τ.
Results for n = 2 masses

Returning to the simplest case where there are 2 masses, the
characteristic equation (5) is only quadratic in ω2 and yields for the modes
of the free motion:
ω0 = 0, α0 = ()
1
1
, ω2F = 4k i / m, αF = ( )
−1
1
and for the constrained motion, defining the surface to interior stiffness ratio
k R = k S / k I:
ωi =
1 2
4
(
ωF 2 + k R + (−1)i 4 + k 2R , ) αi =
( 1 − 2 (ωi / ωF)2
1 ) .
Note that the eigenvectors have not been normalised, for simplicity. Since,
for this case, M = (m / 2) I (where I is the identity) each needs to be
multiplied by 2 and divided by its magnitude before using it to evaluate e
from (9). Note also that e will depend solely on k R, although the collision
duration will also be proportional to 1 / ωF.
Equation (7) for the collision duration does not appear to be analytically
solvable even for n = 2. As a starting point, it is useful to consider the case
where k R is small, so that the interior of the ‘ball’ is stiff in comparison with
the surface. One would expect the situation to be very similar to a single
mass m on a k S spring, and indeed the lower frequency mode has
ω21 ≈ ω2Fk R / 4 = k S / m. Assuming that little energy goes into internal
vibration (for which ω22 ≈ ω2F) in this case, one would expect τ ≈ π / ω1
and e ≈ 1. This also suggests that τ0 = π / ω1 might be a reasonable first
approximation to start Newton-Raphson iteration of (7) to find τ, and so it
proves up to around k R = 3.8.
All the preceding algebra was put into a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel 4)
and evaluated for various values of k R. Figure 1 shows the result of a typical
collision of a ‘ball’ with a rigid wall with k R = 2, plotting the coordinates
of each mass against time (in time units such that 1 = 2π / ω1). The internal
oscillation of the ‘ball’ after the rebound is obvious (though it is shown at a
larger scale in relation to the length of the spring than is likely in practice).
This internal oscillation represents the energy diverted from the reduced
centre of mass velocity, which in Figure 1 is 0.882 of the approach velocity.
So e = 0.882 for this collision. Figure 2 graphs e against k R for a suitable
range of k R. The least value of e, around 0.877, occurs for k R ≈ 2.3. These
results agree to better than 0.01% with those obtained by numerical
integration of the differential equations in [3].
For k R > 3.8 the collision is complicated by the inner mass losing
contact with the wall at t ≈ 0.5τ before striking it a second time. As k R
becomes very large, in effect the inner mass rebounds from the wall through
the k S spring with e = 1, reversing its velocity. Then the masses rebound
off each other through the much weaker k I spring, again with
1.02
e
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.90
0.88
0.86
−1 0 log10 (k R ) 1
FIGURE 2: e against log10 (k R) for n = 2 masses
e = 1 and reversing each of their velocities relative to the centre of gravity

of the colliding pair. Finally, the inner mass rebounds from the wall a
second time through the k S spring, so that the masses both end up travelling
away from the wall with their initial velocities reversed, and overall e = 1.
The second impact complicates the algebra, but the numerical results from
[3] show that nothing surprising happens, e rising steadily to 1 as k R
increases.
Energy conservation
Energy conservation in our model is demonstrated by pre-multiplying
(3b) by ˙xT, which leads to:
(
d 1 T
dt 2
˙x Mx
1
) 1
˙ + xTKCx = 0 ⇒ E = ˙xTMx
2 2
1
˙ + xTKCx = const . (10)
2
The first term is the KE, the second the elastic PE, and the symmetry of KC
has been used. The constancy of E through the changing stages of the
motion is guaranteed by the continuity of x and ˙x, and the fact that the
change of stage occurs when the k S spring is slack.
The reader may verify that substitution of the expressions for x (t) from
(6a, b, c) into (10) leads to
n n−1
1 2 1 1 2 2 1
E =
2
mv = ∑ 2 mω2i b2i =
2
e mv + ∑ 2 mω2F (c2i
i
+ d 2i )
i=1 i=1
This demonstrates clearly how the energy has been divided between the
internal vibrational modes, leaving a reduced kinetic energy of translational
motion. Total energy is conserved, however.
Concluding remarks
We have therefore arrived at a simple model, amenable to exact
analysis, which exhibits the phenomenon of elastic restitution, and in which
all the energy is accounted for. It is not meant to be particularly realistic,
and indeed values of e much less than our minimum are common in
practice. It is really meant to clarify thinking about the subject.
A cursory investigation of higher values of n (by numerical integration)
yielded e values usually nearer to 1 than for two masses. A Fourier analysis
of the modes of a one-dimensional uniform elastic bar rebounding from a
rigid wall seems to give e identically equal to 1, though this appears to be a
special case, which would probably not apply to a non-uniform bar. Several
other extensions suggest themselves, such as introducing damping into the
equations of motion, or considering collisions between two ‘balls’ of the
type modelled. Some of these were explored or discussed in [3], but the
results obtained here are about as far as it is reasonable to go with our exact
normal mode analysis. For further investigation, numerical integration of the
differential equations of motion as adopted in [3], though less elegant, seems
to be the most effective way to proceed.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to an anonymous referee, who suggested some
clarifications of the notation. He also drew my attention to the papers by
Roper and Hartley [4] and Bridge [5]. Roper and Hartley note the
unphysical implications of the normal treatment of impulsive jerks in
strings, and suggest some alternatives. Although they do not present it, an
analysis along the lines of this paper would be possible. Bridge (no
relation!) presents some very nice detailed experimental work on bouncing
balls, with some relevant comments concerning theory.
References
1. W. J. O'Connor, The famous ‘lost’ energy when two capacitors are
joined: a new law?, Phys. Educ. 32 (1997) pp. 88-91.
2. R. T. Bridges, Joining capacitors, Phys. Educ. 32 (1997) p. 217.
3. R. T. Bridges, Energy conservation and restitution in inelastic
collisions: a simple model, Phys. Educ. 33 (1998) pp. 311-315.
4. Tom Roper and Ron Hartley, “… Assume the string is inextensible and
elastic …”, Math. Gaz. 75 (1991) pp. 15-23.
5. N. J. Bridge, The way balls bounce, Phys. Educ. 33 (1998) pp. 174-
181.
RICHARD BRIDGES
King Edward's School, Birmingham B15 2UA
The Hale-Bopp comet explored with A level

mathematics
H. R. CORBISHLEY
On 15 March 1997, when boarding an aeroplane bound for Spain, I was

handed a copy of the Independent newspaper. One page of the paper was
devoted to the Hale-Bopp comet; from two pieces of information about the
comet's orbit I set out to find out as much as I could about the orbit using A
level mathematics, and in some cases further mathematics. I was interested
in finding the fastest and slowest speeds of the comet, and the size of its
orbit in relation to the planetary orbits. I also found speeds and times at
other points on the orbit, where distances from the sun could be calculated.
These findings, along with an approximate calendar for the next orbit of the
comet, are presented in a diagram at the end of this article. During the
course of my working, I made two discoveries of a more general nature.
The first of these is that the radius of curvature of a conic at the point
nearest to a focus is equal to the semi-latus rectum. The second was one of
Kepler's laws, that for an elliptical orbit T 2 ∝ a3, where T is the time of a
complete orbit, and a is the semi-major axis.
From an article by Charles Arthur, the science editor of the
Independent, I learnt that
(i) nearest approach to the sun is 85 million miles,
(ii) the time of a complete orbit is 4000 years.
This information led to an elliptical orbit with eccentricity
e ≈ 0.99636. I was later informed that the latest estimate of e, published in
[1] is 0.99512. This corresponds to an orbital time of approximately 2550
years, to be found later. The nearness of these two values of e, and the large
difference in orbital times, shows how sensitive the following calculations
are to small changes in data. The calculation of e depends upon observing
the position of the comet at a number of related times.
Newton's law of gravity applied to the comet tells us that, when it is a
distance r from the sun, it accelerates towards the sun with an acceleration
k / r 2, where k = GM, G being the gravitational constant, and M the mass of
the sun. A book of physical constants gave G = 6.673 × 10−11Nm2 kg−2,
M = 1.99 × 1030 kg. Hence, k = 1.33 × 1020 Nm2 kg−1 to 3 s.f. Since this
leads to a conic orbit with the sun at the nearest focus, the initial calculations
will be done with a general conic in polar form. Later this will become an
ellipse in Cartesian form.
THE HALE-BOPP COMET EXPLORED WITH A LEVEL MATHEMATICS 59
L
v
P
l
r V
q
q A
S
=l
L'
FIGURE 1
Taking the sun, S, as origin and SA, where A is at the shortest distance of
the comet from the sun, as the axis θ = 0, let SA = q, SL = l , the semi-
latus rectum of the conic. Let V be the fastest speed of the comet (at A), and
v the speed at a general point P (r, θ). Then the equation of the orbit is
l
r = ( i)
1 + e cos θ
where e is the eccentricity of the conic.
The equations for radial and transverse accelerations are
˙ 2 = −k
¨ r − rθ (ii)
r2
¨ + 2r˙ θ
rθ ˙ = 0. (iii)
d 2˙
(iii) × r ⇒ ¨ + 2rr˙ θ
r 2θ ˙ = (r θ ) = 0
dt
⇒ ˙ = h, where h is constant.
r 2θ
This is one of Kepler's laws of planetary motion.
˙ = r (rθ
Now at A, r 2θ ˙ ) = qV
⇒ ˙ = qV
r 2θ (iv)
˙ between (ii), (iv) leads to
Eliminating θ
q2V 2 k
¨r = 3
− 2.
r r
Multiplying by 2r˙ and integrating w.r.t. t leads to
q2V 2 2k
˙ r2 = −
2
+ + c
r r
2k
At A, ˙ r = 0, r = q ⇒ c = V 2 −
q
(
⇒ ˙ r2 = V 2 1 −
q2
r )
2
− 2k
1
q
−
1
r(. ) (v)
The speed at P is given by
˙ )2 = ˙ r 2 + (r θ ) .
2˙ 2
v2 = ˙ r 2 + (rθ
r2
2˙
Substituting for r θ , ˙ r from (iv), (v) and simplifying leads to
2
v2 = V 2 − 2k ( 1
q
−
1
r ) (vi)
giving v at P (r, θ) in terms of V, k, q, and r . The next problem is finding V .

My first idea was to use the equation
V2 k
= 2 (vii)
ρ q
where ρ is the radius of curvature of the conic at A. This led to some
interesting mathematics involving s, ψ, but I later discovered this was
unnecessary. However equation (vii) will prove of use later on.
Returning to the general conic (i) with initial conditions
l
v = V, ˙ r = 0, r = q = when θ = 0. (viii)
1 + e
Differentiating (i) w.r.t t
˙
el sin θ θ e sin θ
⇒ ˙r = = ˙
× r 2θ by (i)
( 1 + e cos θ )2
l
e sin θ
⇒ ˙r = × qV by (iv).
l
q
Then, using (viii) to eliminate ,
l
eV sin θ
˙r = .
1 + e
eV cos θ θ˙
Differentiating again ⇒ ¨ r = . Then using (i), (iv), (viii) to
1 + e
˙
eliminate cos θ , θ , q respectively we arrive at
V 2l (l − r)
¨r = (ix)
r 3 (1 + e)2
Now we are able to eliminate ¨ r , θ˙ , q from (ii) using (ix), (iv), (viii)
respectively to give
V 2l (l − r) V 2l 2 k
− = − 2.
r (1 + e)
3 2 r (1 + e)
3 2 r
From this we obtain
k
V = (1 + e) . ( x)
l
Or, in terms of e, k, q, by (viii)
k (1 + e)
V = . (xi)
q
Given q = 85 million miles = 8.5 × 107 × 1600 m.
⇒ q = 1.36 × 1011 m to 3 s.f.,
e = 0.99512 to 5 d.p. (from [1])
⇒ l = q (1 + e) = 2.71 × 1011 m to 3 s.f.,
k (1 + e)
V = = 44200 ms−1 to 3 s.f.
q
9
= 44200 × mph = 99400 mph to 3 s.f.
4
i.e. V ≈ 100 000 mph.
V 2q2
Now, from (vii), ρ = . Then by (xi), (viii)
k
k (1 + e) q2
ρ = × = q (1 + e) = l
q k
i.e. for any conic, the radius of curvature at the nearest point to a focus is l ,
the semi-latus rectum.
For the area swept out by the comet in a given time, by (iv),
˙ dt = ∫ 12 qV dt
A = ∫ 12 r 2dθ = ∫ 12 r 2θ
⇒ A = 12 qVt , where A is the area swept out in time t . Then replacing
V , using (xi),
A = 1
2t kq (1 + e). (xii)
We must now consider the full elliptical orbit.
y B
L
b a
l V
a O ae S q A x
A'
vmin b
L'
B'
FIGURE 2 (Not to scale!)

x2 y2
Let the ellipse have equation + = 1, where b2 = a2 (1 − e2).
a2 b2
Then SA = q = a − ae = a (1 − e) ⇒ a = 1 −q e
⇒ a = 2.79 × 1013 m = 1.74 × 1010 miles to 3 s.f.
The area enclosed by the ellipse is πab = πa2 1 − e2. Let T be the
time taken to complete the orbit, then by (xii)
T T
πa2 1 − e2 = kq (1 + e) = ka (1 − e2)
2 2
which simplifies to
2πa3/2
T = (xiii)
k 1/2
i.e. T ∝ a3/2, where a is the semi-major axis.
From (xiii), T = 8.03 × 1010 s = 2550 years to 3 s.f.
Let the slowest speed of the comet be vmin, when the comet is at A′.
Then from (vii) with ρ = l , V replaced by vmin, and q by SA′ = a (1 + e)
we have
v2min k
= 2 (xiv)
l a (1 + e)2
kl
⇒ vmin = = 108 ms−1 = 243 mph to 3 s.f.
a (1 + e)
Alternatively, dividing (xiv) by (vii) leads to
V (1 − e)
vmin = ,
1 + e
from which the same values as above are obtained.
Earlier, I said that the speed v at any point P (r, θ) might be found in
terms of V , k , q using (vi) and V is now known. Unfortunately (vi) is not
very accurate when V, k, q are only known approximately and v is small
compared with V , since the equation involves finding a smaller quantity by
subtracting two much larger quantities. To give the worst possible example
of this, using (vi) to find vmin with values of V, k, q as given above leads to
vmin = 1590 ms−1 to 3 s.f. which is wildly out. Fortunately, this difficulty
may be overcome by replacing V in (vi) by using (xi). Then
v2 =
k (1 + e)
q (
− 2k
1
q
−)1
r
which simplifies to
v2 = k ( 2
r
−
1 − e
q ) . (xv)
This equation does not have the failings of (vi) and may be used to find v at
a number of points on the orbit where r is known, e.g. at L, B, (and also A′).
At L (and L′), v2 = k ( 2
l
−
1 − e
q )
k
= (1 + e2) by (viii)
l
⇒ v = 31 300 ms−1 = 70 300 mph to 3 s.f.
i.e. v ≈ 70 000 mph at L.
Thus, at L, v ≈ V / 2, which would be an exact solution for a parabolic
orbit.
At B (and B′), v2 = k
2
a
−
1 − e
q (
=
k
a )
−1
⇒ v = 2180 ms = 4910 mph to 3 s.f.
v ≈ 4900 mph at B.
i.e.
Again, at A′, v2min = k ( 2
a (1 + e)
−
1 − e
q
=
k (1 − e)
a (1 + e))
⇒ vmin = 108 ms−1 = 243 mph to 3 s.f.
This agreement with the previous values found for vmin confirms the
accuracy of (xv) at all points on the orbit.
I will conclude with a little astronomy. Astronomers call A and A′, the
points of the orbit nearest to and furthest from the sun, the perihelion and the
aphelion, respectively.
Working within the solar system, lengths are measured in astronomical
units (A.U.), and times in years, where 1 A.U. is the mean distance of the
earth from the sun.
1 A.U. = 1.50 × 1011 m to 3 s.f.
Suppose now that a is measured in A.U. and T in years. Then
a A.U. = a × 1.5 × 1011 m, and T yrs = T × 365 × 24 × 3600 s.
Substituting these values in (xiii) leads to T = 1.004a3/2 to 4 s.f. And to 3
s.f. T = a3/2. Astronomers use this equation in the form
T 2 = a3 (xvi)
with T measured in years, and a in A.U.
Changing our measurements to A.U.
1.36 × 1011
q = = 0.907 A.U. to 3 s.f.
1.5 × 1011
Similarly, l = 1.81 A.U. to 3 s.f.
a = 186 A.U. to 3 s.f.
Then, b = a 1 − = 18.4 A.U. to 3 s.f. and A′S = a (1 + e) = 371
e2
A.U. to 3 s.f..
By (xvi), T = 1863/2 = 2540 years to 3 s.f. We will use this value of
T from here on.
Since the line to the comet from the sun sweeps out areas proportional
to the time taken, to find the time taken to reach any point from A, we
T
multiply the area swept out by = 0.237 yr(A.U.)−2.
πab
To find the time taken to reach L from A we need to find A, the area
enclosed by SA, SL and the arc AL. A rather difficult integration which you
might like to try gives
l 2 (arccos e − e 1 − e2)
A = = 1.095 (A.U.)2 to 4 s.f.
2 (1 − e2)3/2
Since the orbit of the comet is so eccentric with e ≈ 1, we might
approximate the segment to the right of LL′ by the segment of a parabola,
with the same width SA, and height LL′. Then A = 23 ql = 1.094 (A.U.)2 to
4 s.f. Then the time taken from A to L is 1.094 × 0.237 yr = 0.259 yr
= 0.259 × 365 days = 95 days ≈ 3 months .
In moving from A to B, the area swept out is
quadrant ALBO − OSB = 4 πab
1
− 12 aeb
= 983 (A.U.)2 to 3 s.f.
⇒ time taken from A to B = 983 × 0.237 = 233 yr to 3 s.f. And the time
taken from A to A′ will be 12 × 2540 yr = 1270 yr.
The above-mentioned article also gave the date when the comet was at A
as 1 April 1997. Taking this as our starting point, it is now possible to chart
the progress of the Hale-Bopp comet on its next circuit around the sun. The
error limits in the diagram were obtained using some error analysis which is
not shown in this article.
2231 ± 3 AD
4900 mph B 70 000 mph
a
= L 4−6/7/97 l = 1.81 ± 0.41 A.U.
18
6
±
b = 18.4 ± 0.1 A.U. 1A 100 000 mph
.U
.
A' 326 7 ± 19 AD A 1/4/97 returning
sun 4537 ± 38 AD
SA′ = 371 ± 2.5 A.U.
243 mph q ≈ 0.91 A.U.
L' (26−28/12/96)
B' 4303 ± 35 AD
FIGURE 3
If we compare the Hale-Bopp comet's orbit with that of Pluto, the
remotest planet in our solar system, for Pluto, T = 249 yr, a = 39.5 A.U.,
e = 0.25 ⇒ A′S = 49.5 ≈ 50 A.U. I found this information in [2], a very
readable book written for sixth formers.
An article by Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe on the same page of

the Independent of 15 March 1997 states that the comet is a ‘mountain of
ice’ approximately 40 km (25 miles) across. The bright tail we see when the
comet is nearest to the sun is due to a cloud of dust particles being blown
away by solar radiation. It is also posited that bacteria in some form may be
living on the comet, and that life on earth may have begun when a comet
crashed into the earth long ago.
I find it interesting that the comet we saw at its perihelion rushing along
at 100 000 mph and brighter than the stars, will, in the year AD 3267
(approximately), be a very cold ‘mountain of ice’ at its aphelion in outer
darkness, moving at 243 mph, a speed most of us will have exceeded
relative to the earth when flying away on our holidays abroad. Also, the
comet which has a bright shining six months on one side of the sun
gradually disappears on the other side to spend two and a half millennia in
orbit before returning for another six months of glory. We were lucky to see
it!
References
1. The British Astronomical Circular (1 May 1997).
2. Brian Milner, Cosmology, Cambridge Modular Sciences series,
Cambridge University Press (1995).
H. R. CORBISHLEY
5 Bradley Grove, Silsden, Keighley BD20 9LX
Looks like it could be all of us!

You are 750 times more likely to die in an asteroid impact than you have a
chance of winning the National Lottery tonight.
...
What we do know is that we are going to be struck by an asteroid. There are
1,500 objects out there that could hit the earth.
From The Western Mail, Saturday 10 July 1999, sent in by Michael Mudge.
Europe v America?
A mix-up between metric and imperial measurements caused a spacecraft to
crash on Mars. The makers of the booster rocket used pounds per square inch but
NASA read them as metric newtons.
From the Daily Telegraph, 2 October 1999, by Nick Lord.
And another one

The largest known Mersenne prime (26972593 − 1) has been discovered by
Nayan Hajratwala, The USA-based technology consultant used the Great Internet
Mersenne Prime Search (GIMPS) software and distributed computing technology
provided by the USA-based company Entropia.com.
From Scientific Computing World, August/September 1999, and sent in by
Michael R. Mudge.
Notes
84.01 A portrayal of right-angled triangles which generate
rectangles with sides in integral ratio
The basic theorem
A few years ago I presented an elementary but beautiful and little-
known theorem, which states that, if the sides of the right-angled triangle
with sides 3, 4 and 5 are extended, then the three classes of rectangles set on
these pairs of lines as diagonals have their own sides in the respective ratios
1 : 1, 2 : 1 and 3 : 1 (see [1] pp. 138-139). The accompanying diagram (in
[1]) showed these rectangles necessarily going beyond the triangle; but now
I have found a new diagram which shows these properties entirely inside it
(Figure 1). It has an attractive uniformity of layout, and also draws on
simple but nice divisions of the sides: 3 = 1 + 2, 4 = 1 + 3 and
5 = 3 + 2. The ratios are marked inside each sub-triangle from which the
rectangles can be generated; each one is that of the altitude to half the base.
This version of the theorem reads:
AP : PY = 1 : 1, BQ : QZ = 2 : 1 and CR : RX = 3 : 1. (1)
The rectangles mentioned above have as respective centres and sides A and
YZ , B and ZX, and C and XY.
A
1
Y 1
1:1
P Z
4
3
3 3:1 R
Q 2
2:1
3 2
C B
X
5
FIGURE 1
The case 1 : 1 is, of course, obvious, as YZ sides a square; the other two
cases are not difficult to prove, and can be given to pupils as an exercise. A
trigonometric proof follows from the formulae relating functions of angle 2γ
to those of γ. For YCX , let ∠RCY = γ, then the ratio p = CR : RY is
given by
2 cos2 γ 1 + cos2γ 1 + 45 9 3
p = cot γ = = = 3 = = (2)
sin 2γ sin 2γ 5 3 1
NOTES 67
as required. A purely geometrical proof can be found by, for example,

dropping the perpendicular YE into CB and drawing YF perpendicular to CA
to meet CB at F (Figure 2), and working out from the similarity of YEX
with RCX—again, a pleasant educational exercise. ZBX and 2 : 1 can be
handled similarly.
Y
C
E X F
FIGURE 2
A corollary of the two results states that

∠YCR + ∠XBQ = ∠ZAP (= 45°) , (3)
1 1 1
that is, Tan−1 + Tan−1 = Tan−1 . (4)
3 2 1
The extended theorem

I also showed that the rectangles with sides in the ratio n : 1 for any
positive integer n could be produced, but by only one triangle with integral
sides (discarding common factors, of course). The new corresponding
diagram is given in Figure 3; to avoid boring ½s, I have set the sides as 2a,
2b and 2c, where integers a > b > c, since any resulting common factors
are harmless. As expected, there is nice symmetry in the use of the three
letters. The desired ratio n : 1 will always be found in the sub-triangle XCY,
since only its angle C can be sufficiently small to generate the high ratios
sought; Figure 3, while accurate, is drawn for clarity of layout and is not a
realistic example.
The proofs follow those above; if the sides of the triangle are taken to be
2a = (r 2 + s2) , 2b = (r 2 − s2) and 2c = 2rs, (5)
with r and s integers, then, for the triangle at C, the ratio p corresponding to
(2) is given by
p = (a + b) : c = ((r 2 + s2) + (r 2 − s2)) : 2rs = r : s. (6)
A
−a
b+
+c
c−
Y b 1:1
a
Z
2b 2c
c
a−
c+
b + n:1
a−
b
C b+ a− c c+a−b B
X
2a
FIGURE 3
The integral cases stated above are given by r = n and s = 1;

n = 11, say, comes from the triangle 122 : 120 : 22 (or 61 : 60 : 11).
However, unlike the basic theorem, the sides of the sub-triangle around
B will give a rational but non-integral ratio q:
q = (c + a) : b = (2rs + (r 2 + s2)) : (r 2 − s2) = (r + s) : (r − s) . (7)
For example, the above case n = 11 produces q = 6 : 5.
The corollary corresponding to (4) is
Tan−1 (c
a + b )
+ Tan−1
b
a + c ( 1
= Tan−1 .
1 ) (8)
Their history?
In my note, I report a sturdy effort to record the history of these
theorems, which however had ended in total failure. Since its appearance, I
have received many delighted responses from correspondents and at
conferences; but nobody had even seen either theorem before, never mind
know their origins! I suspect that the extended version is new; but some
further historical speculations concerning the basic theorem have come to
mind.
I found it in a nice book on sacred geometry, illustrated by a separate
figure for each ratio (see [2], pp. 82-84). No historical information was
provided, but the historical context of this geometry is very suggestive; for
the ratios 2 : 1 and 3 : 1 were of major importance in the secret lore of
medieval cathedral builders, who called them respectively ‘ad quadratum’
and ‘ad triangul(at)um’ (see, for example, [3]). Further, in Figure 1,
∠ACB ≈ 18° and ∠ABC ≈ 27°, two numerologically important numbers.
Maybe this theorem was part of the secret knowledge which they are known
to have guarded (hence causing the historical obscurity). All editions of
masons' workbooks which I have seen present the ratios separately: the ratio
2 : 1 comes from the right-angled isosceles triangle (AYZ in Figure 1);
NOTES 69
3 : 1 arises from the equilateral triangle when a pair of these are arranged to
form a hexagram, for all their sides are divided into thirds.
Another historical clue may lie in Freemasonry. The ‘Mason's square’
was originally the right-angled isosceles triangle and hence half a normal
square (for an important example see [4], pl. 21); but around the late 17th
century it was changed to an ornament composed of the two shorter arms of
the 3 : 4 : 5 triangle (see, for example, Mozart and his brothers so dressed in
[5], pl. 26). I have not found the reasons for the change, but perhaps this
theorem played a role; for, thanks to it, the new triangle expressed both 2 : 1
and 3 : 1 whereas the older one captured only 2 : 1.
It is strange that such a lovely theorem, a perfect example of simple
beauty in mathematics, should be so fugitive. Maybe the story will be
disclosed one day; in the meantime, an excellent educational and cultural
gobbet is available.
References
1. I. Grattan-Guinness, ‘Ad quadratum’ and beyond: right-angled triangles
generate all rectangles with sides in integral ratio, Zentralblatt für
Didaktik der Mathematik 29 (1995) pp. 138-139.
2. N. Pennick, Sacred geometry. Symbolism and purpose in religious
structures, Turnstone (1980).
3. J. L. M. Lund, Ad quadratum. A study of the geometric bases of classic
and medieval religious architecture, vol. 1, Batsford (1921).
4. C. Knight and R. Lomas, The Hiram key. Pharaohs, Freemasons and
the discovery of the secret scroll of Jesus, Arrow (1997).
5. H. C. Robbins Landon, Mozart and the Masons, (2nd edition), Thames
and Hudson (1991).
I. GRATTAN-GUINNESS
Middlesex University, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 4SF
e-mail: ivor2@mdx.ac.uk
84.02 Circumradius of a cyclic quadrilateral

It is reasonably well known [1, pp. 64-65] that the circumradius of an
arbitrary triangle with sides a, b and c is given by the formula R = abc/ 4,
where K is the area of the triangle. Since = s (s − a) (s − b) (s − c)
by Heron's formula, we have a formula for r in terms of the three sides of
the triangle.
It is not known, or certainly not so well known, that the circumradius of
a cyclic quadrilateral can also be found in terms of the sides of the
quadrilateral. To see this, let ABCD be any cyclic quadrilateral with
a = AB, b = BC, c = CD, d = DA, e = AC, and f = BD. Also let a
and c be the areas of ABD and CBD, respectively. For ABD, from the
formula above, we have R = adf / 4a so that a = adf / 4R. In a similar
manner c = bcf / 4R for CBD.
a
f D
B
e
c
b
C
FIGURE 1
If is the area of quadrilateral ABCD, then = a + c

= f (ad + bc)/ 4R. Similarly, by using BAC and DAC, = e(ab + cd)/ 4R.
Therefore
ef
2 = (ad + bc) (ab + cd) .
16R 2
Ptolemy's theorem [1, p.128] states that in a cyclic quadrilateral, the
product of the diagonals is equal to the sum of the products of the two pairs
of opposite sides. Hence ef = ac + bd for quadrilateral ABCD. Therefore
2 = (ac + bd)(ad + bc)(ab + cd)/ 16R 2, or equivalently,
(ac + bd) (ad + bc) (ab + cd)
R = .
4
Since = (s − a)(s − b)(s − c)(s − d) by Brahmagupta's formula [1,
p. 135] for the area of a cyclic quadrilateral with s = 12 (a + b + c + d),
we have
1 (ab + cd) (ac + bd) (ad + bc)
R =
4 (s − a) (s − b) (s − c) (s − d)
Reference
1. Nathan A. Court, College Geometry, Barnes and Noble, New York
(1952).
LARRY HOEHN
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science,
Austin Peay State University, P.O. Box 4626, Clarksville, TN 37044 USA
NOTES 71
84.03 A neglected Pythagorean-like formula

Given an isosceles triangle as shown in Figure 1, we have the
Pythagorean-like formula c2 = a2 + bd . If the segment a is an altitude,
then c2 = a2 + b2. This formula has surely been discovered many times,
but yet it doesn’t seem to appear in the mathematical literature.
B
c c
a
D d C b A
FIGURE 1
My discovery of this formula came from looking at one of the many

proofs of Pythagoras' theorem. That is, given ABC, with a right angle at C,
construct a circle with centre B and radius BC = a as shown in Figure 2.
By using the intersecting chords theorem, we have (c + a)(c − a) = b2, so
c2 = a2 + b2.
c
a
C b A
FIGURE 2
Suppose on the other hand that ∠C is not a right angle but rather an
obtuse angle for ABC. By again constructing a circle with centre B and
radius BC = a, the circle will intersect extended side AC at some point D as
shown in Figure 3. By the intersecting chords theorem, we have
(c + a) (c − a) = ((d − b) + b) b, so c2 = a2 + bd .
c c
a a
d−b
E b D C b A
FIGURE 3
Since there are so many proofs of Pythagoras' theorem (see [1] and [2]),
it is natural to suspect that this Pythagorean-like theorem can also be proved
in many ways.
B
c c
a
q
d C b A
FIGURE 4
For example, by the law of cosines in Figure 4, we have

c2 = a2 + b2 − 2ab cosθ and c2 = a2 + d 2 − 2ad cos(180 − θ). Hence
a2 + b2 − c2 a2 + d 2 − c2
cos θ = and cos (180 − θ) = .
2ab 2ad
Therefore, (a2 + b2 − c2) / 2ab = − (a2 + d 2 − c2) / 2ad . By simplifying
this result we obtain c2 = a2 + bd .
This Pythagorean-like theorem can also be derived by two applications
of Pythagoras' theorem. If h is the altitude to the base of the isosceles
triangle in Figure 5, then c2 = h2 + y2 and a2 = h2 + x2. Hence
c2 − a2 = y2 − x2 = (y − x) (y + x) = bd, or c2 = a2 + bd.
NOTES 73
c c
h a
y x
D d C b A
FIGURE 5
Finally, we note that this formula is a special case of Stewart’s theorem

[3, p. 58]. ‘If K, L and M are any three collinear points, and P is any other
point, then both in magnitude and sign
PK 2 × LM + PL2 × MK + PM2 × KL + KL × LM × MK = 0.’
Making the substitutions P = B, K = D, M = A, L = C, we have
PK = PM = c, PL = a, KL = d, LM = b, and MK = −(d + b), so
c2b + a2 (−(b + d)) + c2d + db (−(b + d)) = 0. This simplifies to
c2 (b + d) − a2 (b + d) − bd (b + d) = 0, so c2 = a2 + bd .
Given the simplicity of this formula, and its close kinship to Pythagoras'
theorem, it is quite curious that it is not prevalent in the mathematical
literature.
References
1. Elisha Scott Loomis, The Pythagorean proposition, National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, Washington, D.C. (1968).
2. Larry Hoehn, The Pythagorean theorem: an infinite number of proofs?
Mathematics Teacher 90 (September 1997) pp. 438-441. [Correction to
Figure 2 91 (January 1998), p. 73.]
3. Howard Eves, A survey of geometry (revised edition), Allyn and Bacon,
Inc., Boston (1972).
LARRY HOEHN
Austin Peay State University, PO Box 4626, Clarksville, TN 37044 USA
84.04 An unexpected reduced cubic equation

y
S
b
Q P
−1 f 1
C f O x
3
2f
3
R −b
FIGURE 1
Figure 1 shows the two circles

(x ± 1)2 + y2 = a2, (a > 1)
intersecting at two points S (0, b) and R (0, −b), where b = a2 − 1.
P (x, y) and Q (−x, y) (where x > 0) are two points on the circles, so that
triangle RPQ is isosceles. Furthermore, if CP⊥ QR where C is the centre
(−1, 0), then
x2 + x − y2 − by = 0, (b = a2 − 1) .
Since P lies on the circle with centre C, the elimination of y and removal of
a factor x leads to the cubic equation
4x3 + 12x2 + (9 − 3b ) x − 4b = 0,
2 2
or 4 (d / a)3 − 3 (d / a) − 1 / a = 0 (d = x + 1).
It may be shown graphically that this reduced cubic equation f (d / a) has
three real roots, exactly one of these being positive.
The roots may be found by means of the trigonometrical formula
4 cos3 A − 3 cos A = cos 3A, (3A = φ + 2nπ, n = 0,1,2) ,
so that d = a cos (φ / 3) (a = sec φ)
is the solution required.
Note the interesting geometrical significance of the angle φ. The
isosceles triangle CPR yields PR = 2a sin (2φ / 3), and the area
PQR = 12 PR2 sin (2φ / 3) = 2a2 sin 3 (2φ / 3) .
NOTES 75
Finally, the reader may wish to speculate as to whether triangle PQR has the
greatest area of all possible triangles lying within the intersection of the two
circles.
J. A. SCOTT
1 Shiptons Lane, Great Somerford, Chippenham, Wiltshire SN15 5EJ
84.05 Touching hyperspheres

If each of four circles lying in a plane touches the other three externally,
their radii r i (i = 1,2,3,4) are related by the equation
( ) ( )
2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
+ + + = 2 2
+ 2 + 2 + 2 .
r1 r2 r3 r4 r1 r2 r3 r4
This can be proved by applying well-known trigonometrical formulas to the
figure (as for example in [1], pp. 13-15).
This result generalises to n + 2 hyperspheres in an n-dimensional
Euclidean space En, the factor 2 being then replaced by n. The case n = 3
is stated in [2] and the general case is established in [3].
In this note, we prove the general result using an elementary argument.
Let us take the centre of one of the hyperspheres as origin O and let
ui (i = 1, 2, … , n + 1) be unit vectors directed from O towards the
centres Ci of the other hyperspheres. Then, if r 0 denotes the radius of the
hypersphere with centre O and r i the radius of the hypersphere with centre
Ci , we shall have

→
CiCj = (r 0 + r j) uj − (r 0 + r i) ui, i ≠ j.
→
Since | Ci Cj | = r i + r j, by squaring the last equation we find that
(ri + rj) = (r0 + rj) + (r0 + ri) − 2 (r0 + ri) (r0 + rj) ui.uj,
2 2 2
the dot denoting a scalar product. By expanding the three squares and then
putting
ri
si = , (1)
r0 + ri
we can show that
ui.uj = 1 − 2sisj, i ≠ j. (2)
Since ui is a unit vector, ui.ui = 1.
In En, the n + 1 vectors ui must be linearly dependent, i.e. multipliers k i
can be found, not all zero, such that
k 1u1 + k 2u2 + … + k n + 1un + 1 = 0.
Taking the scalar product of this equation with uj and making use of
equation (2), we obtain the n + 1 linear equations
(1 − 2s1sj) k1 + (1 − 2s2sj) k2 + … + k j + … + (1 − 2sn + 1sj) k n + 1 = 0, (3)
for j = 1, 2, … , n + 1.
The necessary and sufficient condition for the system of equations (3) to
have a non-null solution is that the determinant of the coefficients must
vanish; thus
| |
1 1 − 2s1s2 1 − 2s1s3 … 1 − 2s1sn + 1
1 − 2s2s1 1 1 − 2s2s3 … 1 − 2s2sn + 1
= 0. (4)
… … … … …
1 − 2sn + 1s1 1 − 2sn + 1s2 1 − 2sn + 1s3 … 1
This is a relationship between the radii r 0, r 1, … , r n + 1 . It remains to
reduce it to the required form.
The determinant in (4) can be expressed as a sum of 2n + 1 determinants,
all but n + 2 of which vanish by virtue of repeated columns of 1s. Of these
summands, there is the determinant
| |
1 −2s1s2 −2s1s3 … −2s1sn + 1
1 0 −2s2s3 … −2s2sn + 1
A = 1 −2s3s2 0 … −2s3sn + 1 .
… … … … …
1 −2sn + 1s2 −2sn + 1s3 … 0
together with n similar determinants in which the 1s occupy the other
columns and finally there is the determinant
| |
0 −2s1s2 −2s1s3 … −2s1sn + 1
−2s2s1 0 −2s2s3 … −2s2sn + 1
B = −2s3s1 −2s3s2 0 … −2s3sn + 1 .
… … … … …
−2sn + 1s1 −2sn + 1s2 −2sn + 1s3 … 0
By removing factors from rows and columns, we find
A = (−2)n s1s22s23… s2n + 1D,
where
| |
1
s1 1 1 … 1
1
s2 0 1 … 1
D = 1
s3 1 0 … 1 ,
… … … … …
1
sn + 1 1 1 … 0
and
B = (−2)n + 1 s21s22… s2n + 1E,
NOTES 77
where
| |
0 1 1 … 1
1 0 1 … 1
E = 1 1 0 … 1 .
… … … … …
1 1 1 … 0
We now define nth-order determinants
| | | |
0 1 1 … 1 1 1 1 … 1
1 0 1 … 1 1 0 1 … 1
Fn = 1 1 0 … 1 , Gn = 1 1 0 … 1 .
… … … … … … … … … …
1 1 1 … 0 1 1 1 … 0
Subtracting the first column of Gn from each of the other columns and
then expanding it from its first row, we obtain Gn = (−1)n − 1. Expanding Fn
from its first column into (n − 1) cofactors with coefficients ±1, then
cycling the leftmost k columns of the k th cofactor, we find that
Fn = − (n − 1) Gn − 1= (n − 1) (−1)n − 1.
Next, expanding D as we would Fn + 1, we have
1
D = Fn −
s1
1
s2 (
+
1
s3
+ … +
1
sn + 1
Gn )
=
(−1)n − 1
s1
(n − 1) + (−1)n
1
s2
+
1
s3
+ … ( +
1
sn + 1 )
.
Further, E = Fn + 1 = (−1)n n.
We have expanded the relationship (4) to give
2ns1s22s23… s2n + 1
1
s2
+
1
s3(+ … +
1
sn + 1
−
n − 1
s1 )
+ 2ns21s2s23… s2n + 1 ( 1
s1
+
1
s3
+ … +
1
sn + 1
−
n − 1
s2 )
+ ............................................
+ 2ns21s22s23… sn + 1 ( 1
s1
+
1
s2
+ … +
1
sn
−
n − 1
sn + 1 )
− 2n + 1ns21s22s23… s2n + 1 = 0.
After division by 2ns21s22… s2n + 1, this can be written in the form
( ) ( )
2
1 1 1 1 1 1
+ + … + = n + 2 + … + + 2n.
s1 s2 sn + 1 s21 s2 s2n + 1
1 r0
From (1), we have = + 1 and substitution leads finally to the result
si ri
( ) ( )
2
1 1 1 1 1 1
+ + … + = n + 2 + … + .
r0 r1 rn + 1 r 20 r1 r 2n + 1
Given r 1, r 2, …, and r n + 1, this relationship provides a quadratic
equation for 1 / r 0. It can be rearranged into the form
1 −
r
 0
1 1
n − 1 r1
+
1
r2 (
+ … +
1 2
r n + 1  )
=
n  1 1
 +(
(n − 1)2  r 1 r 2
+ … +
1 2
rn + 1
1 1
) 1
− (n − 1) 2 + 2 + … + 2
r1 r2 rn + 1 ( ) 
,

showing that the roots are real if, and only, if
( ) ( )
2
1 1 1 1 1 1
+ + … + ≥ (n − 1) 2
+ 2+ … + 2 (5)
r1 r2 rn + 1 r1 r2 rn + 1
For n = 2 (the case mentioned at the beginning of this note), strict
inequality always occurs in (5), and the two values of r 0 are given by
 1
( ) ( 1 
)
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
= + + ± 2 + + − + 2 + 2
r0 r1 r2 r3  1
r r 2 r 3 r 21 r2 r3 
1 1 1 1 1 1
= + + ± 2 + +
r1 r2 r3 r 2r 3 r 3 r1 r 1r 2
1 1 1 2
= + + ± ,
r1 r2 r3 r
where r is the radius of the inscribed circle of the triangle C1C2C3.
The extreme case of equality in (5) is precisely the condition that n + 1
hyperspheres in an En − 1 should touch one another externally. If (5) is not
satisfied, no n + 1 hyperspheres of radii r 1, r 2, … , r n + 1 in En can be
constructed to touch one another externally. For example, in E3, four
spheres having given radii r 1, r 2, r 3, r 4 cannot always be constructed to
touch one another externally. In the extreme case when
( ) ( )
2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
+ + + = 2 2
+ 2 + 2 + 2 ,
r1 r2 r3 r4 r1 r2 r3 r4
their centres must lie in a plane (an E2), which intersects them in four great
circles whose radii satisfy the condition (above) for them to touch one
another externally. The figure is then symmetrical about this plane and two
spheres having the same radius can be constructed, one on each side of the
plane, to touch the other four; this is the case where the above quadratic
equation for 1 / r 0 has equal roots.
If the condition (5) is satisfied, it is easy to see that, because the sum of
NOTES 79
the roots of the quadratic equation determining 1 / r 0 is positive, it either has

two positive roots, or one positive and one negative root. In the former case,
two hyperspheres can be constructed to touch the other n + 1 externally. In
the latter case, the magnitude of the negative root equals the radius of a
hypersphere which can be constructed to enclose the other n + 1
hyperspheres and to touch each of them internally; this interpretation
follows immediately by noting that our earlier argument is easily amended
to correspond to such a figure, by replacing r 0 by −r 0.
The reader may like to confirm that the general relationship proved for
En (n ≥ 2) holds also in the trivial case n = 1, where in E1 (a line) a
hypersphere is a pair of points, its radius is half the distance between them,
and ‘touching’ means ‘having a common point’. The relationship reduces to
r 0 + r 1 + r 2 = 0 and two hyperspheres touch externally, whilst the third
encloses them both.
The author is indebted to Graham Hoare and the referee for providing
information relating to the history of this problem.
References
1. H. S. M. Coxeter, Introduction to geometry, Wiley (1961).
2. F. Soddy, The kiss precise, Nature 137 (1936) p. 1021 [reproduced in
Math. Gaz. 79 (July 1995) p. 274 ]; Nature 139 (1937) p. 77.
3. H. S. M. Coxeter, Aequationes Math. 1 (1968) pp. 104-121.
D. F. LAWDEN
Newhall, Temple Grafton, Alcester B49 6NU
84.06 Comments on note 82.53—a generalised test for

divisibility
Murray Humphreys and Nicholas Macharia present a test for divisibility
by 19 [1]. There are other ways of formulating that rule. I would like to
share one such formulation with the readers of the Gazette. [1] starts by
restricting attention to three-digit numbers. In my formulation I do not need
such a restriction. In my justification the 19 is revealed in a quite
conspicuous way.
Furthermore, I will show how to generalise the rule.
GIVEN: A starting number, which is a non-negative integer.
STEP 1. Delete the units digit of the starting number.
STEP 2: To what is left add 2 times the deleted number. The result is
the new number—or, if you wish−the next number.
CLAIM: The starting number is divisible by 19 if and only if the new
number is divisible by 19.
The examples of this rule will, of course, be exactly the same as in [1].
Nothing but another formulation of the rule has been done:
Example 1. 3672 → 367 + 4 = 371 → 37 + 2 = 39, not divisible by 19.
Example 2. 342 → 34 + 4 = 38 = 2 × 19.

Justification of the claim. Let us introduce the following notation:
s = the starting number,
t = the number of tens in s,
u = the units digit of s,
n = the new number.
Then according to STEP 1 and STEP 2, respectively, we have
s = 10t + u 2s = 20t + 2u
 ⇔ 
n = t + 2u n = t + 2u
and so subtraction gives
n − 2s = −19t. (1)
The numbers 2 and 19 are relatively prime, and so (1) shows that if one of n
and s has the factor 19 then the other must too.
Note that this proof does the job no matter what the number of digits of
n is.
Now one might ask what would happen if we changed the multiplier 2
to some other positive integer, i.e., if we altered STEP 2 to
STEP 2(m): To what is left add m times the deleted number. The result is
the next number.
Then we would get n = t + mu. Repeating the reasoning we used
when we had m = 2 we get the formula corresponding to (1) to be
n − ms = − (10m − 1) t. (2)
We note that the numbers m and 10m − 1 in (2) have no common
factors greater than one. If they did, then we could write, for some integers
c, m1, and p, where c ≥ 2,
m = cm1 and 10m − 1 = cp,
and so
10cm1 − 1 = cp, giving c (10m1 − p) = 1,
which is a contradiction, for the number in brackets is an integer and c is at
least 2, so their product cannot be equal to 1.
Returning to (2) we conclude that either both n and s are divisible by
10m − 1 or else neither of them is.
Let us look at the particularly rewarding STEP 2(5).
Example 3. 686 → 98 → 49 →
→ 49.
The conclusion is that 686 is divisible by 49.
NOTES 81
Example 4. 119 → 56 → 35 → 28 → 42
↑ ↓
7 ← 21 ← 14
We conclude that 119 is not divisible by 49. The loop that appears contains
only numbers divisible by 7, and so the idea emerges that we can formulate
a divisibility rule for any factor of 49, or more generally, any factor of
10m − 1.
Using (2) again it is easily seen that if n is divisible by a proper factor of
the number 10m − 1 then so is s. I leave the details of this reasoning to the
reader.
I use this rule with various multipliers, starting with 5, in primary school
and teacher education, when treating the review of multiplication. I do not
at the outset say anything about divisibility. Usually I let the pupils or
student teachers use the starting number 18, so that we can agree on what to
do when the number is a one-digit number. The pupils or students are asked
to carry on till they discover something.
One gets a long loop very much worth exploring. See [2].
Later on, when we have discussed multiplier 5, everybody is
encouraged to try other values of the multiplier, and there is much exploring
and very much multiplying going on. Many get excited and happy when
they realise how 10m − 1 is involved (without, of course, using the symbol
m).
So here is a beautiful result in pure mathematics, and it can be used for
an interesting and rewarding review of multiplication. Isn't mathematics
wonderful?
References
1. M. Humphreys and N. Macharia, Tests for divisibility by 19, Math.
Gaz. 82 (Nov. 1998) pp. 475-477.
2. Andrejs Dunkels, Much more than multiplying by 5, Mathematics in
School 20 (3) (May 1991) pp. 9-11.
ANDREJS DUNKELS
Dept. of Mathematics, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87
LULEÅ, Sweden
Formerly:
Head of Dept. of Mathematics, Kenya Science Teachers College,
Nairobi, Kenya
84.07 A matrix method for a system of linear Diophantine

equations
In [1], Koshy applies a matrix method to the solution of a single linear
Diophantine equation. In [2] Cook solves a special case of the equation
solved in [1]. (It is a special case because the right-hand side is given to be
the highest common factor of the coefficients on the left.) We now wish to
show how to apply a matrix method to the general system of m

simultaneous linear Diophantine equations in n unknowns. Such a system
may be written in the form
Ax = b (1)
where A is an m × n integer matrix and x, b are respectively n × 1, m × 1
integer vectors. Two m × n integer matrices C, D are equivalent if there
are square integer matrices P, Q of orders m, n respectively, each with
determinant ±1, such that PCQ = D. A necessary and sufficient condition
for (1) to have a solution is that the matrices (A b) and (A O) are
…
( )
equivalent. The necessity of the condition is easily proved, for if (1) has a
In −x
solution, x, then (A b) = (A 0). The proof of sufficiency is
…
01 × n 1 …
more difficult, requiring the use of Smith normal form [3]. Alternatively,
sufficiency follows as an extreme special case of Roth's lemma [4].
In order to obtain the general solution of (1) we use nothing more
complicated than row and column reduction of the coefficient matrix A to
diagonal form. (The algorithm used is a simplified version of that used to
obtain Smith normal form [3]). We use the following row and column
reductions:
(i) Multiplication of a row (column) by ±1,
(ii) Interchange of two rows (columns),
(iii) Addition to one row (column) of an integer multiple of another row
(column).
In effect, such a sequence of row (column) operations is pre- (post-)
multiplication by a square matrix with determinant ±1.
We now describe the algorithm used to diagonalise the coefficient
matrix A of (1). To simplify the exposition, we shall always refer to the
current occupant of the i, j-position as aij. First use row and column
interchange to bring a non-zero entry in A of smallest absolute value into the
1,1-position. Then add integer multiples of the first row to the other rows so
as to make the entries in the first column as small as possible in absolute
value. Do the same to columns, so as to make entries in the first row as
small as possible in absolute value. If the ai1 and a1j (2 ≤ i ≤ m),
(2 ≤ j ≤ n) are not all zero at this stage, repeat the process. Each time the
process is repeated, the entries in the first row and first column decrease in
absolute value so, by continued repetition, we end up with all entries (except
a11 ) in the first row and column being zero. Repeat the whole operation
with a22, and so on, ending with a matrix whose only non-zero entries lie on
the leading diagonal.
For example, consider the system Ax = b:
NOTES 83
( −4 −2 2
−2 2 −2 ) ()
x1
x2 =
x3
( )
4
−4
We use the following sequence of row and column operations:

(2)
Interchange rows 1 and 2, add −2(row 1) to row 2, add column 1 to

column 2, add −(column 1) to column 3, add column 2 to column 3,
multiply columns 1 and 2 by −1. This sequence of operations reduces the
( )
coefficient matrix of (2) to
2 0 0
0 6 0
and has the same effect as pre-
multiplying A by P = ( ) 0 1
1 −2
and post-multiplying A by
( −1 −1 0
Q = 0 −1 1 ; PAQ =
) ( ) 2 0 0
0 6 0
. If we pre-multiply (2) by P, then
() () ()
0 0 1
( )
x1 u1 x1
−1 4 −1
we have PAQQ x2 = P . Putting u = u2 = Q x2 we have
−4
()
x3 u3 x3
( ) ( )( ) ( )
u1
2 0 0 0 1 4 −4
u2 = = so 2u1 = −4, 6u2 = 12 and u3 is
0 6 0 1 −2 −4 12
()()
u3
u1 −2
arbitrary. The general solution is then u2 = 2 . Then x = Qu or
()(
u3
)( ) ( )
u3
x1 −1 −1 0 −2 0
x2 = 0 −1 1 2 = −2 + u3 where u3 is an arbitrary integer. This
x3 0 0 1 u3 u3
is the general solution of the system (2).
The example given in [1] is ( 1976 1776 )

() x1
x2
= (2072) and using our
method we find that ( 1976 1776 ) ( −71 222

79 −247 ) = ( 8 0 ). Thus the
method of [1] is a variant of our method applied to the transposed system
xTAT = bT. Likewise, the coefficient matrix of the example given in [2] is
( 15579 342 ) and by our method we find that
(
( 15579 342 ) 410−9 38
−1731 ) = ( 9 0 ). Again, the author of [2] has
worked with the transposed system rather than the given system. Also, both
authors have confined their work to the extreme special case in which
m = 1 (and in [2] the work is confined to a special case of this special

case).
Finally, we note that the author of [1] mentions that a linear congruence
is virtually the same thing as a linear Diophantine equation. (Once again, a
single linear congruence is considered.) The reader may like to use our
present method to solve the simultaneous linear congruences x ≡ 2 (mod
5), x ≡ 3 (mod 7); (Answer: x = 17 + 35n).
References.
1. T. Koshy, Linear Diophantine equations, linear congruences and
matrices, Math. Gaz. 82 (July 1998) pp. 274-277.
2. I. Cook, Diophantine equations. A tableau, or spreadsheet for solving
xa + yb = h, Math. Gaz. 82 (November 1998) pp. 463-468.
3. J. H. Wilkinson, The algebraic eigenvalue problem, Clarendon Press,
Oxford (1965) p. 18.
4. A. J. B. Ward, A straightforward proof of Roth's lemma in matrix
equations, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 30 (1) (1999) pp. 33-38.
A. J. B. WARD
19 Woodside Close, Surbiton, Surrey KT5 9JU
84.08 On the application of Whittaker's theorem

Whittaker's theorem (stated below) belongs to the theory of equations;
it was extended by Aitken in 1924. It can also be applied to some
convergent infinite power series.
Denote the determinant | A | of the square matrix of real elements
 a1 a2 a3 a4 … … an an + 1 
 
 1 a1 a2 a3 … … an − 1 an 
 
 0 1 a1 a2 … … an − 2 an − 1 
 0 0 1 a1 … … an − 3 an − 2 
A =  
 … … … … … … … … 
 … … … … … … … … 
 
 0 0 0 0 … … a1 a2 
 0 0 0 0 … … 1 a1 

by An + 1, and let Bn denote the minor for element (n + 1, 1). The theorem
[1] states that, if the equation f (x) = 0 has a real root of least absolute
value, where
f (x) = 1 − a1x + a2x2 − a3x3 + a4x4 − … ,
then it is given by the Whittaker series
B0 B1 B2 B3
+ + + + … (A0 = B0 = 1)
A0A1 A1A2 A2A3 A3A4
NOTES 85
if this series converges. (The theorem admits a repeated root, but not roots
of equal modulus and opposite sign.) This series expression is not
particularly user-friendly, whereas the nth partial sum has a simple form
which can be obtained after the appropriate use of Jacobi's theorem on the
adjugate [2] to express Bn in terms of An − 1, An and An + 1. Jacobi's theorem
m−1
states that any minor of order m (< n + 1 here) in | adj A | is equal to | A |
times its signed complementary minor in | A |. Applying this to the minor
formed of the four corners of A,
| An
(−1)n
(−1)n Bn
An | = A2n +− 11An − 1,
from which Bn = A2n − An − 1An + 1 (n ≥ 1) ,

whence the nth partial sum Sn is given by An − 1 / An. Thus computation is
facilitated with the help of the further relation
An = a1An − 1 − a2An − 2 + a3An − 3 − … + (−1)n − 1 anA0 (n ≥ 1) ,
obtained by expanding An from its first row, then expanding the cofactor of
each ai by its first column (i − 1) times.
Several examples were tested using a BASIC program. Convergence
seemed to be consistent with that of first-order iterative processes.
The example f (x) = 1 − 3x + 5x2 − 7x3 + … is exceptional and
leads to the surprising result A1 = 3, An = 4 (n > 1) and Sn = 1 for
n > 2. When the odd positive integers here are replaced by their squares,
however, the limit of the sequence is 3 − 2 2, which also arises in the case
of f (x) = 1 − 6x + x2. The reader may like to trace the relation between
f (x) and the quadratic equations in such cases.
Further, the series f (x) = 1 + 1 × 5x + 2 × 6x2 + 3 × 7x3 + … leads to
the same result as for the (Fibonacci) quadratic f (x) = 1 + x − x2.
Certain standard series may be modified to provide estimates for some
of the household constants (typically π, e, log 2). For example, although the
lack of odd powers in the series for cos x results in oscillatory behaviour, the
choice f (x) = cos x furnishes an approximation for π2 / 4. The first zero
of the Bessel function J 0 (x) can be similarly investigated.
Interesting applications of Whittaker's theorem abound, but finally note
that f (x) = exp (−x), having no real roots, leads to the divergent scenario
An = 1 / n!, Bn = 1 / [ n! (n + 1)!] , Sn = n.
References
1. H. W. Turnbull, Theory of equations, Oliver and Boyd (1952).
2. J. W. Archbold, Algebra, Pitman (1964).
J. A. SCOTT
84.09 Digital roots and reciprocals of primes

The digital root of a number is found by adding its digits, then adding
the digits of the result, and so on, until a single digit is obtained. For
example: 142857→27→9. Most readers will be aware that the digital root
is equivalent to the starting number modulo 9.
Recently I computed the digital roots of the recurring parts of the
decimal representations of prime reciprocals (Table 1).
Prime Reciprocal as a decimal Digital root
2 0.50
⋅ 0
3
⋅
0.3 3
5 0.20
⋅ 0
7
⋅ ⋅
0.142857 9
11
⋅⋅
0.09 9
13
⋅ ⋅
0.076923 9
17
⋅
0.0588235294117647
⋅ 9
19
⋅
0.052631578947368421
⋅ 9
TABLE 1
For primes greater than 5, all the digital roots appear to have the same
value, 9. We can confirm this if we note that recurring decimals can be
turned into fractions with denominators of the form 10n (10m − 1) where
n ≥ 0 and m ≥ 1 are chosen to be as small as possible. For example, if
⋅⋅ ⋅⋅
x = 0.13527 then 1000x = 135.27 and 100000x = 13527.27 so that
⋅⋅
999000x = 13392 and x = 13392 / 999000. If p is a prime with p > 5 and
1 a
= ,
p 10 (10m − 1)
n
then ap = 10n (10m − 1) ⇒ p | 10n or p | (10m − 1). Since p ≠ 2,5 the first
possibility is ruled out, so p | (10m − 1) for some m ≥ 1. The value of m
determines the period of the recurrence. For example, in the case p = 7, the
numbers 9, 99, 999, 9999 and 99999 are not divisible by 7, but 7 | 999999.
We can also determine that n = 0 in the case of prime reciprocals since, for
n > 0, ap = 10n (10m − 1) = 2n5n (10m − 1), and for p ≠ 2,5 this
means that 2n | a and 5n | a, so that we can cancel the fraction to
1 / p = a′ / (10m − 1) where a′ = a / 10n. This contradicts the choice of n
to be as small as possible.
We therefore have n = 0 and 1 / p = a / (10m − 1), where a (possibly
preceded by one or more zeroes) is the recurring part of the decimal
representation of 1 / p. Hence ap = 10m − 1, so that ap is a multiple of 9. If
p ≠ 3 then a must be a multiple of 9 and will therefore have a digital root
of 9.
ALEXANDER J. GRAY
Flat 2, 54 Bloomsbury Street, London WC1B 3QT
NOTES 87
84.10 Unexpected symmetry in a derived Fibonacci

sequence
This note concerns a sequence {gn : n ∈ z} related to the extended
Fibonacci sequence, which is indexed by positive and negative terms. The
Fibonacci sequence, which is given by f 0 = 0, f 1 = 1 and f n + 1 = f n + f n − 1
(n ≥ 1), may be extended to negatively indexed terms by rearranging the
recurrence relation to f n − 1 = f n + 1 − f n for n < 0, giving,
f −1 = 1, f −2 = −1, f −3 = 2, f −4 = −3, …
The derived Fibonacci sequence is then defined for all n ∈ z by
gn = nf n − 1, so, for example,
… , g−3 = 9, g−2 = −4, g−1 = 1, g0 = 0, g1 = 0, g2 = 2, g3 = 3, g4 = 8, …
I discovered the property described in the proposition below when I was
investigating the differences for the derived Fibonacci sequence. It is well
known that the sequence of differences for the Fibonacci sequence is
another copy of the Fibonacci numbers. The situation for the derived
sequence is not so simple, but yields a surprising symmetry.
There is a standard notation for differences [1; p. 374] which uses the
symbol. If {un}n ∈ z is a sequence, then the (first) differences are defined by
un = 1un = un + 1 − un, the second differences by 2un = un + 1 − un,
and, for k > 2, the k th differences by kun = k − 1un + 1 − k − 1un. The table
below shows the derived Fibonacci sequence gn (for n > 0) in the first row
and the differences kgn (k ≥ 1) in subsequent rows. Note that we may
define 0gn to be gn and write 1gn for gn.
n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
gn 0 0 2 3 8 15 30 56 104 189 340 605
gn 0 2 1 5 7 15 26 48 85 151 265
2gn 2 −1 4 2 8 11 22 37 66 114
3gn −3 5 −2 6 3 11 15 29 48
4gn 8 −7 8 −3 8 4 14 19
The table shows an interesting pattern. The first diagonal column
contains the same numbers (with some changes of sign) as the first row.
The second diagonal corresponds to the second row and so on. In
attempting to prove this relationship I was also led to a formula for kgn,
which is given in Proposition 1 below. The proof makes use of a property
of the Fibonacci numbers proved in the lemma.
Lemma
The negatively indexed and positively indexed Fibonacci numbers are
related:
f −n = (−1)n + 1 f n.
Proof
We use induction, noting that the result is true for n = 0 and n = 1.
Suppose that the result is true for n = k − 1 and n = k and consider the
case n = k + 1. Using the defining recurrence relation we have
f −(k + 1) = f −k − 1 = f −k + 1 − f −k = f −(k − 1) − f −k
so by the induction hypothesis
f −(k + 1) = (−1)(k − 1) + 1 f k − 1 − (−1)k + 1 f k
= (−1)k (f k − 1 + f k )
= (−1)k + 2 f k + 1.
Since the result for n = k + 1 is true whenever the results for n = k − 1
and n = k are true, the result is true for all n ∈ n by the principle of
induction.
Proposition 1
If {gn}n ∈ z is the derived Fibonacci sequence given by gn = n f n − 1
then, for k ≥ 0 and n ∈ z,
kgn = kf n − k + 1 + nf n − k − 1. (1)
Proof
The result follows by induction on k . We show how to deduce the result
in the case k = r + 1, given that the result for k = r is valid for any n.
From the definition of and the induction hypothesis we have, for any
n ∈ z,
r + 1gn = rgn + 1 − rgn
= (rf n + 1 − r + 1 + (n + 1) f n + 1 − r − 1) − (rf n − r + 1 + nf n − r − 1)
= r (f n − r + 2 − f n − r + 1) + n (f n − r − f n − r − 1) + f n − r .
Using the recurrence relation for Fibonacci numbers, we obtain
r + 1gn = rf n − r + nf n − r − 2 + f n − r
= (r + 1) f n − (r + 1) + 1 + nf n − (r + 1) − 1, as required.
To complete the proof, we note that the case k = 0 follows directly for
all n from the definition of gn, since 0gn = gn = nf n − 1.
The symmetry, that was noted above, between the rows and columns in
the table, is made more precise in Proposition 2. In fact, the symmetry is
not perfect, as there is sometimes a factor of −1 involved.
NOTES 89
Proposition 2
With gn defined as in Proposition 1, for n, k ≥ 0 we have
ngk = (−1)n + k kgn.
Proof
To prove this result, we note that (1) is valid for all k ≥ 0 and all
n ∈ z. Therefore, if n ≥ 0 and k ≥ 0 we have, from the lemma
ngk = nf k − n + 1 + kf k − n − 1
= (−1)k − n + 2 nf −(k − n + 1) + (−1)k − n kf −(k − n − 1)
= (−1)k − n (nf n − k − 1 + kf n − k + 1)
= (−1)k + n kgn.
Note that (−1)k − n = (−1)k + n because (−1)2n = 1. This completes the
proof.
Acknowledgement
I first noticed the symmetry among the differences in 1997. I would
like to thank the Editor for suggesting suitable notation and for his
assistance with the proofs.
Reference
1. L. Råde, B. Westergren, Mathematics handbook for science and
engineering, (3rd edn.), Chartwell-Bratt/Studentliteratur, (1995).
ALEXANDER J. GRAY
84.11 A recurrence relation among Fibonacci sums

Consider the sums of Fibonacci numbers,
n
τn = ∑ fk
k=0
where f 0 = 0, f 1 = 1, f 2 = 1, etc. On tabulating the first few terms
(Table 1)
n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
τn 0 1 2 4 7 12 20
TABLE 1
we find that 1 + τn + τn+1 = τn+2 for small values of n. The proof of this
depends only on the recurrence relation for Fibonacci numbers.
We have
n n+1
1 + τn + τn+1 = 1 + ∑ fk + ∑ fk
k=0 k=0
n
= f1 + ∑ (f k + f k+1) + f 0 (since f 1 = 1)
k=0
n
= f0 + f1 + ∑ f k+2 (by the recurrence relation)
k=0
n+2
= ∑ fk = τn+2 as required.
k=0
ALEXANDER J. GRAY
84.12 Some unusual iterations

A common A level question is to ask for the first three or four iterates of
a particular system and then say something about the value to which the
sequence converges. With the advent of graphical calculators it is now easy
to produce many iterates of a given formula with only a few keystrokes.
The purpose of this note is to exploit this feature to illustrate how the first
few iterates may give a false picture of the whole sequence. Good examples
of such behaviour can be quite tricky to find. The calculations were done on
a TI85 and take a matter of minutes for an average student to do for
themselves. The results were identical on a TI86, and (with fewer digits
displayed) on a TI82. It would be interesting to see if the same sequences
are generated by other makes of calculator with different storage or
calculation methods.
Example 1
x2n
The system xn + 1 = 1 + xn − , x0 = 1.75, converges to 2. If we
4
2
xn 1
modify it to xn + 1 = 1 + xn − + e10000(xn − 2), the sequence
4 100000
becomes
x0 = 1.75
x1 = 1.984375
x2 = 1.99993896484
x3 = 2.00000002142
x4 = 2.00001002144
x5 = 2.00002724114
x6 = 2.00015242885
x7 = 43.6774066446
x8 = overflow!
NOTES 91
Example 2
xn 2
The system xn + 1 = + , x0 = 1.75, converges to 2. If we modify
2 xn
xn 2 4
it to xn + 1 = + − , we get
2 xn 1 + 1012 (xn − 2)2
x0 = 1.75
x1 = 2.01785714279
x2 = 2.00007900136
The sequence on a TI85 continues in this fashion, close to x = 2, until
x24 = 2.00000059441
x25 = −0.95568081953
x26 = −2.57058932682
x27 = −2.06332636966
x28 = −2.00097178739
x29 = −2.00000023598
x30 = −2
x31 = −2.
The sequence has converged to −2 !!
It is a good exercise for more able students to explain what causes the
unexpected results.
MARK THORNBER
Durham Johnston Comprehensive School, Crossgate Moor, Durham DHI 4SU
84.13 When the sum equals the product

For n ≥ 2, let a (n) denote the number of integer solutions (x1, x2, … , xn),
with 1 ≤ x1 ≤ x2 ≤… ≤ xn, of the equation
x1 + x2 + … + xn = x1 x2 … xn .
For example, when n = 2, 3, 4, we have the solutions (2, 2), (1, 2, 3),
(1, 1, 2, 4), because
2 + 2 = 2 × 2, 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 × 2 × 3, 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 1 × 1 × 2 × 4.
In general, we find that (1, 1, … , 2, n) is always a solution; we shall call
this the trivial solution associated with n, so that a (n) ≥ 1. It is easy to
check that there are no non-trivial solutions when n = 2, 3, 4, so that
a (2) = a (3) = a (4) = 1. When n = 5 we have the two non-trivial
solutions (1, 1, 1, 3, 3) and (1, 1, 2, 2, 2), and it is not difficult to check that
these are the only solutions, so that a (5) = 3. In general, such checks can
be carried out by finding an explicit bound for xi in a solution. Thus, from
x1 + x2 + … + xn ≤ nxn, we deduce that x1x2… xn − 1 ≤ n, and xn is
uniquely specified by x1, x2, … xn − 1 when there is a solution, so that all the
solutions can be found by computation. The argument shows that a (n) is
finite; in fact a (n) ≤ nn − 1, for example.
We prove that
x1 + x2 + … + xn ≤ 2n
with equality only for the trivial solution. (This problem appeared in the
Polish Mathematical Olympiad in 1990.) Let bn denote the number of unit
elements in a solution (x1, x2, … , xn), so that there are k = n − bn ≥ 2
non-unit elements having the form yi + 1, with 1 ≤ y1 ≤ y2 ≤ … ≤ yk .
It follows that
(y1 + 1) (y2 + 1) … (yk + 1) = y1 + y2 + … + k + bn .
When k = 2 this becomes y1y2 = n − 1, and y1 + y2 is maximum when
y1 = 1. Thus y1 + y2 ≤ n, and hence x1 + x2 + … + xn = n + y1 + y2 ≤ 2n.
When k ≥ 3, we have
x1 + x2 + … + xn = n + (y1 + y2 + … + yk)
≤ n + (y1y2 + y2y3 + … + yk y1)
< n + (y1 + 1)(y2 + 1) … (yk + 1) − (y1 + y2 + … + yk)
= 2n.
As a corollary, we find that 2k ≤ x1… xn = x1 + … + xn ≤ 2n, so
that k ≤ log2 n + 1, and hence
bn ≥ n − 1 − [ log2 n] .
This estimate is also sharp because there is equality when n = 2s − s, with
s ≥ 2; the relevant solution is (1, 1, …, 1, 2, 2, …, 2) with bn = 2s − 2s.
We do not know whether a (n) → ∞ as n → ∞ or not, but we can
show that a (n) can be arbitrarily large. If n = 22s + 1, and
xn − 1 = 2j + 1, xn = 22s − j + 1, with j = 0, 1, 2, … , s,
then each such (1, 1, … ,1, xn − 1, xn) is a solution, so that
a(n) ≥ s + 1 > 12 log2 n for such n.
If each xi in a solution is odd, then the product is also odd, and hence the
sum x1 +… +xn is odd, which implies that n has to be odd. Therefore, if n
is even, at least one xi is even. Moreover, the product is now even, and so
that the sum x1 +… +xn is even, which in turn implies the existence of
another even xi . The argument shows that 4 | x1 +… +xn when n is even.
NOTES 93
n a (n) n a (n) n a (n) n a (n) n a (n) n a (n) n a (n) n a (n) n a (n) n a (n)
1 − 11 3 21 4 31 4 41 7 51 4 61 9 71 6 81 7 91 6
2 1 12 2 22 2 32 3 42 2 52 3 62 3 72 3 82 4 92 3
3 1 13 4 23 4 33 5 43 5 53 7 63 4 73 9 83 5 93 6
4 1 14 2 24 1 34 2 44 2 54 2 64 4 74 4 84 2 94 3
5 3 15 2 25 5 35 3 45 4 55 5 65 7 75 3 85 10 95 6
6 1 16 2 26 4 36 2 46 4 56 4 66 2 76 3 86 5 96 5
7 2 17 4 27 3 37 6 47 5 57 5 67 5 77 6 87 4 97 6
8 2 18 2 28 3 38 3 48 2 58 4 68 5 78 3 88 5 98 5
9 2 19 4 29 5 39 3 49 5 59 4 69 4 79 5 89 8 99 4
10 2 20 2 30 2 40 4 50 4 60 2 70 3 80 2 90 2 100 5
The above table gives the values for a (n) for 1 < n ≤ 100, obtained
by exhaustive search for solutions using a computer. For example, when
n = 50, we find that xi = 1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ 47, and the remaining three
values for x48, x49, x50 are given by each of the following four possibilities
{1, 2, 50}, {1, 8, 8}, {2, 2, 17}, {2, 5, 6}. Similarly, when n = 100,
we need to have xi = 1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ 95, and the remaining five values
x96, … , x100 are given by each of the five possibilities {1, 1, 1, 2, 100},
{1, 1, 1, 4, 34}, {1, 1, 1, 10, 12}, {1, 1, 4, 4, 7}, {2, 2, 3, 3, 3}. We also
found that a (1997) = 20, a (1998) = 8, a (1999) = 16, a (2000) = 10.
We do not know whether a (n) can take the value 1 infinitely often or
not. The table shows that the largest n < 100 with a (n) = 1 is n = 24.
We also found three values for n with a (n) = 1 in the range
100 ≤ n < 1000, namely n = 114, 174 and 444, but we have not found
any more solutions of a (n) = 1.
If n − 1 is composite, so that n = ab + 1, with 2 ≤ a ≤ b, then
(1, 1, ... , 1, a + 1, b + 1) is a non-trivial solution. Therefore, if a (n) = 1
and n ≥ 5, then n − 1 is a prime. Next, if n = 3m + 2 then (1, 1,...,
1, 2, 2, m + 1) is a non-trivial solution. We already know that, if a (n) = 1
and n ≥ 5, then n is an even number not of the form 3m + 1, so that we
must have 6 | n. We extend the argument to give the following necessary
condition for a (n) = 1 when n ≥ 100.
Theorem. Let n ≥ 100 satisfy a(n) = 1. Then n ≡ 0, 24, 30, 84, 90, 114,
150 or 174 (mod 210).
Proof. First, if n = 7m + r , then we need to have r = 0, 2, 3 or 6, because
(1,1, … ,1,8, m + 1), (1,1, … ,1,2,4, m + 1), (1,1, … ,1,2,2,2, m + 1)
are non-trivial solutions corresponding to r = 1, 4, 5, respectively.
Since 6 | n, if n = 30m + r , then we need to have r = 0, 6, 12, 18 or
24, and we can also rule out r = 6 because n − 1 has the factor 5. When
r = 12 and 18, we have the non-trivial solutions
(1, 1, … ,1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2m + 1) and (1, 1, … , 1, 2, 3, 6m + 4)
respectively. Therefore, we may only have r = 0, 24. The required result

in the theorem follows.
We conclude with two conjectures.
Conjecture 1. If n ≥ 5 and a (n) = 1, then n ≡ 24 (mod 30) .
Conjecture 2. If n > 444 then a (n) > 1.
Some additional information on this topic may be found in [1, 2].
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to the referee for his valuable remarks.
References
1. W. Sierpinski, Number theory, PWN Warsaw (1959).
2. (author needed), (Title needed), Amer. Math. Monthly 78 (October
1971) p. 1021.
LEO KURLANDCHIK and ANDRZEJ NOWICKI
Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Nicholaus Copernicus
University, 87-100 Toruñ, Poland
e-mail: a.now@mat.uni.torun.pl
84.14 Never say never: some mistaken identities

After an exasperating batch of marking, I told a lecture audience of
undergraduates:
‘One over A plus B is NEVER equal to one over A plus one over B.’
A doubt passed over my mind while I was saying this, but I had to get
on with the lecture. For a start, I would have been correct had I said that if
A and B are REAL then 1 / (A + B) ≠ 1 / A + 1 / B.
Later, a discussion in the bar led a colleague and me to wonder if the
following is ever true of complex numbers:
1 1 1
= + . (1)
A+ B A B
The gist of the following argument fitted onto a beer mat. We supposed
the fractions to be finite, so that A ≠ 0, B ≠ 0 and A + B ≠ 0. Equation
(1) leads to this quadratic equation
( BA)
2
B
+ + 1 = 0, (2)
A
which has the pair of solutions B+ / A and B− / A, where
B± −1 3
= ± i . (3)
A 2 2
NOTES 95
This can also be written in two other ways:

B± = A cos (2π / 3) ± iA sin (2π / 3) = A exp (±i 2π / 3) . (4)
We concluded that, given a non-zero complex number A, there are two
complex values for B which satisfy equation (1). Interestingly
| B+ | = | B− | = | A | so these three points in the complex plane are
equidistant from the origin. Also, from (4), the angle subtended at the origin
between any two numbers chosen from the set {A, B+, B−} is 2π / 3.
Therefore the three points corresponding to {A, B+, B−} are the vertices of
an equilateral triangle, centred at the origin. Put in a more symmetric way,
take any equilateral triangle T , centre O, in the complex plane; then any two
vertices of T are complex numbers which satisfy equation (1).
One beer mat was not enough to explore the possibility of three
complex numbers satisfying
1 1 1 1
= + + . (5)
A+ B+ C A B C
You may like to show that (5) implies that (B + A) (A + C) (C + B) = 0.
From this we deduce that either B = −A or A = −C or C = −B.
Consequently equation (5) always reduces to a trivial identity. For example,
the case C = −B gives
1 1 1 1
= + − . (6)
A+ B− B A B B
which reduces to the trivial identity
1 1
= .
A A
Despite this disappointment, I invite you to consider the possibility that
1 1 1 1 1
= + + + . (7)
A+ B+ C + D A B C D
There are plenty of non-trivial examples of this, even when
{A, B, C, D} are constrained to the real numbers. For example,
1 1 1 1 1
= + + + .
1 + 2 + 3 + (± 63/ 11 − 3) 1 2 3 (± 63/ 11 − 3)
(Hint: take {A, B, C} as given real numbers and determine values of D
which satisfy equation (7); this is always possible unless
1 / A + 1 / B + 1 / C = 0 and A + B + C ≠ 0. The same treatment
generalises to any finite number of constants.)
I was unable to find an example of (7) for which {A, B, C, D} are
distinct, non-zero integers. But later Jim Buddenhagen* sent me several
classes of solutions, each a family of quartics in one integer parameter. I
pay tribute to Jim's remarkable work with one of his examples:
* (e-mail: jbuddenh@texas.net)
A = −2n (2n + 3) (n2 + 3) ; B = 3n (n − 2) (n2 + 3n − 3) ;

C = 3 (2n + 3) (n2 + 3n − 3) ; D = (n2 + 3) (n2 + 3n − 3) .
where n is any integer except 0 and 2. For this solution, both sides of (7)
equal 1 / [ 6 (n − 2) (n2 + 3)] . If we put n = 1 we have, for example, the
solution A = −40, B = −3, C = 15 and D = 4: the reciprocal of their
sum is 1 / (−24), which is the sum of their reciprocals.
Another maddening student howler, often remarked upon in common
rooms and mathematically inclined bars, is
log (a + b) = log (a) + log (b) [sic] . (8)
If a and b are positive real numbers, then (whatever the base of the log) (8)
implies that 1 / a + 1 / b = 1. Hence b = a / (a − 1). In order that b be
positive we must have a > 1. Consequently b > 1. This gives an interesting
relation if we put a = sec 2 θ and consequently b = a/ (a − 1) = cosec2 θ .
Then, from equation (8), for any real angle θ (not an integer multiple of
π / 2), we have
log (sec 2 θ + cosec2 θ ) = log (sec 2 θ ) + log (cosec2 θ ) . (9)
The reader is invited to prove (9) directly.
A different choice of a and b gives the following result for any non-zero
real φ
log (cosh2 φ + coth2 φ) = log (cosh2 φ) + log (coth2 φ) . (10)
(a + b)
Lastly, in the bar, we wondered when e = e + e and decided
a b
that we had better stop there; we heeded the wise warning ‘never drink and
derive’.
Acknowledgments:
Thanks to Paul Hammerton, Tom Ward, and Graham Everest at the
School of Mathematics, UEA, and Jim Buddenhagen, of San Antonio,
Texas, for the mathematical refreshments.
MARK J. COOKER
School of Mathematics, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ
84.15 A curious property of the integer 24

Proposition 1 The only positive integers n with the property
m2 ≡ 1 (mod n) for all integers m coprime to n (1)
are n = 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, i.e. the divisors of 24 greater than 1.
Proof It is easily checked that the stated values of n satisfy (1). For
example, when n = 24, the condition that m is coprime to n implies that
m ≡ 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23 (mod 24). In each case m2 ≡ 1 (mod
24).
NOTES 97
It remains to show that no other integer n has property (1). We first

observe that, if n satisfies (1) then the lowest common multiple N of n and
24 also satisfies (1). To see this, consider a prime p that divides N and let
pr(p) denote the highest power of p that divides N . Then pr(p) divides at least
one of n and 24. An integer m is coprime to N if and only if m is coprime to
both n and 24. Thus m2 ≡ 1 (mod pr(p)) by property (1) for n, if pr(p) divides
n, or by property (1) for 24, if pr(p) divides 24. Since the congruence holds
for all primes p that divide N we have m2 ≡ 1 (mod N).
Suppose now that n satisfies (1) and n ≠ 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24.
Then, by the previous paragraph, N satisfies (1) and N > 24. The inequality
shows that 52 ≡⁄ 1 mod N and we can conclude from (1) (for N ) that N is
divisible by 5. Hence N ≥ 120. Thus 72 ≡⁄ 1 (mod N ) and so, by (1), N is
divisible by 7. Hence N ≥ 840. Let pi denote the i th prime (so, p1 = 2,
p2 = 3, p3 = 5, etc.). We show by induction on i that N ≥ 4p1p2… pi for
every i . The case i = 4 has been established. Assume the result for i . In
the next paragraph it is shown that p2i + 1 ≤ p1… pi for i ≥ 4. It then
follows that p2i + 1 ≡⁄ 1 (mod N ). By (1), N is divisible by pi + 1, and hence
N ≥ 4p1… pi + 1. The proposition follows, since no integer N satisfies this
inequality for all i .
To complete the proof, we show by induction on i that p2i + 1 ≤ p1… pi
for i ≥ 4. The result is easily verified for i = 4. Assume the result for i .
Recall Bertrand's postulate that, for every positive integer c, there is a prime
p satisfying c < p ≤ 2c (a simple proof by P. Erdõs may be found on page
231 of [1]). In particular, taking c = pi + 1, we have that pi + 2 ≤ 2pi + 1.
Hence p1… pipi + 1 > p2i + 1pi + 1 ≥ 14 p2i + 2pi + 1 > p2i + 2, as pi + 1 > 4. This
completes the inductive step.
Reference
1. H. E. Rose, A course in number theory, (2nd edn.). Clarendon Press
(1994).
M. H. EGGAR
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ
84.16 What do cycles of a given length generate?

Let Sn denote the symmetric group of degree n, i.e. the group of all
permutations of n symbols. Let An denote the alternating group, i.e. the
subgroup of Sn consisting of even permutations.
It is a fundamental theorem in a first course in abstract algebra that
transpositions (i.e. cycles of length 2) generate all of Sn. It is also
fundamental that cycles of length 3 generate all of An. If one denotes the
subgroup of Sn generated by all cycles of length r (2 ≤ r ≤ n) by S(r)
n , then
the above can be restated as
S(2)
n = Sn, S(3)
n = An.
One expects this to create a hope that there are (beside Sn and An) other
distinguished subgroups of Sn that are yet to be discovered, namely the

subgroups
S(4) (5) (n)
n , Sn , … , Sn .
At least it raises the question of what these subgroups are. I find it amazing
that, during the many years of my career as an algebra instructor, I have
never been asked this question by any student.
Our question can be easily answered (and our hope, if any, dashed) by
observing that
(1 2 … r−1 r )( r r−1 … 3 1 2 )=( 1 3 2 ) ∀r ≥ 3.
This identity shows that S(r)
n contains all 3-cycles and thus S(r)
n ⊇ An∀n ≥ 3.
Hence S(r)
n is either Sn or An. Since a cycle of length r is even if, and only if,
r is odd, it follows that S(r) (r)
n = An if r is odd and Sn = Sn if r is even.
MOWAFFAQ HAJJA
Department of Maths. and Comp. Sci., American University of Sharjah,
PO Box 26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
84.17 A game with positive and negative numbers

The game
In many games, simple rules generate a complex multitude of positions.
In our game a position consists of a finite sequence of real numbers. We
impose the rule that a sequence (a1, … , an) of length n may be reduced to a
shorter sequence by omitting any zero or by replacing two adjacent entries
of opposite sign by their sum. The game ends when no further reduction is
possible.
Different choices of steps may reduce a given sequence to different
irreducible sequences. For example,
(4, −2, −1, 1) → (4, −2, 0) → (4, −2) → (2)
(4, −2, −1, 1) → (2, −1, 1) → (1, 1) .
Various questions immediately spring to mind. Which sequences can be
reduced to a single element, i.e. to a sequence of length 1? Is there an
algorithm (apart from enumeration of all possible reductions) that achieves
this reduction for such sequences? Which numbers can be the lengths of
irreducible sequences obtained by reducing a given sequence? A challenge
for the reader is to prove, before looking ahead, that the sequence
(−2, −3, 8, −5, 7, −3, −1, 7, −4, 10, −7) can only be reduced to irreducible
sequences of lengths 2 and 3. Two people can play a game by alternately
choosing a step in the reduction of a sequence. One person aims to
minimise the length of the final irreducible sequence and the other person
aims to maximise it. They then play again, starting with the same initial
sequence but with reversed roles.
The game, for a single player or a pair of players, could be used in a
NOTES 99
secondary school to make more enjoyable routine practice of adding a

positive number to a negative number, while simultaneously providing
scope for serious mathematical thought.
Some analysis
The first obvious observation is that the sum of the entries in the
sequence remains unchanged at every stage of a reduction. This not only
helps one check the arithmetic, but also allows one to deduce that any
irreducible sequence obtained by reducing (a1, … , an) will have all entries
positive, if a1 + … + an > 0, and all entries negative, if
a1 + … + an < 0. If a1 + … + an = 0, then the sequence with no
entries is the only irreducible sequence obtainable from (a1, … , an), since if
the entries of (b1, … , bn) are all non-zero and b1 + … + bn = 0, then
(b1, … , bn) must contain two adjacent entries of opposite sign and so the
reduction can be carried a stage further.
The key idea of our analysis is encapsulated in the following definition.

Suppose at some stage in a reduction a sequence is formed from a longer
sequence (u1, … , ut ) by one application of the rules. Each non-zero entry
in the shorter sequence is either a rewrite of an element, ui say, of
(u1, … , ut ) or has the (non-zero) value ui + ui + 1, where ui and ui + 1 have
opposite signs. In the first case we call ui in (u1, … , ut ) the predecessor of
the entry in the shorter sequence and in the second case we call whichever
of ui or ui + 1 has the same sign as ui + ui + 1 the predecessor of ui + ui + 1.
Thus any non-zero element that occurs at any stage of a reduction has a
unique predecessor at the previous stage (and hence at all previous stages),
but it may have no successor at the next stage. Predecessors are not defined
for zero entries. Each non-zero element in the final stage thus has a unique
ultimate predecessor in the first.
The next proposition answers the first two questions raised in above.
Proposition: If a1 + … + an > 0, then (a1, … , an) can be reduced to a

single element if, and only if, there is an entry aj such that
a1 + … + aj − 1 ≤ 0 and aj + 1 + … + an ≤ 0. One algorithm that achieves
this is to reduce (by application of appropriate rules) (a1, … , aj − 1) to a
sequence (c1, … , cr) where each ck < 0 and to reduce (aj + 1, … , an) to a
sequence (d 1, … , d s) say, where each d k < 0; then one successively
amalgamates c1, … , cr, d 1, … , d s into ai . If a1 + … + an < 0, then
the analogous condition and algorithm, with all inequalities reversed, apply.
Proof: To see that the inequalities satisfied by aj imply reducibility to a

single element, we note that, by the first paragraph, the inequalities enable
the algorithm to be carried out. Conversely, suppose there is a reduction of
(a1, … , an) to the single element (a1 + … + an). Then we may take aj
to be the ultimate predecessor of a1 + … + an under the reduction.
An example of a sequence S, which cannot be reduced to a single

element (−2,−3, 8,−5, 7,−3,−1, 7,−4, 10, −7). We have a1 + … + a11 = 7,
but none of the four entries ai such that aj ≥ 7, satisfy both the other two
inequalities required for the proposition.
These ideas can be extended further. A necessary and sufficient
condition for a sequence (a1, … , an) to be reducible to some irreducible
sequence of length 2 is that there is a value of m satisfying 1 ≤ m < n,
such that (a1, … , am) and (am + 1, … , an) each satisfy the conditions of the
proposition and a1, … , am and am + 1, … , an both have the same sign.
More generally, the sequence (a1, … , an) can be reduced to an irreducible
sequence with at least r entries if, and only if, there exist m1, … mr − 1 such
that 1 ≤ m1 < m2 < … < mr − 1 < n and such that a1 + … + am1 ,
am1 + 1 + … + am2, … , ami + 1 + … + ami + 1, … , amr − 1 + 1 + … + an
all have the same sign.
For example, the sequence (−2, −3, 8, −5, 7, −3) satisfies the
proposition with j = 3 and (−1, 7, −4, 10, −7) satisfies the proposition
with j = 2 and the sum of the entries is positive for both these sequences.
Thus S can be reduced to an irreducible sequence of length 2, e.g. by
(−2, −3, 8, −5, 7, −3, −1, 7, −4, 10, −7) → (−2, 5, −5, 7, −3, −l, 7, −4, 10,
−7) → (−2, 5, 2, −3, −1, 7, −4, 10, −7) → (−2, 5, 2, −3, 6, −4, 10, −7) →
(−2, 5, 2, −3, 6, −4, 3) → (3, 2, −3, 6, −4, 3) → (3, −1, 6, −4, 3) →
(3, −1, 6, −l) → (2, 6, −1) → (2, 5).
Likewise, the reduction
(−2, −3, 8, −5, 7, −3, −1, 7, −4, 10, −7) → (−2, 5, −5, 7, −3, −l, 7, −4, 10,
−7) → (−2, 5, 2, −3, −1, 7, −4, 10, −7) → (−2, 5, 2, −3, 6, −4, 10, −7) →
(−2, 5, 2, −3, 6, −4, 3) → (3, 2, −3, 6, −4, 3) → (3, 2, 3, −4, 3) →
(3, 2, 3, −l) → (3, 2, 2)
shows that 3 is a possible length for an irreducible sequence obtainable by
reduction of S. No reduction of S can give an irreducible sequence of length
5 or more, since the predecessors in S of these 5 or more elements would all
have to be positive elements of S, but S has only 4 positive entries. To see
that length 4 also cannot be achieved we can use the criterion in the previous
paragraph. Explicitly, the 8 must amalgamate in a reduction with the
preceding −2, −3. For 8 to remain a predecessor (positive) the −5 must
amalgamate with the first 7. Likewise the 10 must amalgamate with the
following −7 and, for it to remain a predecessor the −4 must amalgamate
with the second 7. Now, whichever way −3 amalgamates, one of the
positive entries of S ceases to be a predecessor.
M. H. EGGAR
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Edinburgh EH9 3JZ
NOTES 101
84.18 An inductive proof of the arithmetic mean −

geometric mean inequality
The aim of this note is to present a very simple proof of the arithmetic
mean − geometric mean inequality:
a1 + a2 + … + an ≥ n (a1… an)1/n for n ∈ n; ai ∈ r+, i = 1, 2, … , n, (1)
with inequality if, and only if, ai ≠ ai + 1 for some 1 ≤ i < n.
We use mathematical induction with the aid of the known inequality of
Bernoulli:
(1 + x)n ≥ 1 + nx, for n ∈ n, x ∈ r and x > −1, (2)
with equality if, and only if, n = 1 or x = 0.
Proof: If n = 1, inequality (1) reduces to a1 ≥ a1, which is certainly true.

Suppose that (1) is true (inductive hypothesis) for n = k . Letting
Gn = n a1… an, we have (by the inductive hypothesis)
(a1 + … + ak) + ak + 1 ≥ kGk + ak + 1
with equality holding if, and only if, a1 = a2 = … = ak . Hence
(a1 + … + ak) + ak + 1
≥ Gk + 1 ( kGk
+
ak + 1
Gk + 1 Gk + 1 )
(( ) ( ) )
1/(k + 1) k/(k + 1)
Gk ak + 1
= Gk + 1 k +
ak + 1 Gk
= Gk + 1 ( 1 +k x + (1 + x) ) (by(a / G ) = 1 + x > 0)
k
k +1 k
1/(k + 1)
≥ Gk + 1 ( 1 +k x + 1 + kx) (by (2) with equality in the case x = 0)

≥ Gk + 1 (k + 1) ( 1 +k x + 1 + kx ≥ k + 1 is equivalent to x2 ≥ 0)
which is the case n = k + 1. Hence, by induction, the result is true for
n ≥ 1. On account of (2), the equality holds in the case x = 0, hence
Gn = an + 1. This implies that a1 = … = an = an + 1 in the case of
equality. See [1, p. 68], [2] and [3-5].
References
1. P. S. Bullen, D. S. Mitrinoviæ, and P. M. Vasiæ, Means and their
inequalities, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland (1988).
2. D. Rüthing, Proofs of the arithmetic mean − geometric mean
inequality, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 13, (1) (1982) pp. 49-54.
3. E. F. Beckenbach, R. Bellman, Inequalities, Springer (1971).
4. D. S. Mitrinoviæ, Analytic inequalities, Springer (1970).

5. G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, G. Pólya, Inequalities, Cambridge
ZBIGNIEW URMANIN
Otto-Hahn-Str. 8, 42897 Remscheid-Lennep, Germany
84.19 Weighted mean in a trapezium

In this note we show how any line segment between and parallel to the
two parallel sides of a trapezium can be considered as a weighted mean of
their lengths.
We recall that a weighted mean, w, of two positive numbers a and b is
given by w = (bx + ay) / (x + y), where x and y are the weights. Some
special cases are worth noting. When x = y, we obtain the arithmetic mean
w = (a + b) / 2. With k as any nonzero constant and with x = ka and
y = kb, we obtain the harmonic mean w = 2ab / (a + b). With x = k a
and y = k b we obtain the geometric mean w = ab. Additional special
cases are given in [1].
For the proof, we let a = DC < AB = b, w = EF, x = DE, y = EA
and p = GE for some arbitrary trapezoid ABCD, as shown in Figure 1. We
note that G is the intersection of the two nonparallel sides of the trapezoid.
G
p−x
D a
C
x
w F
E
b
A B
FIGURE 1
Since DC // EF // AB, GDC ∼ GEF ∼ GAB. Hence

a p − x w p
= and = , respectively.
w p b p + y
NOTES 103
By solving these two equations separately for p we obtain

wx wy
p = and p = .
w − a b − w
Eliminating p, we obtain the weighted mean, w = (bx + ay) / (x + y), as
desired.
Reference
1. Larry Hoehn, A geometrical interpretation of the weighted mean,
College Mathematics Journal 15 (March 1984) pp. 135-139.
LARRY HOEHN
Austin Peay State University, P.O. Box 4626, Clarksville, TN 37044 USA
84.20 A formula for integrating inverse functions

The derivative of an inverse function is given in calculus textbooks (see,
for example, [1]) by the formula
(f −1) ′ (y) = 1 where y = f (x) .

f ′ (x)
Wouldn't it be useful also to have the integration counterpart? In fact, as
far as we know, there is no calculus textbook that lists such a formula.
Hence, the integration of inverse functions or expressions containing them
can represent a problem to mathematics students, as it implies exceptional
memory or the availability of integral tables. Here we deduce a simple
theorem for integrating inverse functions based on a change of variable that
does not require prior knowledge of their antiderivatives. Namely, if the
function y = f (x) has the integral ∫ f (x) dx, its inverse function x = f −1 (y)
can be easily integrated with the formula
−1
∫f (y) dy = x f (x) − ∫ f (x) dx.
The proof of this theorem is straightforward. Let the function y = f (x)
and the differential dy = f ′ (x) dx be substituted in the integral
∫ f (f (x)) f ′ (x) dx
−1 −1
∫f (y) dy =
to obtain
−1
∫f (y) dy = ∫ xf ′ (x) dx.
This expression can be integrated by parts to yield the required rule
−1
∫f (y) dy = x f (x) − ∫ f (x) dx.
To appreciate its power, let us take, for example ∫ cos−1 x dx. Firstly,
we introduce the change of variable x = cos (y) with dx = − sin (y) dy, and
then proceed:
−1
∫ cos (x) dx = y cos (y) − ∫ cos (y) dy
−1
∫ cos (x) dx = y cos (y) − sin (y) + C.
By changing back the variable, and recalling a familiar trigonometric
identity, we obtain
−1
∫ cos (x) dx = x cos−1 (x) − 1 − x2 + C.
This procedure is not new (see [2]), as mathematicians seem to invoke it
unconsciously when they need to integrate an inverse function of unknown
antiderivative (see, for example, [3]); it is essentially a subtle substitution
before integrating by parts; but because of this simple origin, it has not been
formally stated, and thus newcomers have to discover it for themselves.
Finally, the present approach can be extended to integrate more
complicated expressions containing inverse functions such as
d
∫ F (y, f (y)) dy = F (f (x) , x) f (x) − ∫ f (x) dx F (f (x) , x) dx.
−1
Acknowledgements
SS research has been funded by the JGH Award, ORS Award and
CONICIT. We thank E. Crampin and D. McInerney for their comments.
References
1. Dale Varberg, Michael Sullivan and Edwin J. Purcell, Calculus with
analytical geometry, (7th edn.), Prentice Hall, (1996).
2. R. M. Corless, G. H. Gonnet, D. E. G. Hare, D. J. Jeffrey and D. E.
Knuth, On the Lambert W function, Adv. Comput. Math. 5 (1996)
pp. 329-359.
3. K. B. Ranger, A complex variable integration technique for the 2-
dimensional Navier-Stokes equations, Q. Applied Maths 49 (1991)
pp. 555-562.
S. SCHNELL
Centre for Mathematical Biology, Mathematical Institute
24-29 St Giles', Oxford OX1 3LB
e-mail: schnell@maths.ox.ac.uk
C. MENDOZA
Centro de Física, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas
(IVIC), PO Box 21827, Caracas 1020A, Venezuela
e-mail: claudio@taquion.ivic.ve
NOTES 105
84.21 Mathematician versus machine

Recently, whilst devising examples of non-trivial functions for
reinforcing the standard techniques in calculus on the determination of
stationary points, I encountered two interesting properties of a function
which is also rich in other properties, which we leave readers to investigate.
I shall highlight only the first two that interested me. There is also much
scope for investigation of the various properties of the function using
packages such as Mathematica, Derive and Matlab, or even a graphics
calculator. However, it must be stressed, such packages can only suggest a
conjecture that will then require a formal proof. Indeed, sometimes the
calculations required are so detailed that a computer can fail to complete the
task and simply grind to a halt. The proofs of the two main properties given
here involve recurrence relations and induction. Again, we leave readers to
investigate other proofs of these results, and to make and prove other
conjectures.
Consider the function
x
ƒ (x) = , x ≥ 0. (1)
1 + x2
We leave readers to determine the first few derivatives of ƒ (x) using
−1
appropriate techniques. For example, one can write x (1 + x2) =
x (1 − x + x − x +… ) and compare the resulting series with that
2 4 6
obtained from MacLaurin's theorem ƒ(x) = ƒ(0) + ƒ′(0)x + 2!1 ƒ″ (0)x2 +….
Evaluating these derivatives, up to and including the fifth, at x = 0 and
x = 1 gives the results shown in Table 1.
n 0 1 2 3 4 5
(n)
ƒ (0) 0 1 0 −6 0 120
(n)
ƒ (1) 1
2 0 − 12 3
2 −3 0
TABLE 1
N.B. ƒ(n) (x) denotes the nth derivative of ƒ (x). These results suggest that
every even derivative of ƒ (x), including ƒ (x) itself, vanishes at x = 0.
Moreover, the first and fifth derivatives vanish at x = 1, suggesting that
every fourth derivative vanishes. Determining further derivatives directly,
or using a package, provides additional evidence for these conjectures.
However, it becomes increasingly more difficult to determine the
derivatives, particularly using the popular and versatile Mathematica.
Therefore some mathematics is required, and the results will be conclusive.
We outline one approach involving recurrence relations and
mathematical induction. Readers should check all the details, as well as
trying their own proofs.
From (1) we have
(1 + x2) ƒ (x) = x, with ƒ (0) = 0 and ƒ (1) = 12 . (2)
Differentiating (2) once yields

(1 + x2) ƒ′ (x) + 2xƒ (x) = 1, with ƒ′ (0) = 1 and ƒ′ (1) = 0. (3)
Differentiating (2) n times, n ≥ 2, yields
(1 + x2) ƒ(n) (x) + 2nxƒ(n − 1) (x) + n (n − 1) ƒ(n − 2) (x) = 0. (4)
Considering first the case where x = 0, we have, from (4)
(n) (n − 2)
ƒ (0) = −n (n − 1) ƒ (0) , n ≥ 2, (5)
(0)
a recurrence relation with starting values ƒ (0) = ƒ (0) = 0 and
ƒ(1) (0) = ƒ′ (0) = 1, (5) can be simplified by writing an = ƒ(n) (0) / n!, so
that
an = −an − 2, n ≥ 2, a0 = 0, a1 = 1. (6)
The solution of (6) is now trivial, with a0 = 0, a1 = 1, a2 = −a0 = 0,
a3 = −a1 = −1, a4 = −a2 = 0, a5 = −a3 = 1, etc., i.e. a2k = 0 and
a2k + 1 = (−1)k, k ≥ 0. Therefore
(2k) (2k + 1)
ƒ (0) = a2k (2k)! = 0 and ƒ (0) = a2k + 1 (2k + 1)! = (−1)k (2k + 1)! (7)
for k ≥ 0, which can be proved by induction as an exercise.
For the second case, where x = 1, we have, from (4)
2ƒ(n) (1) + 2nƒ(n − 1) (1) + n (n − 1) ƒ(n − 2) (1) = 0. (8)
a recurrence relation with starting values ƒ(0) (1) = ƒ(1) = 12 and
ƒ(1) (1) = ƒ′(1) = 0, which can be simplified by writing bn = ƒ(n) (1) / n!, so
that
bn = −bn − 1 − 12 bn − 2, n ≥ 2, b0 = 12 , b1 = 0. (9)
Generating the first few values of bn using (9) gives b0 = 12 , b1 = 0,
b2 = −b1 − 12 b0 = − 14 , b3 = −b2 − 12 b1 = 14 , b4 = −b3 − 12 b2 = − 18 ,
etc. Table 2 shows these and further values of bn.
n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
bn 1
2 0 − 14 1
4 − 18 0 1
16 − 16
1 1
32 0
TABLE 2
From this we conjecture that
(−1)k (−1)k + 1 (−1)k
b4k = , b 4k + 1 = 0, b4k + 2 = and b 4k + 3 = (10)
22k + 1 22k + 2 22k + 2
for k ≥ 0, which can readily be proved by induction, and thus there are four
different cases that arise naturally from (10). These are, for k ≥ 0,
(−1)k (4k)! (−1)k + 1 (4k + 2)!
f (4k) = +
, ƒ(4k + 2) (1) =
2 2k 1 22k + 2
(−1)k (4k + 3)!
ƒ(4k + 3) (1) = and ƒ(4k + 1) (1) = 0.
22k + 2
NOTES 107
Table 3 is a continuation of Table 1 determined directly from the

derivatives, and the values confirm the results obtained above.
n 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
(n)
ƒ (0) 0 −5040 0 362880 0 −39916800 0
(n)
ƒ (1) 45 −315 1260 0 −56700 623700 −3742200
TABLE 3
Even the most sophisticated mathematical software will find it difficult
to generate the above formulae. Nevertheless, such packages can be useful
in suggesting such patterns, which can then be followed up with some solid
mathematics.
P. GLAISTER
Department of Mathematics, University of Reading RG6 2AX
84.22 On a conjecture of Paul Thompson

We shall show that, for 0 ≤ σ < 1 and real τ ≠ 0,
arg (∑n = 1 n−σ − iτ) − arg (∑n = 1 n−σ − iτ)
N N−1
→ 1 asN → ∞, (1)
arg (∑Nn= 1 (1 − 1n )σ n−iτ) − arg (∑Nn =−11 (1 − 1n )σ n−iτ)
and that convergence is most rapid when ζ (σ + iτ) = 0. Here the
expression arg a − arg b is taken to be the principal argument of a / b, so
that its value lies between −π and π. With s = σ + iτ, the function ζ (s) is
the famous Riemann zeta-function, and ‘most rapid’ will be made precise in
the following. Paul Thompson [1] had conjectured that, with σ = 12 , the
limit formula (1) holds if, and only if, ζ (σ + iτ) = 0.
Some preliminary estimates

It will be convenient to use order notation for asymptotic analysis which
we recall in the following. We write f (N) = O (g (N)), where g (N) > 0,
to mean that | f (N)/ g(N) | is bounded; in other words there is a number K
such that | f (N) | ≤ Kg(N) for all N ≥ 1, and we usually apply this for
N → ∞. Similarly, we also write f (z) = O (g (z)) as z → ω, where z is
complex and g (z) > 0, to mean that | f (z)/ g(z) | is bounded in the
punctured neighbourhood of ω; in other words, there are positive numbers K
and r such that | f (z) | ≤ Kg(z) for all z satisfying 0 < |z − ω| < r.
Let us now write C (N) = C (N; σ, τ) for the expression of which the
limit is stated in (1). We note that both the numerator and the denominator
for C (N) are arguments of complex numbers in the form of a ratio
N
∑n = 1 f (n; σ, τ) f (N; σ, τ)
= 1 + N−1 , (2)
∑Nn =−11 f (n; σ, τ) ∑n = 1 f (n; σ, τ)
with an appropriate function f . Thus, for the asymptotic expansion, we shall
make use of
= 1 − z + O (| z | )
1 2
as z → 0, (3)
1 + z
I (z) + O (| z | )
2
arg (1 + z) = as z → 0. (4)
When applied to C (N) we shall also require
( )
σ
1 σ
1 − = 1 − + O (n−2) as n → ∞, (5)
n n
N−1
N1 − s N −s
∑ n−s = + ζ (s) − + O (N −σ − 1) as N → ∞. (6)
n=1 1 − s 2
The reader can easily establish the elementary results (3), (4) and (5).
Formula (6) is valid for σ > −1 and s ≠ 1. Its derivation appears in [2],
wherein much else on ζ (s) can be found.
Estimation of the denominator for C (N)

From (6), we find that, as N → ∞,
N−1 N−1
N 1 − iτ
∑ n−iτ =
1 − iτ
+ O (1) and ∑ n−1 − iτ = O (1) ,
n=1 n=1
and hence, by (5),
(1 − 1n ) n ( )
N−1 σ N−1 N−1 N−1
N 1 − iτ
∑ −iτ
= ∑ n−iτ − σ ∑ n−1 − iτ + O ∑ n−2 =
1 − iτ
+ O(1),
n=1 n=1 n=1 n=1
−2
where we have used the fact that ∑ n is absolutely convergent. Together
with (3) and (5) we deduce that
∑n = 1 (1 − 1/ n)σ n−iτ 1 σ 1 − iτ
( )
N
N−1 = 1 + 1 − (1 + O (N −1))
∑n = 1 (1 − 1/ n)σ n−iτ N N
1 − iτ
=1+ + O (N −2) ,
N
and hence, by (4),
( ∑n = 1 (1 − 1 / n)σ n−iτ
)
N
τ
arg N−1 = − + O (N −2) . (7)
∑n = 1 (1 − 1 / n) n
σ −iτ N
Estimation of the numerator for C (N)

A similar argument applied to the numerator for C (N) yields, for
σ > −1 and s ≠ 1,
∑n = 1 n−s
N
1 − s −1
N − 1 −s = 1 +
(1 + (1 − s) ζ (s) Ns − 1 + O (N−1)) .
∑n = 1 n N
We note that
| (1 − s)ζ (s)Ns − 1 + O (N−1) | = O (N2σ − 2) + O (Nσ − 2) + O (N−2) ,
2
and all three error terms are simply O (N 2σ − 2), if we restrict our attention to
NOTES 109
σ ≥ 0. Thus, on applying (3), we now have

∑n = 1 n−s
N
1 − s
= 1 + − (1 − s)2 ζ (s) N s − 2 + O (N −2) + O (N 2σ − 3) ,
∑Nn =−11 n−s N
and hence, by (4),
( )
∑n = 1 n−s
N
τ
arg = − − I((1 − s)2 ζ (s)N s − 2) + O (N −2) + O (N 2σ − 3) . (8)
∑Nn =−11 n−s N
As a little aside, we remark that the argument also gives the following
formula for ζ (s) in the ‘critical strip’ 0 < σ < 1,
( N2 − s
( ∑n = 1 n−s
)N1 − s
)
N
ζ (s) = lim 1 − N − 1 −s + .
N→∞ (1 − s) 2
∑n = 1 n 1 − s
Estimation of C (N)
From (7) and (8), we see that both the numerator and the denominator
for C (N) have the asymptotic value −τ / N as N → ∞ for 0 ≤ σ < 1
(σ < 1 comes from Re (s − 2) < −1 in (8)), so that C (N) → 1 as
N → ∞. In other words, we have established Thompson's limit formula
(1). Indeed, from (7) and (8), the expression C (N) itself has the asymptotic
formula
N
C (N) = 1 + I ((1 − s)2 ζ (s) N s − 2) + O (N −1) + O (N 2σ − 2) .
τ
Note that, if ζ (s) ≠ 0, then the second term on the right-hand side here will
be present, and it will not be O (f (N) N σ − 1) for any f (N) → 0 as N → ∞.
On the other hand, if ζ (s) = 0 then this second term will be absent.
Therefore, for 0 < σ < 1,
 1 + O (N σ − 1) always
C (N) = 
 1 + O (N ) + O (N
−1 2σ − 2 ) if, and only if, ζ (s) = 0.
The reason for imposing the condition σ ≠ 0 is that, as it stands, the ‘only
if’ part of the statement might not be valid. However, it is known that ζ (s)
has no zero on the line σ = 0, so that no harm is done even if we write
0 ≤ σ < 1. Readers who are not familiar with the theory of ζ (s) may be
interested to know that the distribution of the zeros of ζ (s) is closely related
to the distribution of primes, and the fact that ζ (s) has no zero on σ = 0, 1
is used to prove the prime number theorem.
References
1. P. Thompson, A conjecture with a prize, Math. Gaz. 82 (July 1998)
p. 309.
2. E. C. Titchmarsh, The theory of the Riemann zeta function (2nd edn.),
Oxford University Press (1986).
TIM JAMESON
13 Sandown Road, Lancaster LA1 4LN
84.23 Maximal volume of curved folding boxes

In this note, we consider the following problem.
Problem: Consider a square of paper which is identified with | x | ≤ 1 and
| y | ≤ 1, and cut off four corner regions which satisfy the inequalities
| y | ≥ f (| x |) and | x | ≥ f (| y |), where f is a continuous, piecewise C2
function with f (t), f ′ (t) ∈ [0,1] for every t ∈ [0,1] . Then find the
maximal volume V (f ) of the folding box which is made from the paper by
attaching each pair of neighbouring cut edges.
These are some results on the problem.

(Fig. 1) If f (t) = a with a ∈ [0,1] , the volume V (f ) takes the maximal
value = 16 / 27 ≈ 0.5926 when a = 2 / 3, a typical exercise of differential
calculus.
(Fig. 2) If f (t) b (t − a) = a with a, b ∈ [0,1), the volume V (f ) takes the
maximal value ≈ 0.6914 when a ≈ 0.5356 and b ≈ 0.5312, a result of N.
Lord [1].
(Fig. 3) If f (t) = a−1 sin at with a ∈ (0, π / 2] , the volume V (f ) takes the
maximal value ≈ 0.7414 when a ≈ 1.2215, a result of N. Reed [2].
FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3

For the general problem, we obtain the following solution.
Solution: The volume V (f ) takes the maximal value (4 / 3) α−2 ≈ 0.7757

when
sn (αt, 2) π/2
f (t) = α−1 , α = ≈ 1.3110, (1)
cn (αt, 2) agm (1, 2)
where agm (1, 2) is the arithmetic-geometric mean of 1 and 2. The cut
square is shown in Figure 4.
In the above solution, we use the Jacobian elliptic functions, that is,
cn (u, k) = cos (am (u, k)) , sn (u, k) = sin (am (u, k)) , (2)
where θ = am (u, k) is the inverse function of
dθ
u = ∫ . (3)
0 1 − k 2 sin 2 θ
See §22.122 of [3], for example. In this note, we do not use other formulas
for elliptic functions to attain the above solution.
NOTES 111
FIGURE 4
Proof: We can assume that 0 ≤ f (t) ≤ t for every t ∈ [0,1] . Because,

even if not so, we can take the function g (t) = min {t, f (t)} in place of f .
We put together the folding box, keep its mouth up, and cut it by a
horizontal plane of height z. Then the positive x-axis bends into an arc
which lies in the centre of a side face. We denote by t the length of the arc
from the bottom to the section. Then the section is a square with edge
length 2f (t). By Pythagoras' theorem, we have dt 2 = dz2 + df (t)2
= dz2 + f ′ (t)2 dt 2. So we can give the volume V (f ) of the folding box as
follows:
h 1
V (f ) = 4 ∫0 f (t) dz = 4 ∫0 f (t) 1 − f ′ (t)2 dt, (4)
2 2
where h is the height of the folded box. The volume V (f ) is a function

which has a function f as a variable. So the problem becomes an exercise of
the calculus of variations.
There is a formula to find the maximal value of (4), the Euler-Lagrange
equation. See §IV.3 of [4], for example. By using it, we obtain
(
d ∂L
dt ∂ f ′ )
(f (t) , f ′ (t)) − ∂ L (f (t) , f ′ (t)) = 0,
∂f
(5)
where L (f , f ′) = f 2 1 − (f ′)2. After a tedious calculation, we obtain

f (t) f ″ (t) + 2 (1 − f ′ (t)2) = 0. (6)
By using (6), we obtain
d
(log (1 − f ′ (t)2) − 4 log f (t)) = −2 f ′ (t) f ″ (t)2 − 4 f ′ (t) = 0. (7)
dt 1 − f ′ (t) f (t)
By integrating (7), and using 0 ≤ f (t) ≤ t fot t ∈ [0, 1] , we obtain
1 − f ′ (t)2 = c4f (t)4 , f (0) = 0, (8)
where c is an integrating constant. We set f (t) = c−1h (ct), and u = ct , so

1 − h′ (u)2 = h (u)4 , h (0) = 0. (9)
−1
The function f (t) = c h (ct) attains the maximal value of V (f ) under the
boundary condition f (1) = c−1h (c). So we must find a value of c which
attains the maximal value of the function V0 (c) = V (f ).
By using (8) in (4), we obtain
4 1
(
V0 (c) = 2 1 − ∫ f ′ (t)2 dt .
c 0
) (10)
By an integration by parts, and by using (6), we obtain

1 1
∫0 f ′ (t) dt = [ f (t) f ′(t)] 0 − ∫0 f (t) f ″(t) dt
2 1
=
1
c
h (c) h′ (c) + 2 1 − ( 1
∫0 f ′ (t)
2
)
dt . (11)
So we obtain
1 2 1
∫0 f ′ (t) dt = + h (c) h′ (c) . (12)
2
3 3c
By putting (12) in (10), we obtain
V0 (c) =
4
3c2
1
(
1 − h (c) h′ (c) .
c ) (13)
By differentiating (13) once and twice with respect to c, and by using
(9) and its derivative to eliminate h″ (t), we obtain
4
V′0 (c) = 4 h′ (c) (h (c) − ch′ (c)) , (14)
c
16 8
V″0 (c) = − 5 h′(c) (h(c) − ch′(c)) − 4 h(c)3 (h(c) − 2ch′(c)) . (15)
c c
When ch′(c) = h(c), the volume V0 (c) is not maximal because
V″ (c) > 0. When h′ (c) = 0, the volume V0 (c) = (4 / 3) c−2 is locally
maximal because V″0 (c) < 0. So the volume V0 (c) takes the maximum
value when c is the first positive zero of h′, say α. Thus the maximal
volume is expressed by V0 (α) = (4 / 3) α−2.
Since α is a first positive zero of h′, the function h is monotone
increasing on [0, α] and h (α) = 1. By separating the variables of (9), we
obtain
1 dh π/2 dθ π/2
α = ∫ = ∫ = , (16)
0 1 − h 4 0 cos θ + 2 sin θ
2 2 agm (1, 2)
where h = sin θ . The proof of the last equality of (16) is found in [5].
By separating the variables of (9), we obtain
dh dφ
u = ∫ = ∫ , (17)
0 1 − h4 0 1 − 2 sin 2 φ
where h = tan φ. So we obtain h (u) = tan (am (u, 2)).

NOTES 113
Remark. The function h (u) is equal to the lemniscate function, and the value
α is a quarter of the length of the lemniscate. So, by using the same
notations as [3], we can rewrite the equation (1) in the solution as

f (t) = α−1 sinlemn (αt) , α = ω / 2. (18)
The author thanks the referees for their valuable comments.
References
1. N. Lord, The folding box problem, Math. Gaz. 74 (1990) pp. 361-365.
2. N. Reed, A curved folding box, Math. Gaz. 76 (1992) pp. 275-277.
3. E. T. Whittaker and G. N. Watson, A course of modern analysis (4th
edn.), Cambridge University Press (1927, reprint 1996).
4. R. Courant and D. Hilbert, Methods of mathematical physics, Vol. I,
Interscience (1953, reprint John Wiley 1989).
5. N. Lord, Recent calculations of π: the Gauss-Salamin algorithm, Math.
Gaz. 76 (1992) pp. 231-242.
KENZI ODANI
Department of Mathematics, Aichi University of Education,
Kariya-shi, Aichi 448-8542, Japan
e-mail: kodani@auecc.aichi-edu.ac.jp
84.24 More on a sine product formula

In [1], Scott made the following conjecture, which he proved by
induction for positive integers of the form 2n and 3 × 2n.
( ) ( ) ( )
sin
π
2n
sin
2π
2n
sin
3π
2n
… sin( 2n )
(n − 1) π
= n1/22−n + 1.
We shall prove this conjecture without the use of induction. First, note
that, by the symmetry of the sine graph, this is equivalent to the statement
( ) ( ) ( )
sin
π
2n
sin
2π
2n
sin
3π
2n (
… sin
(2n − 1) π
2n )= n.2−2n + 2.
This now follows immediately from a slightly more general result.
Theorem
For any whole number m greater than 1,
sin () ( ) ( )
π
m
sin
2π
m
sin
3π
m
… sin (
(m − 1) π
m )
= m.2−m + 1.
Proof
Let us write ω for the complex 2m th root of unity given by ω = eiπ/m.
The expression on the left-hand side is therefore equal to
( ω − ω−1
2i
)( ω2 − ω−2
2i ) (
…
ωm − 1 − ω−m + 1
2i
)
= (1 − ω−2) (1 − ω−4) … (1 − ω−2m + 2) ωm(m − 1)/2i −m + 12−m + 1.
Since ωm/2 = i , it remains to prove that (1 − ω−2)(1 − ω−4) … (1 − ω−2m + 2)
= m. Consider the polynomial in an indeterminate X given by
(X − ω−2)(X − ω−4) … (X − ω−2m + 2). This has roots equal to all the complex
mth roots of unity except 1. Since its first term is equal to Xm − 1, the
polynomial must coincide with
Xm − 1
= Xm − 1 + Xm − 2 + … + X + 1
X − 1
which has these same roots. We take X equal to 1 to complete the proof.
2n = e
Remark 1. Via sin kπ ikπ/2n
(1 − e−ikπ/n) / 2i we get
n−1 n−1
kπ 1
∏ 2n (2i)n − 1 ∏ (1 − e−ikπ/n) ,
π (1 + 2 + … + (n − 1))
sin = e i 2n
k=1 k=1
i.e. (due to 1 + 2 + … + (n − 1) = 12 n (n − 1))
n−1
∏ (1 − e−ikπ/n) = i n − 1e−i(n − 1)π/4 n = ei(n − 1)π/4 n.

k=1
Finally, conjugation yields
( )
n−1
(n − 1) π (n − 1) π
∏ (1 − eikπ/n) = n cos
4
− i sin
4
.
k=1
Remark 2. The above proven formula conjectured by Scott is not new. It

can be found in various tables, alongside many similar formulas such as
π 2π nπ 2n + 1
sin sin … sin = ,
2n + 1 2n + 1 2n + 1 2n
π 2π (n − 1) π n
cos cos … cos = n − 1,
2n 2n 2n 2
π 2π nπ 1
cos cos … cos = n,
2n + 1 2n + 1 2n + 1 2
but also
π 2π nπ n (2n − 1)
cot 2 + cot 2 + … + cot 2 = ,
2n + 1 2n + 1 2n + 1 3
π 3π (2n − 1) π
cosec2 + cosec2 + … + cosec2 = n2,
2n 2n 2n
or even quite exotic ones as
n n
(n + 1)π n
∑ cot xk ∏ cot (xk − xj) = sin 2 + (−1)n + 1 ∏ cot xk.

k=1 j=1 k=1
j≠k
See, for example, [2, ch. 44].
NOTES 115
Remark 3. There are occasions when the inductive step P (n) ⇒ P (2n)
does prove useful, namely when it is obvious that P (n) ⇒ P (m) for
m < n. There is a standard proof of the AM-GM inequality that uses this
approach.
References
1. J. A. Scott, A conjecture and an unusual kind of inductive step, Math.
Gaz. 82 (July 1998) p. 277.
2. A. P. Prudnikov et al, Integrals and series (elementary functions) [in
Russian], Nanka, Moscow (1981).
WALTHER JANOUS
Ursulinegymnasium, Fürstenweg St, A 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
JEREMY KING
Tonbridge School, Tonbridge TN9 1JP
84.25 On a limit for prime numbers

In a recent Gazette article [1], the modified geometric mean
Q (n) = [ a (1) a (2) … a (n)] 1/a(n) (a (n) > 0)
was considered for the sequence of prime numbers by Ruiz, who invoked
the Prime Number Theorem p (n) ∼ n log n and the Stirling approximation
for n! to obtain the limit
Q = lim Q (n) = e.
n→∞
This limit may also be obtained by using the theorem of means H < G < A
instead of the Stirling formula, that is, by developing the inequality
n/a(n)
 n 
n/a(n)
 ∑ a (i) 
 ∑ a (i)−1  < Q (n) <   .
   n 
Let a (n) = n log n (n > 1) with a (1) = log 2 (say) so that a (n) ∼ p (n)
by the Prime Number Theorem. Then we have, for n > 1,
−1/ log n 1/ log n
1/ log n  1  −1/ log n 

n n
1
n  +∑  < Q(n) < n log2 + ∑ i logi  .
 log2 i = 2 i logi   i =2 
Replacing log i by log 2 in the first expression and by log n in the last gives
−1/ log n 1/ log n
 1  i
n n
(n log2)1/ log n 1 + ∑  < Q(n) < logn ∑  .
 i =2 i   i =1 
n
n n
1
Next, since n1/ log n = e, ∑ < log n (Euler), ∑ i = 12 n (n + 1) and
i=2 i i=1
1
2 (n + 1) ≤ n if n ≥ 1
 log 2 
1/ log n
Q (n)
 1 + log n  < < (log n)1/ log n
.
  e
Now denote n1/n by b (n). Then
( )
b (n + 1) n(n + 1) (1 + 1n )
n
= < 1 for n > 2,
b (n) n
and b (n) clearly decreases to limit 1. A fortiori, a1/n → 1 for a a positive
constant. Thus Q = e follows.
It is interesting to note that the simpler expression
R = lim R (n) = lim [ a (n)] n/a(n)
also has the limiting value e for the sequence of prime numbers. Indeed, if
a (n) = nf (n) where f (n) → ∞ with n, then
R = lim (nf (n))1/f (n) = lim n1/f (n)
whence f (n) ∼ log n / log R (R > 1).
Note that the relationship between the limits Q and R seems reminiscent
of ‘convergence in the mean’, that is, sn → $ implies
(s1 + s2 + … + sn) / n → $ (see [2]).
Finally, since R = 1 for the convergent series ∑ 1 / a (n) where
a (n) = np + 1 or n (log n)p + 1 (p > 0), but also for the divergent series given
by a (n) = n log n log (log n), it seems plausible to conjecture that R > 1 is
sufficient for the divergence of the series of positive terms ∑ 1 / a (n) where
a (n) → ∞ with n.
References
1. S. M. Ruiz, A result on prime numbers, Math. Gaz. 81 (491) p. 269
(1997).
2. J. C. Burkill, A first course in mathematical analysis, Cambridge
J. A. SCOTT
84.26 SHM and projections

My first encounter with simple harmonic motion (SHM) was in the
motion of the projection of a point moving at constant speed in a circle onto
a diameter of the circle. If the circle has unit radius then the projection
varies as sin ωt , where ω is the angular speed of the point. Although this
approach avoids studying differential equations, it is not an example from
which one can construct a simple physical demonstration to observe the
visual qualitative features of SHM. (Recall that, if a point P moves at
constant (angular) speed ω = dθ / dt in a circle of radius R and centred on
the origin, then the projection onto the x-axis satisfies
dx dθ
x = R cosθ, = −R sin θ = −Rω sin θ,
dt dt
d 2x dθ
and 2 = −Rω cosθ = −ω2R cosθ = −ω2x.)
dt dt
NOTES 117
In this note I describe a common situation from which it is possible to make

such observations. The example is again a projection and one that is more
natural and observable. I begin by reviewing the classical example of linear
SHM, by which I mean simple harmonic motion in a straight line.
A supported mass oscillating on the end of a spring exhibits SHM
(assuming no resistance). The differential equation governing these
oscillations is
d 2x λ
= − x (1)
dt 2 ml
where x represents the displacement of the mass, and m, λ and l denote the
mass, and the modulus of elasticity and unextended length of the spring,
respectively, and the solution is sinusoidal. Unfortunately, it is not easy to
appreciate the qualitative features of SHM using such a model.
An alternative example is the motion of a simple pendulum whose
governing differential equation is
d 2θ g
2
= − sin θ, (2)
dt l
where θ represents the angular displacement of the pendulum, and g, l
denote the acceleration due to gravity and the length of the pendulum,
respectively. Strictly speaking, the pendulum displays only approximate
SHM. For small amplitudes sin θ ≈ θ and the differential equation (2) can
be approximated by
d 2θ s g
= − θ s, (3)
dt 2 l
which is analogous to (1). The quantity θ s denotes the small angle
approximation. The principal error made in making this approximation is
that the period, and hence the frequency, of the pendulum depends on the
amplitude, in contrast to exact SHM, where it does not. Figure 1 shows the
graphs of the angular displacement θ for the pendulum as governed by (2),
and the small angle approximation θ s governed by (3). Figure 1 shows that
despite the phase error in this approximation, the motion as observed is
sufficiently close to SHM to display the essential qualitative features.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to appreciate the properties of linear SHM as
governed by (1), (even ignoring the fact that this is only an approximation),
since it is the angular displacement that is exhibiting (approximate) SHM.
One could observe the circular path traversed by the pendulum bob whose
arc length is lθ , but this is still not motion in a straight line. If one observes
the projection of the pendulum bob on a horizontal surface, however, then
an approximation to linear SHM is observed as I now show.
The projection on the horizontal is x = l sin θ and this variable
exhibits approximate linear SHM. To see this observe that
x = l sin θ ≈ lθ , and θ already exhibits approximate SHM, or from the
original differential equation (2) with sin θ ≈ θ then dtd 2 (sin θ) = − gl sin θ ,
2
so again l sin θ exhibits approximate SHM.

1.5
1.0
θ
0.5
0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
−0.5
θs
−1.0
−1.5
FIGURE 1
From an observation point vertically above a pendulum one therefore

sees (as a projection) an approximation to linear SHM. In Figure 2 the
projection value sin θ has been superimposed on the graph of θ shown in
Figure 1, where θ is the exact angular displacement governed by (2).
Similarly, in Figure 3, the projection value sin θ s has been superimposed on
1.5
θ
1.0
0.5 sin θ
0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
−0.5
−1.0
−1.5
FIGURE 2
the graph of θ s shown in Figure 1, where θ s is the angular displacement

determined by the small angle approximation governed by (3). In either
case, it can be seen that the qualitative features of SHM are observed. (A
superimposition of the graphs in Figure 2 onto those in Figure 3 confirms
NOTES 119
this, although the graphs clearly become somewhat tangled.) Moreover,

these features are observed regardless of the size of the amplitude. The
examples given here have amplitudes of the order of 1 rad ≈ 57°.
1.5
θs
1.0
0.5 sin θ s
0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
−0.5
−1.0
−1.5
FIGURE 3
So, where is the best place to observe this phenomenon? The ideal
place is a playground when the sun is high in the sky. The linear movement
of the shadow of a swing on the ground is sufficiently slow and exaggerated
to appreciate the qualitative features of linear SHM. It should be stressed
that this is only an approximation in the sense described above. The
traditional mechanism for doing this is a pendulum with a pen inscribing a
trace or an orifice letting out fine sand onto paper moving at constant speed.
An alternative is to simulate linear SHM with a trace on a PC by integrating
equations (2) or (3) and plotting the displacement against time, as shown in
the figures above. However, for me the playground seems much more fun!
P. GLAISTER
Department of Mathematics, University of Reading RG6 2AX
84.27 Another cautionary chi-square calculation

Although not as unsettling as my previous foray into this area [1], the
example discussed in this note highlights a point which tends to be passed
over in introductory statistics texts. Consider the problem of testing whether
a binomial distribution B (2, p) fits the observed data in the frequency table
below:
x 0 1 2
Observed frequency 90 45 15
of x (total 150)
Conventional A level wisdom estimates p by matching the observed and
ˆ = 0.5 so that ˆp = 0.25. Expected frequencies (E) both

expected means: 2p
for ˆp and p = 0.255 are shown below, together with their corresponding
values of χ2.
x 0 1 2 χ2
ˆ = 0.25)
E (p 84·38 56·25 9·38 6·00
E (p = 0.255) 83·25 56·99 9·75 5·89
Since the 5% critical value for χ2 with 2 degrees of freedom is 5.991 we
would, at the 5% level, reject the ‘conventional wisdom’ value of p but
accept the rival value p = 0.255. (This conclusion is unaltered by the fact
that the test for χ2 is usually performed with 1 degree of freedom with the
lower 5% critical value of 3.841.)
The moral of this example is that, although ˆp = 0.25 is a sensible
estimator of p (indeed, it is the maximum likelihood estimator), there is no
reason to suppose it will also be the minimum-chi-square estimator of p
(which in fact is 0.25786 with χ2 = 5.876). (See [2; chap. VII] for an
extensive discussion of various types of estimator.)
It is worth noting that, now that values of the distribution function of
test statistics such as χ2 are available at the touch of a button, modern
practice among statisticians, though less so with scientists, is to quote exact
probabilities rather than use fixed significance levels, such as 5%. Our
seemingly dramatic contrast between χ2 = 6.00 (significant at the 5%
level) and χ2 = 5.89 (not significant) evaporates in the newer vocabulary
where the probabilities are 0.0498 and 0.0526 respectively.
It is also worth pushing our original example further: if the observed
frequencies for 0, 1, 2 are a0, a1, a2, with N = a0 + a1 + a2, then f (p), the
value of χ2 arising from fitting B (2, p), is given by:
a20 a21 a22
f (p) = + + − N.
N (1 − p)2 2Np (1 − p) Np2
A little algebra shows that f has a unique minimum on (0, 1) and that, with
ˆp = (a1 + 2a2) / 2N , f ′ (pˆ ) has the same sign as (a2 − a0) (a21 − 4a0a2) .
2
It follows that, apart from the intriguing special case where a21 = 4a0a2,
ˆp is less that the minimum-chi-square estimator of p when a0 > a2; greater
when a0 < a2, and only coincides when a0 = a2 or when a21 = 4a0a2.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the perceptive suggestions of a referee
which substantially improved the initial draft of this note.
References
1. Nick Lord, A chi-square nightmare, Math. Gaz. 76 (July 1992) p. 274.
2. A. M. Mood, F. A. Graybill, D. C. Boes, Introduction to the theory of
statistics (3rd edn.), McGraw-Hill (1974).
NICK LORD
NOTES 121
84.28 More on dual Van Aubel generalisations

In an article [1] by myself, the following two dual generalisations of
Van Aubel's theorem were presented:
Theorem 5
If similar rectangles with centres E, F, G and H are erected externally
on the sides of quadrilateral ABCD, then the segments EG and FH lie on
perpendicular lines. Further, if J, K, L and M are the midpoints of the
dashed segments shown, then JL and KM are congruent segments,
concurrent with the other two lines.
Theorem 6
If similar rhombi with centres E, F, G and H are erected externally on
the sides of quadrilateral ABCD as shown, then the segments EG and FH are
congruent. Further, if J, K, L and M are the midpoints of the dashed
segments shown, then JL and KM lie on perpendicular lines.
I am indebted to Hessel Pot from Woerden in the Netherlands who

recently, in a personal communication to me regarding these generalisations,
pointed out that to Theorem 5 we can also add the following two properties:
(a) the ratio of EG and FH equals the ratio of the sides of the rectangles.
(b) the angle of JL and KM equals the angle of the diagonals of the
rectangles.
and to Theorem 6 the following corresponding duals:
(a) the angle of EG and FH equals the angle of the sides of the rhombi
(b) the ratio of JL and KM equals the ratio of the diagonals of the rhombi.
In fact, the latter four properties are contained in the following self-dual
generalisation, which can be proved by using vectors or by generalising the
approach used in [1]:
Theorem 7
If similar parallelograms with centres E, F, G and H are erected
externally on the sides of quadrilateral ABCD as shown in Figure 1, then
EG = XB , and the angle of EG and FH equals the angle of the sides of the
FH XY
parallelograms. Further, if J, K, L and M are the midpoints of the dashed

segments shown, then KM JL = XB , and the angle of JL and KM equals the
YA
angle of the diagonals of the parallelograms (see Figure 1).
Reference
1. M. de Villiers, Dual generalisations of Van Aubel's theorem, Math. Gaz.
495 (November 1998) pp. 405-412.
K L
F
Y
C
B
E
V U G
X
A
D
J
H M
FIGURE 1
MICHAEL de VILLIERS
University of Durban-Westville, South Africa
e-mail: profmd@mweb.co.za
http://mzone.mweb.co.za/residents/profmd/homepage.html
OBITUARY 123
Obituary
Sir Wilfred Cockcroft 1923-1999
Although Bill Cockcroft was by training a professional mathematician,
it will be as a larger than life character who also made his mark in education
that he will be remembered. But, first, a brief outline of his life.
Born the son of a plumber in Keighley, he attended Keighley Grammar
School before going up to Balliol College in Oxford. The second world war,
in which he served in the RAF in the far east, interrupted his career. He then
lectured in Aberdeen and Southampton before obtaining a chair at Hull in
1961. His next move was to establish, as Vice-Chancellor, the New
University of Ulster in Coleraine in 1976. He left Northern Ireland in 1982
and, in 1983, became the chairman and chief executive of the new
Secondary Examinations Council in London which, by the time he retired in
1988, had developed the new GCSE. He was knighted in 1983, an event not
unconnected with his Committee of Inquiry into the teaching of
mathematics which resulted in the highly praised report Mathematics Counts
published in 1982.
Although born Wilfred Halliday Cockcroft, he was always known as
Bill at home and later by everyone who knew him. The first impression
when meeting Bill Cockcroft was of a bluff Yorkshire man. He was a big
man, larger than life, friendly and a bon viveur. He loved conversation,
music, theatre, food and drink He always had a fund of amusing, and usually
true, stories. His flamboyant style carried with it a unique Falstaffian
rumbustiousness. We remember the West Riding bellow of his voice, the
gales of his laughter and his guffaws. Conversations were intense, full of
pauses, and the variety of ways he had for saying ‘I don't know’, expressing
sorrow, disgust, ignorance, mystification and much else in different tones of
voice. If you knew him at the height of his powers, you would marvel at his
stamina for work and play, notably his legendary capacity for strong drink.
Such characteristics made him a vital presence in any gathering, political,
academic or domestic.
Bill was totally unpompous and without malice. He made friendships
unconstrained by class, race or wealth. He is probably the only Vice-
Chancellor to play golf with the Head Porter and the Estates Manager of his
university. Apocryphally, the fourth player was his driver with special duties
for the golfcart. On these forays at Portstewart Golf Club, it was alleged,
Danny McGryllis's task was to shepherd enough bottles of Guinness around
the course to enable the winner of the hole either to be toasted at the point of
his victory or to enjoy a bottle in solitary celebration.
But teachers will remember him for Mathematics Counts which Bill,
mischievously but not seriously, suggested should be entitled A Feeling For
Figures. For me, it was an exhilarating experience to be a member of the
committee of inquiry. When the Secretary of State for Education, Shirley
Williams, set up the committee in 1978, it was assumed that a quick report
would ensue but it was two Secretaries of State later when Keith Joseph
received the report. Bill was unflappable. The government had to wait until
he felt that the shape of the report was clear and that there was evidence to
support all the statements. The rapport engendered within the committee
was such that, to mark each anniversary of the completion of the report, a
reunion was held at an Italian restaurant in London with, of course, large
quantities of wine!
Members of the Cockcroft committee were allowed to discuss at length
until a consensus was reached. It was rare to have a vote. It was interesting
that Keith Joseph was so completely satisfied with the academic rigour and
persuasive evidence that, from the publication of the Cockcroft Report in
early 1982, we saw a resurgence of confidence in the teaching of
mathematics. We had a blueprint which was widely accepted as the way
forward and the funding, including the advisory teachers known as
‘Cockcroft missionaries’ and a significant boost to the Association's
Diploma courses, to help carry it out.
Again, Bill was to influence mathematics teachers when he oversaw the
introduction of the new GCSE. The Cockcroft Committee had, based on
work at Chelsea College and in particular Kath Hart's CSMS project,
become convinced that the curriculum should be ‘bottom-up’, building on
the Foundation List rather than the traditional watering down of a
curriculum for the most able. A particular concern, over which Sir Keith
Joseph agonised, was the least able 40% who often left school with little
positive achievement to show.
The principle enshrined in the bottom-up approach is that all pupils
should be successful and have a sense of achievement. Too often pupils
obtain a ‘certificate of success’ knowing that they did not answer correctly
most of the questions on the examination paper. The notion of competence
was becoming important, for example, in reassuring an employer that a
certificate was at least a minimal guarantee of attainment. The SEC
continued this work by attempting to identify the criteria of ‘Success’ at
particular grades.
Bill was such a colourful and energetic character that many more pages
could be filled by this obituary. I hope that others will write to the editor
with further tales of the unique Cockcroft qualities. He is sorely missed by
everyone that knew him.
Acknowledgement
Some of the above material is taken from a memorial talk given at his
funeral by Hugh Sockett, a friend and colleague from Bill's days in
Coleraine.
PETER REYNOLDS
6 Rosebery Road, Felixstowe IP11 7JR
CORRESPONDENCE 125
Correspondence
DEAR EDITOR,
In ‘Moving the first digit of a positive integer to the last’ (Math. Gaz. 83
pp. 216-220), Braza and Tong's treatment of the problem is impressive, but
they fail to observe that there is an easy way to calculate by hand numbers
such that moving the first digit to the last is equivalent to a division.
Choose the first digit, say 8, and the divisor, say 4. We proceed using
the usual paper method for division; but at each step the latest digit of the
quotient provides the next digit for the dividend (together with any carry
digits).
2 0 5 2 0 5 1
→
4 80 22 00 4 80 22 00 51
The process terminates when the latest digit of the quotient equals the
first digit chosen and there is no remainder outstanding. The given example
will terminate at 820512, with quotient 205128.
This method shows why there can only be one basic answer for a given
first digit. and why all other answers are concatenations of the basic answer.
Yours sincerely,
JEREMY KING
DEAR EDITOR,
I offer a couple of observations on items in the excellent July 1999
Gazette.
1. Readers of Robert J. Clarke's article might also be interested in a
diagram described by Ravi Vakil in his lively book A mathematical mosaic
x (enthusiastically reviewed by Andre Toom in
45° the January 1998 American Mathematical
Monthly—‘This is a book I would have like to
30° 3 x have read as a boy’). Page 87 features what
x + y Vakil calls the Ailles Rectangle, named after
2 an Ontario High School Teacher, Doug Ailles.
T Here, from the 45°-triangles, x and y are
1 y immediately seen to be 3 / 2 and 1 / 2 so
that the trigonometric ratios for 15° and 75°
x−y y can be read off from triangle T .
2. An alternative proof that J. A. Scott's recalcitrant series ∑ (n1/n − 1)

p
converges for p > 1 runs as follows: Fix a natural number k with

k > p/ (p − 1), so that p > k / (k − 1). Write n1/n = 1 + an with an ≥ 0.
Then, for all n ≥ 2k, we have:
n = (1 + an)n > ()
n k
k
an
(ignoring all other terms of
the binomial expansion)
k−1
n − i k
= ∏1 + i
an
i=0
( n2 )k
> akn
kk
2k
and so an < .
n(k − 1)/k
Thus an < (2k)p / np(k − 1)/k and ∑ apn converges by comparison with
p
∑ 1 / np(k − 1)/k which is convergent because p (k − 1) / k > 1.
Keep up the fine editorial work!

Yours sincerely,
NICK LORD
DEAR EDITOR,
The magic rectangles discussed in a recent Note [1] by Marián Trenkler
have a longer history than indicated there. Harmuth, in 1881, published two
papers [2, 3], establishing necessary and sufficient conditions for the
existence of magic rectangles in just this sense, that is, an arrangement of
the integers 1, 2, … mn into an m by n rectangle where columns have the
same sum, as do rows (the natural generalisation of magic squares).
Magic rectangles also have a more current interest than might be
gathered from [1]. For example, as with magic squares, they have found
some favour in statistics; see [4] for a digest of the statistical uses of magic
squares, and [5] for some statistical work involving magic rectangles.
Indeed, magic rectangles appeared in this Gazette in [6], in 1968, with an
application of this sort in mind. The construction of magic rectangles
continues to attract attention in research journals, as [7, 8, 9] attest.
Yours sincerely,
D. G. ROGERS
Halewood Cottage, The Green, Croxley Green WD3 3HT
References
1. M. Trenkler, Magic rectangles, Math. Gaz. 83 (1999) pp. 102-105.
2. T. Harmuth, Über magische Quadrate und ähnliche Zahlenfiguren,
Arch. Math. Phys. 66 (1881) pp. 283-313.
3. T. Harmuth, Über magische Rechteche mit ungeraden Seitenzahlen,
Arch. Math. Phys. 66 (1881) pp. 413-417.
CORRESPONDENCE 127
4. G. H. Freeman, Magic square designs, Encyclopedia of statistical

sciences, Vol. 5, (Wiley, New York, NY, 1985) pp. 173-174.
5. J. P. N. Phillips, Methods of constructing one way and factorial designs
balanced for trend, Appl. Statist., 17 (1968) pp. 162-170.
6. J. P. N. Phillips, A simple method of constructing certain magic
rectangles of even order, Math. Gaz. 52 (1968) pp. 9-12.
7. T. Bier and A. Kleinschmidt, Centrally symmetric and magic
rectangles, Discrete Math 176 (1997) pp. 29-42.
8. T. Bier and D. G. Rogers, Balanced magic rectangles, European J.
Combin. 14 (1993) pp. 285-299.
9. M. A. Jacroux, A note on constructing magic rectangles, Ars Comb. 36
(1993) pp. 335-340.
Notices
On pp. 123-124 of this issue, you will see an obituary to Wilfred H.
Cockcroft, a notable mathematician and figure in the mathematical
community. Sadly, we have recently received notice a number of
other deaths that we feel it appropriate to record.
The Association has lost three of its past Presidents in the recent
past. Sir William McCrea (President from 1973−74), Bertha Jeffreys
(President from 1969-70) and, on January 31st 2000, Mary Bradburn
(President from 1994-95). Each of these contributed to the centenary
issue of the Gazette (March 1996) and readers will find brief
biographical notes in that issue. There will be obituaries published in
the Gazette in due course.
In addition, the Gazette itself has lost three overseas contributors.

Folke Eriksson of Chalmers and Gotheburg University, Sweden, who
wrote and refereed articles over several years, died in August 1999.
Andrejs Dunkels of Luleå University of Technology, Sweden, who is
the author of Note 84.06 in this issue, died in December 1998.
Finally, we have lost an extremely regular and long-serving
contributor with the passing in February 2000 of Dr. S.
Parameswaran. His first Gazette article appeared in May 1946 and
he has recently provoked considerable interest in S·P numbers.
Problem Corner
Solutions are invited to the following problems. They should be
addressed to Graham Hoare at 3 Russett Hill, Chalfont St. Peter, Bucks SL9
8JY and should arrive not later than 10 August 2000.
84.A (J. D. King)

A trough of water with parabolic
cross-section is gently rolled over. Show
that the centre of mass of the water
remains a constant distance from P, the
point of contact.
P
84.B (Nick Lord)
∞
(a) Find all rational numbers x between 0 and 1 for which ∑ n3xn is an
1
integer. [One example, known to the Bernoullis, is x = 12 , which
yields a sum of 26.]
∞
(b) Investigate the analogous question for ∑ nkxn (k is a fixed whole
1
number).
84.C (C. F. Parry)

ARC is a scalene triangle with circumcentre O and orthocentre H. A′, B′,
C′ are the reflections of the vertices A, B, C in the corresponding sides BC,
CA, AB. If B′C and BC′ meet at D, then show that
(i) OBCD is a cyclic quadrilateral,
(ii) DA′ is parallel to the Euler line OH.
84.D (Mark Stamp and Ruth Arumula)

Consider the following map of n consecutive one-way ‘roundabout’
roadways.
...
start finish
Suppose that a car enters at the start, travels counterclockwise and each
time the car can make a turn, a coin is flipped to decide which way to go. A
wrong turn is any turn that results in a longer trip than necessary. What is
the expected number of wrong turns before the car arrives at the finish?
PROBLEM CORNER 129
Solutions and comments on 83.E, 83.F, 83.G, 83.H (July 1999).

83.E (Nick Lord)
Let f : R → R be a smooth,
increasing function with lim f (θ) = 0
θ → −∞
and lim f (θ) = ∞. Characterise those
θ→∞
spirals r = f (θ) with the ‘GP-property’, A3
i.e. wherever the radial angle increases by A2
constant amounts, the corresponding areas α
between successive whorls of the spiral α A1
α
form a geometric progression : in the
diagram, for constant α, A1, A2, A3 are in
G. P.
Firstly, we require a function f : r → r which maps Arithmetic

progressions to Geometric progressions. This is furnished by the functional
equation f (x + y) = f (x) f (y). Differentiating with respect to x and then
with respect to y yields f ′ (x + y) = f ′ (x) f (y) = f (x) f ′ (y). This gives
f ′ (x) f ′ (y)
= = c (const),
f (x) f (y)
so f (x) = f (0)ecx. Accordingly, we shall set the area function A(θ) = a2e2k θ
2
(a, k ≥ 0). Thus ∫−∞ {f 2 (t) − f 2 (t − 2π)} dt = 2a2e2k θ. So

0 2
f 2 (θ) − f 2 (θ − 2π) = 4a2k 2e2k θ.

2
In general
f 2 (θ − (2n − 2) π) − f 2 (θ − 2nπ) = 4a2k 2e2k (θ − (2n − 2)π), n ∈ z.
2
Summing up, and noting that lim f (θ) = 0, we derive

θ → −∞
f (θ) = 4a k l
2 2 2 2k2θ
(1 + e−4k π + e−8k π +… ) .
2 2
2akek θ
2
Hence, f (θ) = . (Since f (θ) → ∞ as θ → ∞, we have

1 − e−4k2π
a, k > 0). We conclude that the spirals we seek are necessarily logarithmic
(= equiangular) with equation r = Aeaθ.
Correct solutions were also received from J. K. R. Barnett, J. M. Chick, R. P. C. Forman,
M. Griffiths, G. Howlett, J. D. King, D. F. Lawden, S. N. Maitra, N. A. Routledge, I. F. Smith,
H. B. Talbot, R. F. Tindall, G. B. Trustrum and the proposer, Nick Lord.
83.F (A. Robert Pargeter)

ABCD is a quadrilateral such that AD is parallel to BC and ∠ACD = ∠ABC.
Prove that ∠DBC ≤ 30°.
The preferred approach exploited trigonometry, often allied with
calculus. First we give the solution(s) of M. D. Fox.

A Q D
g a a
a
S
b h
c R
b
b x P y g a z
B a C T
Given: AD // BC, ∠ABC = ∠ACD.
Draw AP, QC, DT⊥BT , and AR, QS⊥CD.
To show that ∠DBC ≤ 30° we shall prove the equivalent result that
BT 2 ≥ 3h2.
We need the following simple results:
1. For all real x, y, z, (y − z)2 + (z − x)2 + (x − y)2 ≥ 0 ⇒
x2 + y2 + z2 ≥ yz + zx + xy.
2. s ABC, DCA are similar ⇒ bc = a × CD.
3. In ABC: c cos α + a cos γ = b.
4. s CDQ, CQS are similar ⇒ CD × CS = CQ2.
Then
BT 2 = (x + y + z)2 = x2 + y2 + z2 + 2(yz + zx + xy) ≥ 3(yz + zx + xy) (by 1)
= 3(y × CD cosα + CD cosα × c cosβ + c cosβ × b cosγ)
= 3CD(y cosα + [c cosα + a cosγ] cosβ (by 2)
= 3CD(RS + b cosβ) (by 3)
= 3CD(RS + CR) = 3CD × CS = 3CQ2 = 3h2 (by 4)
So BT ≥ 3h , and ∠DBC ≤ 30°.
2 2
We can do the same sort of thing by trigonometry, with the help of 1

above. We need also:
5. If α + β + γ = 180°, then
(1 − cot α cot β)
cot γ = − cot (α + β) =
(cot α + cot β)
Let ∠DBC = ω, then BT = h cot ω, and x + y + z = h(cot β + cot γ + cot α).
Thus
PROBLEM CORNER 131
cot 2 ω = (cot α + cot β + cot γ) ≥ 3 (cot β cot γ + cot γ cot α + cot α cot β)
2
= 3 [ (cot α + cot β) cot γ + cot α cot β]

= 3 (1 − cot α cot β + cot α cot β) = 3 (by 5).
Therefore cot ω ≥ 3, so ω ≤ 30°.
These results are closely related to the Brocard geometry of triangle
ABC, which has Brocard angle ω, one of its Brocard points being the
intersection of DB with the circumcircle of DCA. It is (or perhaps was) a
standard result that the Brocard angle cannot exceed 30°.
For those who sought a purely geometrical solution without success, we

offer John Rigby's contribution.
Lemma. Let PQR be a triangle whose height (the distance from P to QR) is
h, in which ∠PQR ≥ 60° and ∠PRQ ≤ 60°. Then there exists a triangle
P′QR with ∠P′ = ∠P, either of whose base angles ∠P′QR or ∠P′RQ is
equal to 60°; the height of this triangle is greater than or equal to h.
P' M P' M
P P
Q R
Q R
FIGURE 1(a) FIGURE 1(b)
The essence of the proof is indicated in Figure 1(a) or 1(b), depending
on whether the equal base angles of the isosceles triangle MQR are less than
60° or greater than 60° (the special case when MQR is equilateral is easily
dealt with); P′ lies on the circle between P and M. We can obtain a triangle
P″QR in which the other base angle is 60° by reflecting P′QR in the
diameter through M.
By considering a triangle XYZ similar to P′QR or P″QR, but with height
h, we obtain a corollary.
Corollary. Let PQR be a triangle with height h, in which ∠PQR ≥ 60° and
∠PRQ ≤ 60°. Then there exists a triangle XYZ with height h, with
∠P = ∠X, and with either of the base angles ∠XYZ or ∠XZY equal to 60°;
in this triangle YZ ≤ QR.
A A' D' D
g a
a a
b 60 g b
B B' C C'
FIGURE 2
Now let ABCD be a quadrilateral with AD parallel to BC and the angles
marked β equal, as in Figure 2. Since the angles γ are equal, then so are the
angles α. Since α, β, γ cannot be all greater than, or all less than, 60°, we
may assume without loss of generality (since α and β play identical roles in
the figure) that one of β, γ is less than or equal to 60°, the other greater than
or equal to 60°. By the corollary there exists a triangle A′B′C, as shown in
Figure 2, with ∠A′ = α, ∠B′ = 60°, and B′C ≤ BC. Then
∠DCA′ = 60°, because triangles DCA′ and A′B′C are similar. Applying the
corollary to triangle CDA′, we obtain an equilateral triangle C′D′A′ with
D′A′ ≤ DA′. Then ∠DBC ≤ ∠DB′C ≤ ∠D′B′C = 30°. (The proof
remains valid whatever the values of α, β and γ, although the relative order
of some of the points on the parallel lines will vary.)
Correct solutions were received from R. G. Bardelang, J. K. R. Barnett, R. L. Bolt,
J. M. Chick, H. Martyn Cundy, R. P. C. Forman, S. Fowlie, M. D. Fox, M. Griffiths,
G. Howlett, P. F. Johnson, J. D. King, D. F. Lawden, G. Leversha, N. Lord, S. N. Maitra,
J. A. Mundie, C. F. Parry, J. Rigby, N. A. Routledge, I. F. Smith, H. B. Talbot, K. Thomas,
R. F. Tindall, G. B. Trustrum and the proposer, A. Robert Pargeter.
83.G (Christian Turcu)

The trapezium ABCD is given with AB // CD and AB = AC + CD. E is
the mid-point of BD, BF // CE and F lies on the line AC. Prove that:
(a) AE and DF are perpendicular to BF.
(b) C is the intersection of the angle bisectors of triangle DEF if and only if
DA is perpendicular to AB.
(c) EF // AD if and only if AB = 3.CD.
F
M q
D q C
E
q
q
A L B
PROBLEM CORNER 133
Judicious constructions were the key to solving this problem. Although

a few used vectors, solvers predominantly favoured Euclid. H. Martyn
Cundy's solution is selected to reflect this approach.
Given: AB parallel to DC, |AB| = |AC| + |CD|.
The figure must clearly be as shown. Locate L on AB such that
AL = AC. Then, from the data, LB = CD. LBCD is therefore a
parallelogram, and LC will contain E, the midpoint of BD. Let LC meet DF
at M.
(a) Since CE = EL and AC = AL, AE is perpendicular to CL and therefore
to BF. The triangles ALC, ABF being similar, AB = AF, and CF = BL
= CD. So ∠DFC = ∠FDC = 12 ∠DCA = 12 ∠CAL = ∠CAE = ∠EAL = θ ,
say. Hence DF is parallel to AE and perpendicular to BF and CE.
Therefore M is the midpoint of DF, DE = EF and EC bisects the angle
DEF.
(b) C will be the incentre of triangle DEF if and only if CD also bisects
angle EDF. This means that ∠CDE = ∠EBA = θ which is so if and
only if AE = EB = ED which is true if and only if ∠DAB is a right angle.
(c) AB = 3CD is equivalent to AC = 2CD = 2CF. From the similarity of the
two triangles AEC, FME this will be so if and only if AE = 2FM = FD,
i.e. if and only if EF is parallel to AD.
Correct solutions were received from J. K. R. Barnett, M. Bataille, R. L. Bolt, J. M. Chick,
H. Martyn Cundy, R. P. C. Forman, S. Fowlie, M. D. Fox, M. Griffiths, G. Howlett,
D. F. Lawden, G. Leversha, N. Lord, S. N. Maitra, A. Robert Pargeter, C. F. Parry,
N. A. Routledge, H.-J. Seiffert, I. F. Smith, H. B. Talbot, R. F. Tindall, G. B. Trustrum, Zhu
Hanlin and the proposer, Christian Turcu.
83.H (N. Gauthier and J. R. Gosselin)

Given the Diophantine equation, qn + 1 − mnq + mn − 1 = 0, find all the
solutions for q, m, n > 1.
From the given equation we have qn + 1 = mn (q − 1) and, since
q > 1, we derive mn = qn + qn − 1 + … + q + 1. But
n−1
q < q + q
n n
+ … + q + 1 < (q + 1)n since all but two of the
binomial coefficients exceed 1 and n ≥ 2.
Hence qn < mn < (q + 1)n or q < m < q + 1, a contradiction since
q, m are integers.
Some thought this was rather easy; J. M. Chick and J. A. Mundie
searched for rational solutions for n = 2, 3, the latter coming within the
domain of ‘elliptic curves’. There is an infinity of solutions for both cases
but they found only one for n = 3 satisfying m, q > 1, namely,
34540 26793
m = , q = .
15799 15799
Correct solutions were received from R. G. Bardelang, J. K. R. Barnett, M. Bataille,
J. M. Chick, H. Martyn Cundy, R. P. C. Forman, M. Griffiths, G. Howlett, P. F. Johnson, J. D.
King, D. F. Lawden, G. Leversha, N. Lord, S. N. Maitra, J. A. Mundie, N. A. Routledge, I. F.
Smith, K. Thomas, R. F. Tindall, G. B. Trustrum, and the proposers, N. Gauthier and J. R.
Gosselin.
Corrigendum
It has been pointed out by the proposer Dr S. Parameswaran, and two
other commentators, D. Desbrow and R. F. Tindall, that the condition,
n − m is even, is necessary but not sufficient for integral solutions to exist
for the equations x + y = m, x + y = n for given positive integers m, n.
(See Math. Gaz. 83 (1999) pp. 318-320.) For example, for n − m = 2
there is only one solution, namely, (x, y, n, m) = (4, 1, 5, 3). The correct
necessary and sufficient condition is that n − m = a(a − 1) − r (r − 1) where
a is the largest integer not exceeding n and r = n − a2. Indeed, as the
proposer indicates, m can be uniquely determined from n and a by the
equation m = (n − a2) + a.
2
G.T.Q.H
The Turbulent Universe

There is a time to cast stones away
d
The Big Bang = (The stones of creation)
dt
And a time to gather stones together
∞
The Cosmos = ∫0 (The sands of time) dt
Eccles 3 v 5
A time when the cosmos evolved in a mighty explosion
And nebulous mass scattered wide over the vastness of space
To coalesce in a myriad of galaxies, set in motion
By gravitational forces, and expanding space;
A time when order from chaos developed on Earth

And the Sun and the Moon set in place in the sky
When the passage of time and Adam received birth,
Conceived in a twinkling of eternity's eye;
A time when raindrops and dew formed rivers and seas

And rainbow colours blended to Sunlight,
When embryos germinated into fauna and trees
And dust clouds condensed into stars of the night;
And when the mountains and hills will be ground down to sand
And creation returned to the palm of God's hand:
For above all this restless commotion and change

There is permanence in the strong hand of God,
A durability that defies both decay and change,
Whence the footsteps of time have never yet trod.
A poem by ROY V. WHITLOCK
PROBLEM CORNER 135
Student Problems
Students up to the age of 19 are invited to send solutions to either of the
following problems to
Tim Cross, 75 Cardinal Crescent, Bromsgrove B61 7PR.
Two prizes will be awarded − a first prize of £25, and a second prize of
£20 − to the senders of the most impressive solutions for either problem. It
is, therefore, not necessary to submit solutions to both. Solutions should
arrive by May 20th 2000. Please give your school year, the name and
address of your school or college, and the name of a teacher through whom
the award may be made. The names of all successful solvers will be
published in the July 2000 edition.
Problem 2000.1
A quartic polynomial p (x) is defined by p(x) ≡ x4 + ax3 + bx2 + cx + d
where a, b, c, d are integers. Given that p (1) = 1999, p (2) = 2000 and
p (3) = 2001, determine the value of
p (2002) + p (−1998)
.
2 × 2000
Problem 2000.2
Prove that there are infinitely many pairs of positive integers x, y for
which
x3 + y3 + 2
x2 + y2 + 1
is twice a perfect square.
Solutions to 1999.5 and 1999.6

I received a surprising number of submissions to these two tricky
problems, and the quality was exceptional with many students producing
some novel approaches to them; I'm sorry that I cannot pay adequate tribute
to all ideas. Correct solutions to both problems were received from Peter
Allen (Nottingham HS), Timothy Austin (Colchester RGS), Hannah Burton
(City of London School for Girls), Tim Butler (Abingdon School), Bryn
Garrod (KE VI Camp Hill School for Boys), Daniel Lamy (Nottingham
HS), Bruce Merry (Westerford HS, Cape Town, SA), Ahmed Asif Shaik
(Woodhurst Secondary School, Durban, SA) and Koos van Zyl (Overkruin
HS, Pretoria, SA). In addition to these, Philip Blakely (Barnard Castle
School) and Owen Thompson (Abingdon School) solved 1999.5; and
Christopher Deeks (Freman College, Buntingford), Soutrik Maitra (National
Defence Academy, Pune, India), Pieter Mostert (Hudson Park HS, East
London, SA), Negsej T. K. (St. Joseph's College, Bangalore, India), Jacob
Steel (Colchester RGS) and Zhan Su (Nottingham HS) solved 1999.6.
Problem 1999.5
Find, in the usual decimal form, the least positive integer N which is
tripled in size when its final (right-most) digit is removed and placed in front
of its first (left-most) one.
Solution I Let N = 10a + b be the required n-digit number (n ≥ 2),

where a is an (n − 1)-digit number (not beginning with a zero) and b is a
single-digit number. Then
b
M = 3N = 10n − 1b + a ⇒ 30a + 3b = 10n − 1b + a ⇒ a = (10n − 1 − 3) .
29
Now, since b (being single-digit) is not divisible by 29 and a is an integer,
we must have that 29 | 10n − 1 − 3; in other words, we want 10n − 1 ≡ 3
(mod 29).
Examining powers of 10 modulo 29 (by multiplying by 10 and
discarding remainders each time for instance), we find that the first such n is
28. [Note that Fermat's Little Theorem guarantees that 1028 ≡ 1 (mod 29)
⇒ 1028 ≡ 30 = 3 × 10 ⇒ 1027 ≡ 3 (mod 29) since hcf (10,29) = 1.
However, a little bit of work is needed to justify that this is the least n for
which this is so.]
For the least solution we try b = 1, 2, 3, … etc. The first two cases
give leading zeroes for M and N to have the same number of digits. The case
b = 3 gives
3
a = (1027 − 3) , N = 30 (1027 − 3) + 3.
29 29
In decimal form, N = 1 034 482 758 620 689 655 172 413 793.
Solution II Two or three submissions followed a much simpler constructive

approach. For the least solution, we look for a number (of as yet
undetermined length) which commences with the digit 1 ⇒ the final digit is
a 3 (or possibly a 4 or a 5, but we are looking for minimality). Since all
remaining digits are simply shunted along one place, we simply continue by
multiplying by 3 as we go, carrying ‘tens’ units forwards as usual. In this
way, we find
3 × 3 = 9, 3 × 9 = 27, (7 carry2), 3 × 7 + 2 = 23(3 carry2), etc
All we need do now is to check our answer each time a digit 1 appears in
our number. Indeed, the 1 would have to be followed (moving to the left) by
a 3. The above value of N is found in this way.
Notice that the first example of a possible answer ending in a 4 rather

than a 3 is 4N , and similarly for a 5 in the units column. Notice also, as
some did, that the suitable answers are simply re-orderings of the recurring
decimal cycle in the reciprocal of 29: viz
1
= 0·034 482 758 62… .
29
PROBLEM CORNER 137
Problem 1999.6
Prove that
cos 11° + cos 83° + cos 155° + cos 227° + cos 299° = 0.
Solution I Purely trigonometric approaches employed a variety of results,

and most solutions were markedly different in some way or another. One
such example follows, and it is interesting that this is one of those cases
when the specific result given is rather less obviously approached than the
general one lurking in the background.
cosθ + cos (72° + θ ) + cos (2×72° + θ ) + cos (3×72° + θ ) + cos (4×72° + θ )
≡ cosθ + {cos (72° + θ ) + cos (72° − θ )} + {cos (2×72°+ θ ) + cos (2×72°− θ )}
using the result cos (360° − A) = cos A
≡ cos θ + 2 cos 72° cos θ + 2 cos 144° cos θ
using the result cos A + cos B = 2 cos 12 (A + B) cos 12 (A − B)
≡ cosθ {1 + 2 cos(2×36°)−2 cos36°} using the result cos (180°− A) = − cosA
≡ cos θ {1 + 2 (2c2 − 1) − 2c} upon writing c = cos 36° and using the
double-angle formula for cosine. We now show that c = cos 36° is a
solution of the equation 4c2 − 2c − 1 = 0, so that this last expression is
identically zero.
Note that sin 36° = sin (180° − 36°) = sin (4 × 36°); that is,
sin 36° = sin (4 × 36°) = 2 sin (2 × 36°) cos (2 × 36°)
= 4 sin 36° cos 36° cos (2 × 36°) .
Since sin 36° ≠ 0, we have (writing c = cos 36°)
1 = 4c (2c2 − 1) ⇒ 0 = 8c3 − 4c − 1 = (2c + 1) (4c2 − 2c − 1) ,
and since cos 36° ≠ − 12 , we have the required result upon setting θ = 11°.
Solution II A second approach uses a complex argument.

Let α = eiθ = cos θ + i sin θ . Then the equation z5 − α5 = 0
implies z5 = e i5θ ≡ ei(5θ + 360k°) for k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and so has roots
αk = cos (θ + 72k°) + i sin (θ + 72k°) (k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) .
The sum of the roots of the given quintic equation is equal to the negative of
the coefficient of z4 in the left-hand-side, which is zero. Thus, both real and
imaginary parts of this sum of roots are zero; i.e.
4 4
∑ cos (θ + 72k°) = ∑ sin (θ + 72k°) = 0

k=0 k=0
and setting θ = 11° again gives the special case of the problem.
Solution III A rather lovely, and extremely concise and elegant, solution
appeared several times in submissions. As with Solution II, this result easily
extends to a whole family of similar problems with n terms.
Consider a regular pentagon resting with one vertex (A) on the x-axis,
and slightly inclined to it (as shown).
θ + 216°
d θ + 144°
d
θ + 288° d
d
θ + 72°
θ
A x
Then the projections, in turn, of the sides onto the horizontal axis form a
sequence of directed line segments whose sum is zero, since traversing the
pentagon once leaves one returned to A. These line segments are merely
d cos θ, d cos (θ + 72°) , … , d cos (θ + 288°) ,
as in the given problem (with the cancellable factor of d ). We then
immediately see why the result holds for all values of θ , and in the case of
all regular n-gons (n ≥ 3), and why a similar result applies for the sums of
the sines of angles equally spread throughout a 360° range (since the
projections onto the vertical axis must also sum to zero).
As mentioned, the range of different ideas was outstandingly broad, and

this made the selection of prize-winners extremely difficult. However, I am
awarding the first prize of £25 to Bruce Merry and the runners-up prize of
£20 to Owen Thompson.
TIM CROSS
OTHER JOURNALS 139
Other Journals
What makes a great mathematics teacher? The case of Augustus De Morgan, by
Adrian Rice, The American Mathematical Monthly 106 (6) pp. 534-552, 1999.
The name of Augustus De Morgan (1806-1871) is chiefly remembered for
research in mathematical logic, geometric representation of complex numbers,
convergence of series and some aspects of the history of mathematics. For almost
his entire career De Morgan was professor of mathematics at University College,
London. Much of the present paper is devoted to describing his mathematics courses
and the surviving tracts by himself and by some of his students. The author claims
that De Morgan deserves the adjective ‘great’ applied to his work as a teacher of
mathematics rather than for his original research. As a rearcher he was not in the
same league as his contemporaries Cauchy, Weierstrass, Klein, Maxwell and
Sylvester but De Morgan ‘possessed in abundance all the attributes of a memorable
and effective educator’.
Putting the millennium in perspective, by Jim Hind, Mathematics Today 35 (5)

pp. 147-151, 1999.
On October 1 1949, probably for the first time, the whole world agreed on the
date: this was when Mao Tse-Tung announced that China would use the western
calendar introduced by Pope Gregory in 1582. This article is a fascinating
description of the need for calendars, the historical development of calendars with
respect to the sun and moon's movements, and properties of the Jewish, Greek,
Islamic, Mayan, Indian and Chinese calendars to name but a few. The present names
of days and months are somehow derived mostly from the Roman and Greek. To
interchange dates between the different calendars presents a non-trivial mathematical
problem.
Pentangram- a new puzzle, by Klaus Kühnie, The Mathematical Intelligencer 21

(2) pp. 15-17, 1999.
The well-known Chinese tangram is a puzzle consisting of seven pieces that can
be arranged into either one square of area 2 or two squares of area 1 each. The ratio
between any two lengths occurring as side-lengths of the seven pieces is some power
of 2, which is the ratio between the side-length and the diagonal of a square.
Equally well a puzzle could be designed where the pieces have to be arranged to
regular hexagons and the magic number would be 3 which is the length of the
chord of a hexagon of side-length 1. The author gives details of pentangrams which
are based on regular pentagons whose ratio between chord-length and side-length is
the golden ratio.
Throwing elliptical shields on floorboards, by P. Glaister, Mathematical Spectrum

32 (1) pp. 10-13, 1999.
The author describes a generalisation of the classical needle problem of Buffon.
An elliptical shield is dropped onto a floor made of wooden planks (floorboards) and
the problem is to determine the probability that the shield crosses a crack between
the planks. As special cases there are the cases of a circle and a needle. The
mathematical details involve complete and incomplete elliptic integrals which occur
naturally in the solution.
ANNE C. BAKER
1 Carr Bank Close, Sheffield S11 7FJ
Reviews
A mathematical mystery tour: discovering the truth and beauty of the cosmos,
by A. K. Dewdney. Pp. 218. £17.99. 1999. ISBN 0 471 23847 3 (Wiley).
This enjoyable odyssey, cast in the form of a travelogue in which the author
interrogates four fictional characters at sites of epochal significance in the history of
mathematics, aims gently to explore the familiar philosophical questions:
• Is mathematics created or discovered?
• What is the basis for the ‘unreasonable effectiveness’ of mathematics
when applied to the natural sciences?
Dewdney's first destination is Miletus for an introduction to early Greek
mathematics, in particular a plausible route to Pythagoras' discovery of ‘his’ theorem
and a description of the ‘crisis’ for Pythagoreans resulting from the discovery that
2 is irrational. His second stop is Jordan for an account of Islamic work on decimal
notation, algebra and the geometry/trigonometry of the celestial sphere with echoes
of Omar Khayyám's, ‘And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky, Whereunder
crawling coop'd we live and die,’. This is followed by a trip to Venice to probe the
role of mathematics in modern science with a nicely motivated reconstruction of
Balmer's discovery of the formula giving the wavelengths of spectral lines for
hydrogen and a confrontation with the possibility that a hydrogen atom may,
perhaps, be no more than a solution of Schrödinger's equation. The tour ends in
Oxford with a discussion of twentieth century work on axiomatics and
metamathematics and the implications of Church's thesis and Gödel's theorem.
There are one or two signs of hasty editing, notably on page 74 where the ibn
Qurra-Fermat theorem should read, ‘The numbers 2npq and 2nr are amicable if
p = 3.2n − 1 − 1, q = 3.2n − 1 and r = 9.22n − 1 − 1 are all prime.’. Gazette
readers will find few surprises in the mathematical examples highlighted and some
will find the philosophical fare more soufflé than plum pudding, but I had a sneaking
admiration for Dewdney's willingness to fly the perhaps unfashionable Pythagorean-
Platonist mathematics-as-independent-existence flag, even to the extent of coining
the name holos for the land over which the flag flies. The travelogue format is
gimmicky but not, I think, too gimmicky and I would be happy to recommend this
book to students wondering what mathematics is really all about, in particular
whether the mathematicians' worry blanket monogrammed ‘Mathematical Truth’ is
knitted from massive self-delusion or woven from the fabric of the universe.
NICK LORD
Tonbridge School, Kent TN9 1JP
Women in science and engineering: choices for success, edited by Cecily Cannan
Selby. Pp. 263. £33.50. 1999. ISBN 1 57331 166 9 (New York Academy of
Sciences).
Notable women in mathematics: a biographical dictionary, edited by Charlene
Morrow and Teri Perl. Pp. 302. £39.95. 1998. ISBN 0 313 29131 4 (Greenwood
Press).
These two books have similar aims but quite different styles. They address the
concern that the number of women active in science, engineering and mathematics
remains relatively small. Although much progress has been made in the last 50 years
to tackle discrimination against women interested in science, there are very few
fields where women are represented in anything like equal numbers. Even in an area
like biotechnology, where 50% of research scientists are women, the senior positions
REVIEWS 141
are still dominated by men.

The first book is based on a conference: Choices and Successes: Women in
Science and Engineering, held in New York in 1998. The New York Academy of
Sciences had held conferences in 1972 and 1979 on a similar theme, and the latest
conference was a conscious effort to review progress. An important finding was that
explicit discrimination is now less common but that a bewildering morass of indirect
bias and discrimination remains. Women continue to drop out of science and
engineering courses at a proportionally greater rate than men, and the number of full
professorships offered to women remains small.
The Choices and Successes conference proceedings is divided into four main
parts: Changes, Choices, Successes and The Future. The (relatively short) first part
looks at the changes that have taken place in the last 25 years and the (shorter) last
part is a report of a panel discussion of the question: What have we learned and how
can it help? In between are two substantial sections, one looking at What keeps
women in science and engineering? and the other considering Which policies and
practices work?
Sue V. Rosser contributes an important paper on the impact of work climates on
women. She identifies a five stage model to assess the extent of women's integration
and the adaptation of the workplace to women's needs. At Stage 1 the absence of
women is not noted. In Stage 2, women are seen as an add-on − tolerated as long as
they do not challenge the status quo. At Stage 3, women are seen as a problem,
anomaly or deviant: they begin to challenge the ‘male-as-norm’ climate, for example
by requesting child-friendly hours or by seeking more collaborative working styles.
By Stage 4, there is a focus on women: both men and women begin to consider the
positive benefits of changes to the laboratory or workplace climate. Finally, at Stage
5 the climate is redefined and reconsidered to include all − men and women. In a
survey she conducted of women who had received Professional Opportunities for
Women in Research and Education awards in 1997, Rosser categorised the
workplaces of the 56 respondents as follows:
Stage 1 2 3 4 5
Workplaces 9 9 34 4 0
Clearly, she considers that there is still some way to go!

The conference seems not to have attracted speakers who disagree with the
fundamental premise that changes need to be made to accommodate women. Such
people doubtless exist.
The second book under review is intended to provide women with role-models
in mathematics. It consists of 59 biographies of women in mathematics and
mathematics education. These have been selected from a more comprehensive list of
women who could have been included if space had permitted. The desire to represent
women from a variety of nationalities and ethnic backgrounds has meant that some
quite deserving cases have been omitted. On the other hand, a lack of published
biographical information on a candidate was not considered sufficient reason to
leave anyone out: in many cases, the biography has been based on interviews held
specifically for this book.
The examples of women born before 1900 are almost self-selecting: the list
includes Hypatia, Maria Agnesi, Sophie Germain, Sofya Kovalevskaya, Charlotte
Scott, Grace Chisholm Young and Emmy Noether. Included among those born this
century are Mina Rees, Olga Taussky-Todd, Julia Robinson, Anneli Lax, Cathleen
Morawetz, Mary Ellen Rudin, Dusa McDuff, Ingrid Daubechies and Karen Parshall.
An obvious omission is Mary Lucy Cartwright. Despite the attempt to be inclusive,
there are some obvious biases: the majority of the women live and work in the
United States, and while there is a commendable concentration on the living, rather
than on historical figures, only five of the women were born in the second half of the
twentieth century.
The biographies are designed to be accessible to readers who have a limited
mathematical background, though there are places where quite technical terms are
used. In the biography of Marie-Louise Michelson, for example, we are told that
Saunders Mac Lane is ‘a well-known mathematician’ and that ‘topology is the study
of shapes and their properties—in particular those properties that remain unchanged
even if the shape is stretched and distorted’. However, later in the same biography,
we learn that ‘Professor Michelson's achievements include research in Clifford and
spinor cohomology, the geometry of spin manifolds and the Dirac operator’. This is
part of a deliberate policy in the book. The editors explain in the introduction: ‘In
this volume we have tried to give a sense of the biographee's work in terms that can
be understood by the non-mathematician. [However] many mathematicians say they
simply cannot transmit any idea of their research, even to undergraduates. [If]
mathematical terms are unclear, undefined, or unexplained, the reader is encouraged
to use these terms as a starting point for conversations with someone who has greater
mathematical training or to seek out reference works, such as mathematical
dictionaries.’
The purpose of the book is ‘not only to encourage more girls to become an
integral part of the next generation of mathematicians, but to spark the enthusiasm of
all students’. I feel sure that students who read about these mathematicians will find
inspirational role models. However, in some ways I feel the book is too
comprehensive. On behalf of the Mathematical Association, I recently attended a
Department of Trade and Industry conference on attracting girls into science,
engineering and technology. One of the clear messages from participants who had
succeeded in attracting young girls' attention was that ‘worthy but dull’ is not very
effective. Instead the advised following the style of teen magazines, with ‘agony
aunts’ and lots of pictures of girls and young women having fun. Girls like the idea
of working in teams with other people like themselves—a message echoed by the
New York Academy of Sciences conference.
This book should be available in school and college libraries, but more
importantly, someone needs to direct students to read it, perhaps by getting each
class member, over the course of a year, to report back to the rest on the life of a
mathematician.
STEVE ABBOTT
Claydon High School, Claydon, Ipswich IP6 0EG
Gnomon: from pharaohs to fractals, by Midhat J. Gazalé. Pp. 259. £17.95. 1999.
ISBN 0 691 00514 1 (Princeton University Press).
To most of us, a gnomon is the spike on a sundial which shows the time (in this
country, outside the period of BST, and provided the sun is shining). Here the word
is used as defined by Hero of Alexandria: ‘a gnomon is that form that, when added to
some form, results in a new form similar to the original’. To a mathematician a
familiar example is the square which, when stuck on to the longer side of a rectangle
whose sides are in the golden ratio (= ( 5 + 1) / 2, generally denoted by φ),
produces a similar rectangle. Or, of course, a sheet of A4 paper is its own gnomon!
This process, if continued indefinitely, results in a figure suitably selected vertices of
REVIEWS 143
which (in the case of the golden ratio rectangle) lie on an equiangular (or
logarithmic) spiral. This spiral also plays a large part in the book, and it may be
regarded as a basic fractal, in that if enlarged it remains similar to the original (in
fact, congruent). Self-similarity, says the author, is the theme of the book.
There is a discussion of figurate numbers, which clearly lend themselves to
gnomonic representation. Much use is made throughout the book of continued
fractions: infinite periodic ones are gnomonic (in particular the familiar one for φ,
namely 1 + 11+ 11+ … ). As one might expect the Fibonacci sequence is prominent
in this context, not, only the familiar one F0 = 0, F1 = 1, Fn + 2 = Fn + Fn + 1, but also
a generalisation Fm, 0 = 0, Fm, 1 = 1, Fm,n + 2 = Fm,n + mFm,n + 1 (where m is not
necessarily an integer), referred to as a Fibonacci sequence of order m. The quantity
Φm defined by m = Φm + 1 / Φm is found to play an important part in the
development of the theory. (In fact Φ1 = φ). Applications of these generalised
Fibonacci sequences are given to ‘ladders’ of transducers, resistances, and pulleys.
The sequence of rectangles referred to above is an example of a ‘whorled figure’,
which are exemplified in some detail. The ‘golden’ number φ satisfies
φ2 − φ − 1 = 0; the number p which satisfies p3 − p − 1 = 0 is called the ‘silver’
number by the author (‘p’ in honour of its discoverer Richard Padovan), and leads to
several interesting constructions: in particular the ‘silver pentagon’ of sides
1, p, p2, p3, p4 in order, with p4 parallel to p and at 60° to p3, whose gnomon is an
equilateral triangle of side p4. Amusement is provided by twinkles, squinkles, and
Golomb's rep-tiles. Various spirals are considered in detail. Positional number
systems are described as a preliminary to the final chapter on fractals, which here are
of the type not involving calculations with complex numbers, e.g. the Sierpinski
gasket (based on Pascal's triangle), Cantor's ternary set, the Thue-Morse sequence,
the Menger sponge, the Koch snowflake, and numerous fascinating figures, many in
3-dimensions, arising from variations on these.
The book is well illustrated (in black-and-white, but there is an interesting batch
of colour plates). There is no deep mathematics, and most of it should be within the
reach of a good 6th former, if not put off by some rather (at times) fearsome notation
− lots of suffixes! (note: i is used as a suffix, −1 = j). This is rather an unusual
byway of mathematics; of its importance it is difficult to judge; but it certainly has
its fascination, and I have much enjoyed reading about it. (But, you may ask, where
do the Pharaohs come in? At the outset the author discusses, ultimately to dismiss,
the idea that the Egyptian obelisks, of which few, sadly, remain on their original
sites, were intended as gnomons in the sundial sense. There are many such
interesting historical interludes scattered throughout the book.)
A. ROBERT PARGETER
10 Turnpike, Sampford Peverell, Tiverton EX16 7BN
The mathematical tourist: new and updated snapshots of modern mathematics,
by Ivars Peterson. Pp. 266. £13.95. 1998. ISBN 0 7167 3250 5 (W. H. Freeman).
This is an unusual book of its kind; in fact it is quite well named. Its subject
matter is mainly modern developments and applications of quite recondite areas of
mathematics, but it is purely descriptive: there are extremely few formulae or
equations. I quote from the preface: ‘Professional mathematicians, in formal
presentations and published papers, rarely display the human side of their work.
Frequently missing among the rows of austere symbols … is the idea of what their
work is all about − how and where their piece of the mathematical puzzle fits, their
fountains of inspiration, and the images that carry them from one discovery to
another. To most outsiders, modern mathematics represents unknown territory. Its
borders are protected by dense thickets of technical terms, its landscapes strewn with
cryptic equations and inscrutable concepts. Few realize that the world of modern
mathematics is rich with vivid images, provocative ideas, and useful notions.’ The
book is very easy to read − one might almost call it light reading! These remarks
may tend to convey that the treatment is superficial: in terms of actual nitty-gritty
mathematics of course it is, but subject to this reservation it delves quite deeply into
the underlying concepts, their interconnections and applications, and the successes,
failures, and hopes of some of the latest ideas.
A few of the topics are familiar classics, but most of more recent emergence. A
brief survey (which I do not pretend to be complete): map-colouring; unsymmetrical
tiling; quasi-crystals; prime factoring (with its application to the RSA system of
coding); topology; minimal surfaces; knots; manifolds in higher dimensions; string
theory; fractals and fractal dimensions; the fractal simulation of natural objects;
chaos and strange attractors; the emergence of chaos in Newton's method for solving
equations; cellular automata, including Conway's game of Life and Wolfram's
method for generating patterns (several examples of these patterns are shown but I
wish there was a clearer explanation of the actual system); the Turing machine;
automated theorem-proving. So it is by no means a dull book! It is well illustrated
in black-and-white, and there are 16 colour plates. There are over 9 pages of
suggestions for further reading, and a good index.
The present volume is a revised and enlarged version of that published in 1988:
as I happen to have a copy of this I am able to make comparisons. The main thing is
that it has been brought well up-to-date in recent developments, such as quantum
logic, automated reasoning, virtual ants, and Wiles' proof of Fermat's ‘Last Theorem’
(to mention a few), while revision elsewhere has not been neglected, e.g. the list of
Mersenne primes has been extended by the 7 instances discovered since 1985. I
think an owner of the earlier edition would need to browse through the new one to
decide whether it is worth buying; to the new reader I would say have a go − you
may not learn much mathematics from it, but it will widen your horizons in a
pleasurable way.
A. ROBERT PARGETER
Magic tricks, card shuffling and dynamic computer memories, by S. Brent
Morris. £16.95. 1998. ISBN 0 883 85527 5 (Mathematical Association of America).
Brent Morris claims to be the only person in the world with a PhD in card
shuffling. He tells in the preface how his early interests in magic tricks and
mathematics came to be combined in the mathematical papers on permutation groups
that formed the basis of his doctoral dissertation. He also explains how he came to
register U.S. patent 4,161,036 (Method and apparatus for random and sequential
accessing in dynamic memories).
Morris's book mixes quite sophisticated mathematics with practical instructions
for carrying out card tricks. A prerequisite for mastery of the tricks is the ability to
perform perfect shuffles to order and the first chapter deals with the history and
mechanics of the such shuffles. There are two types of perfect shuffle, depending on
whether the original top card remains on top (the out-shuffle) or moves to the second
position (the in-shuffle). These may be represented mathematically as permutations.
Chapter two presents the surprising result is that perfect shuffles can be used to move
the top card to any desired position in the pack. If the top of the pack is labelled
position 0, the top card can be moved to the required position by performing in- and
out-shuffles corresponding to the 1's and 0's of the binary representation of the
REVIEWS 145
position number. For example. the sequence in, out, out, in moves the top card to
position 10012 = 910.
The mathematics gets steadily more involved in the third and fourth chapters,
with the introduction of shuffle groups and permutation matrices. Many of the
mathematical results have quite recent proofs, some due to Morris himself. As with
the earlier chapters, the mathematics is used to justify the working of a number of
carefully described card tricks.
The final chapter deals with the applications of the mathematics of shuffling to
dynamic computer memories (such as a hard or floppy disc), developed during the
late seventies. Though practical applications of the techniques became outdated by
technical advances in data storage, the mathematics remains applicable to
interconnection networks in parallel processing.
Readers who have experienced Colin Wright's juggling lectures will appreciate
the power of combining performance with mathematics. I suspect that Brent Morris
is another master of the genre. His delightful book is highly recommended, but the
performance aspect has to be supplied by the reader. As Martin Gardner advises in
his introduction: ‘be sure you have on hand a deck of cards’.
STEVE ABBOTT
Towing icebergs, falling dominoes, and other adventures in applied
mathematics, by Robert B. Banks. Pp. 329. £19.95. 1999. ISBN 0 691 05948 9
(Princeton University Press).
Slicing pizzas, racing turtles, and further adventures in applied mathematics, by
Robert B. Banks. Pp. 284. £15.95. 1999. ISBN 0 691 05947 0 (Princeton University
Press).
The authors of most ‘popular’ mathematics books are at great pains to illustrate
the vast sweep of mathematical thought and to counter the commonly held belief that
advanced mathematicians involves ever harder sums. They seek to convey the big
ideas, often at the expense of the mathematical details. Robert B. Banks is not this
sort of mathematical writer: he likes to calculate.
Banks' first book, Towing icebergs, falling dominoes, and other adventures in
applied mathematics, was released in the United States in 1998. It is written in a
‘popular’ style but includes much more mathematics than most of its competitors.
Gazette readers will find many topics of interest, but I remain unconvinced that this
book is suitable ‘for use as a text or a reference source for a first course in
mathematical modelling’, to quote one of the snippets of ‘advance praise’ printed on
its back cover.
The publishers supplied a pre-publication review copy of the sequel,
presumably to give them time to incorporate favourable remarks for the official
publication. Unfortunately, the features that disturbed me about the first book are, if
anything, exacerbated in the second, so I fear they will not quote this review.
Banks looks at a bewildering variety of problems and shows how they can be
modelled mathematically, mostly using mathematics that would be covered in an
English A level course. Apart from the problems alluded to in the two titles, their
combined 50 chapters include considerations of the trajectories of baseballs and golf
balls, the number of people that have ever lived, how fast you should run in the rain
and a better way to score the Olympics.
For my taste, there are too many asides and side issues that disturb the main
flow of the narrative. The use of insets and sidebars might have alleviated this minor
irritation. My main concern is Banks' tendency to pull rabbits from hats. He does this
in two ways: he introduces equations (and often their solutions) with insufficient
justification; and he offers very little discussion of the assumptions underlying his
mathematical models or the validity of the solutions obtained.
For an example of the first type, in considering the towing of icebergs he raises
the question of how thick the towing cables need to be.
‘The thrust force in the cable is T = 50.8 × 106 N. Assuming that the
steel cable can tolerate a tension stress σ = 35,000 lb/in2 = 2.41 × 108
N/m2, the cross-sectional area of the cable is A = T / σ = 0.210 m2,
and so d = 0.52 m (20 inches).’
The tension had been calculated earlier in the chapter, but the formula A = T / σ is
plucked from the air. It might be argued that any reader with the mathematical
sophistication to follow the mathematics would know the necessary formula, and that
the figure of 35,000 lb/in2 can easily be looked up in a reference, but I feel uneasy.
While oversights of the first type are merely annoying, those of the second type
are inexcusable in a book that purports to show its readers how mathematicians
work. Not all sections omit to discuss the assumptions: the chapter Shotputs,
Basketballs, Fountains (in Towing icebergs) has a section discussing when air
resistance can be neglected, for example. However, the chapter Growth and
Spreading Mathematical Analogies (in Slicing pizzas) begins:
‘How fast does a plant or person grow? … To help us obtain answers to
these and similar kinds of questions, we need to construct an appropriate
mathematical framework. Such a framework is provided by the following
simple differential equation:
dN
dt (
= aN 1 −
N
N∗) ,
in which N is the magnitude of the growing or spreading quantity, t is the

time, a is the growth or spreading coefficient, and N ∗ is the equilibrium
value or carrying capacity.’
There is no discussion of the assumptions underlying this model (or the
arctangent-exponential model introduced later). Later, numbers are substituted into
solutions of the differential equations without any discussion of the validity of the
results. The impression given of mathematics is that equations can be pulled from the
shelf to suit any required purpose and uncritically applied to the problem in hand.
Despite my reservations, the books are often entertaining and certainly
stimulating. I recommend readers to look before they buy.
STEVE ABBOTT
Misused statistics (2nd edn.), by Herbert F. Spirer, Louise Spirer and A. J. Jaffe. .
Pp. 263. $49.75. 1998. ISBN 0 8247 0211 5 (Marcel Dekker).
We are all continually being presented with ‘facts’, often in numerical form, that
we accept uncritically; yet, if we thought more deeply about them, doubts would
arise in our minds as to their meaning or validity, and further investigation might
reveal the ‘facts’ to be false. An important reason for this state of affairs is our use
of the adversarial system whereby the presenter is trying to put the ‘facts’ favourable
to their case, rather than provide a balanced judgement. Politicians are frequent
offenders but there is an increasing tendency for organisations such as Greenpeace to
bias their statements. This is not the only reason for misleading statistics and the
REVIEWS 147
book under review contains many examples of misuse, listing four, major causes:
1) lack of knowledge of the subject, 2) faulty interpretation, 3) flawed data,
4) incorrect methodology. Most of the examples come from the media, not only
because the media are guilty of misuses − they are − but because their examples are
exposed to view, whereas commercial organisations, for instance, sin in secret.
The examples range widely, though with an American bias, and are loosely
grouped into similar types of error. It is often cruel fun to watch other people err,
and the result is both entertaining and instructive. Furthermore, one can often learn
from mistakes, so that to see a technique being misused or performed incorrectly can
prevent your making similar errors. As a result, there is a strong case for this book
being in every school library so that pupils can better understand the pitfalls in
‘facts’, not just in statistics but in all disciplines. For myself, I would have liked to
have seen, in addition to the excellent examples, more discussion of the principles
involved. For instance, the prosecutor's fallacy (in which the probability of A, given
that B is true, is confused with that of B, given the truth of A, reversing the roles of
the two events, A and B) could have been developed more than it is. Incidentally, it is
hard on lawyers to have the fallacy associated with them, for we are all capable of
making it. Even statisticians err whenever they perform a significance test, citing the
probability of data, given a hypothesis, rather than what is needed, the probability
attached to the hypothesis on the basis of the data.
The book is not just destructive; it also provides sensible advice on how to
separate the genuine from the false. A favourite of mine is the recommendation to
respond, when a speaker provides a ‘fact’, with the question ‘how do you know
that?’ The technique is especially valuable when applied to the claims of many
practitioners of alternative medicines. A mild criticism of the book is that in dealing
with pictures, not enough attention has been paid by the publishers to good
presentation. In this field, the three books by Edward R. Tufte, published by the
Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut, are masterpieces and certainly should be in
every library, not only to provide information, but to demonstrate the sheer beauty
possible in a printed book. So buy Misused statistics to learn about mistakes and let
Tufte show you how to present facts graphically.
D. V. LINDLEY
‘Woodstock’, Quay Lane, Minehead, TA24 5QU
Coordinating mathematics across the primary school, by Tony Brown. Pp. 236.
£12.95. 1998 ISBN 0 7507 0687 2 (Falmer Press).
Taking on any role in the primary school can be a daunting task and, as stated in
the text, the primary teacher is asked to develop ‘numerous skills’. In doing so, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to master any fully and, since the curriculum is no
longer the sole responsibility of the headteacher, as it was in the past, so the need for
a subject coordinator has become necessary. This book takes a methodical journey
through the various stages of adopting this daunting role.
The text begins by looking at accepting the role of mathematics coordinator in
the teacher's own school, or moving to another, and the difficulties that may then
arise. The essential aspects involved in the settling-in period are clearly set out, as
are the starting points for change and the acknowledgement of good practice.
The issues of good practice and change are examined thoroughly and sound
practical advice is given to assist effective implementation. The author is sensitive
to the fact that this is not easy and provides carefully-chosen case studies to illustrate
key points. Also given are detailed background information about what the
coordinator should know and the ideas behind the strategies which are advocated.
All this helps to increase the reader's knowledge, allowing a new coordinator to gain
confidence in the decisions she or he makes.
Many professionals look upon change with suspicion, and decisions to change
current practice in a school have to be well thought out: this book will assist the
process by setting out clearly ways forward. Questions that the coordinator should
ask him/herself about his/her own practice are suggested and also ways of
approaching staff, and monitoring and auditing the materials and practices employed
in the school. All information is set out in easy-to-read tables which can be usefully
reproduced.
Throughout, there is emphasis on the need for balance in everything, whether it
be in the need for change or in the needs of individuals or of the whole school. This
is important because I think that people can become too narrow-minded when
adopting a particular role.
The particular role of mathematics coordinator is explained clearly. It is a
mammoth one which people might rush into; setting aside time to read this book
would aid any professional who is considering taking it on, settling into the role, or
actually in such a post. Mathematics is a major element of the primary curriculum,
so it is imperative that the mathematics coordinator is effective and confident in the
role.
Although there are 236 pages in this book, there is text on only just over half of
them. Each chapter is clearly labelled and the key points are all in the index, making
it easy for the reader to access the information required. I feel that this book would
be invaluable for anyone who is, or is considering being, a mathematics coordinator:
it most definitely fulfils its claim to be a subject leader's handbook.
JACQUELINE G. ROBERTSON
John Logie Baird Primary School, Helensburgh G84 9EP
Livewire maths, by Paul Harrison. Addition and subtraction to level 3, Pupil
Book, pp. 32. £2.99. ISBN 0 340 74908 3; Teacher's Resource Book, pp. 63. £12.99.
ISBN 0 340 75397 8. Multiplication and division to level 3, Pupil Book, pp. 32.
£2.99. ISBN 0 340 74909 1; Teacher's Resource Book, pp. 61. £12.99. ISBN
0 340 75398 6. Multiplication tables to level 3, Pupil Book, pp. 24. £2.99. ISBN 0
340 74911-3; Teacher's Resource Book, pp. 47. £12.99. ISBN 0 340 75399 4.
Measures to level 3, Pupil Book, pp. 24. £2.99. ISBN 0 340 74910 5; Teacher's
Resource Book, pp. 48. £12.99. ISBN 0 340 75400 1 (Hodder & Stoughton).
The pupil books are not write-on and so can be used many times. Although
very small, they do contain plenty of material. The teacher's resource books contain
advice on using each section (relating it to the National Curriculum for England),
answers and photocopiable sheets to support the work in the pupil books. A unique
feature in each resource book is a photocopiable ‘buzzwords glossary’ which goes
over the surprisingly large amount of vocabulary associated with each topic.
These books are aimed at pupils of age 11-14 who are underachieving in maths
working at level 3 (approximately level C in Scotland). The content of the books
(with the exception of Measures) has succeeded in being appropriate for this age
group. The books attempt to tackle the basic concepts and ensure a real
understanding of the topics. The material is good, with many excellent ideas to
make the work more enjoyable.
The writer assumes that you will be able to organise your class so that you can
teach these pupils giving them a structured lesson of which the work from the book
is only a part. As there will only be a small group of pupils at this level in a mixed-
REVIEWS 149
ability class, this would be difficult to do in practice. Often the work in the pupil
book will require a lot of input from the teacher and, as there is very little work on
any one page, many pupils will also need the supplementary photocopiable sheets as
well.
There are a few printing errors, which is a shame, as pupils can be confused by
them. Also, in Addition and subtraction, methods of mental working are given in the
pupil book, which is unfortunate, as it is better to encourage them to use their own
methods, and they lack the confidence to ignore the book's suggestions.
The only book about which I have serious reservations is Measures. In the
section on litres and millilitres, it uses measuring jugs and water. My pupils would
be mortified to be given such a ‘baby thing’ to do in class.
Multiplication and Multiplication and division are very good, but they only
consider the 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 times tables.
Despite the difficulties of using these books in a mixed-ability class I would
recommend them, as there is a lot of good material in them. The additional
resources in the resource books are excellent, both for class and homework.
Additional books were published in September 1999 to cover Fractions, Time,
Money and Number structure.
H. MASON
Madras College, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9EJ
Maths workout: for homework and practice, by Bob Hartman and Mark Patmore.
Book 1: pp. 64. £3.50. 1999. ISBN 0 521 63489 X. Book 2: pp. 64. £3.50. 1999.
ISBN 0 521 63488 1. Book 3: pp. 64. £3.50. 1999. ISBN 0 521 63487 3. Teacher's
book 1−3: 1999. ISBN 0 521 63483 0 (Cambridge University Press).
The whole series consists of six slim books, 64 pages each, and two teachers'
books designed to provide homework and practice material for Years 7 to 9 as a
supplement to any mainstream course. Books 1 to 3 are targeted at NC Levels 3 to 5
but contain some harder, extension work. Each book is organised in 16 or 17 units,
each unit having a common format beginning with ‘Key Ideas’ − a reminder of the
basic facts and skills needed for that section − followed by about 15 questions which
are split, in turn, into three sections ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. ‘A’ questions are described as
‘straightforward and are intended to ensure confidence’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ questions ‘are
more challenging’. Most units also have a set of 3 or 4 extension questions at the
end of the book intended to ‘challenge knowledge and understanding further’. A
very nice touch is a glossary of terms used at the back of each book.
The aim of Maths workout is to provide a resource which is capable of being
used in a variety of ways according to the organisation and needs of the classes, with
teachers being able to select work for the pupils to take home. The authors, in the
preface to the Teacher's Book, make much play of the modern need for greater
home-school links and support, and ‘the intention has been to provide work that
could involve the help and support of someone else at home. Currently, many
homeworks tend be “more of the same” or “finish this off”; it is hoped that this
collection will allow for more focussed and appropriate tasks to be given, many
being set in a home-based context.’
Unfortunately, the Teacher's Book is simply a book of answers. The authors
have made a tilt at offering ‘Equipment Needed’ and ‘Teaching Points’ for each
section but these are minimalist to say the least and do not offer any insight beyond
such offerings as ‘There are opportunities for further discussion about different
shapes.’
The authors have tried to reflect the current trends for increased emphasis on
numeracy and numerical skills, and include many opportunities for practice and
consolidation. There has been no intention to include ‘teaching material’ − they are
what they set out to be − extra homework-type questions arranged in topics. In fact,
I could feel no sense of progression through the books 1 to 3 and think the publishers
have simply divided the whole into six, more easily managed, units.
Would I buy a kit? I can't see the need as the texts in use at present have more
than enough questions to last for homework, or I can make up some practice/
interesting/more challenging questions in direct response to the classes' immediate
grasp and progress of each lesson. The lay-out of the three books does not lend itself
to snap judgements. The homeworks would have to be planned and the appropriate
set booked out in advance. But there must be some super-teachers with advanced
skills out there who plan homeworks as well as lessons.
DAVID WHETTON
Ferndown Upper School, Dorset BH22 9EY
On target for Key Stage 3 maths: summary and practice book, by Paul Hogan
and Barbara Job. Pp. 168. £5. 1999. ISBN 0 7487 4453 3 (Stanley Thornes).
This summary and practice book has been designed to help students prepare for
the National KS3 test in Year 9. It covers the National Curriculum in 13 short topics
and includes plenty of practice questions similar to those in the tests. Each topic is
organised into levels 3-5, 6, 7 and 8 so that students can focus on their own level.
Each topic provides a summary of ‘What you need to know’ followed by a ‘Test
yourself’ exercise and a set of KS3−style practice questions, all with answers. The
first impression is very favourable − lots of colour and diagrams (not silly clip art).
The book is well organised into the usual sections of Number, Algebra, Shape Space
and Measures, and Handling Data, with four colours of pages in each section: yellow
for information, blue for simple self-tests, green for basic practice questions and
mauve for KS3-style practice questions.
I can't fault this little gem and if the school capitation doesn't allow for new
books next year, recommend it to doting parents as the perfect Easter present −
cheap, cheerful and it'll last until July at least!
DAVID WHETTON
Transforming, by ATM Working Group. Pp. 22. £4.50 (£3.60 for ATM members).
1998. ISBN 1 898611 02 5 (Association of Teachers of Mathematics).
The title of this book raises the question, ‘What is “Transforming”?’ The design
of the front cover gives an enticing clue to the content, and the reader will not be
disappointed. The choice of title is then clearly explained in the introductory
paragraph.
Also in the introduction, the authors outline what they intend to cover in the
text. It is stressed that the suggested activities do not form a complete programme,
and the additional resources and IT packages mentioned are listed comprehensively
in the appendix. This list is a useful aid to the busy teacher, helping to avoid the
frantic search for appropriate resources, which can be off-putting and can often
determine whether or not a particular concept is taught.
The main areas covered are in chapters entitled Rotating, Reflecting, Enlarging
and Combining Transformations which are themselves divided into subsections. This
makes the text very user-friendly. Exact lesson plans are not given, but the key
REVIEWS 151
teaching points for delivering the various concepts are suggested and possible
activities are described. The authors also give suggestions for further discussion and
ways to increase the pupils' knowledge, as well as extension work for groups within
the class. There is a clearly identified progression through each of the sections. This
is particularly noticeable in the last section, Combining Transformations, where the
text describes how the class teacher can expand and develop difficult ideas.
This book would encourage a teacher to enlarge his/her personal knowledge of
transformations. All aspects covered in the text are only touched upon in most
mathematics schemes at this level and, in my experience, for many children this is
not enough for them to acquire full understanding. This book gives a starting point
for development of a complementary programme.
If teachers become familiar with the recommended software packages and time
allows, this text would be an ideal resource to aid delivery of this topic.
JACQUELlNE G. ROBERTSON
John Logie Baird Primary School, Helensburgh G84 9EP
Calculator maths, by Alan Graham and Barrie Galpin. Foundations: Pp. 56. £8.95.
1998. ISBN 0 9533 137 0 0. Number: Pp. 65. £8.95. 1998. ISBN 0 9533 137 1 9.
Algebra: Pp. 60. £8.95. 1998 ISBN 0 9533 137 2 7. Shape: Pp. 50. £8.95. 1998
ISBN 0 9533 137 3 5. Handling data: Pp. 65. £8.95. 1998 ISBN 0 9533 137 4 3.
£33.50 for the series. (A + B Books).
The series consists of five slim books, between 50 and 65 pages each, designed
for the Texas Instruments range of graphical calculators (TI-80, TI-83, and TI-82)
and is aimed at pupils aged 12 to 16. Foundations covers the basic calculator work −
use of the various keys, list handling, graphing (sic) and simple programming;
Number goes through the obvious numerical operations; Algebra includes formulas,
graphs, equations (simple, simultaneous and quadratic) and inequalities; Shape
incorporates perimeters, areas and volumes, Pythagoras, similarity, loci, circles and
elementary trig; Handling data uses the random number generator to look at
probability, frequencies, bar charts, histograms, line graphs, scatter diagrams and
lines of best fit. Each area of mathematics is covered by several worked examples
with explicit and very clear instructions for using the TI calculator key stroke by key
stroke. The books are a perfect marriage of showing how easily mathematics can be
done with a suitable calculator and, at the same time, demonstrating the full range of
use of the TI graphical calculators. The only drawback is that they are so model-
dependent. I tried a few pages out on my trusty Casio fx-something-or-other and
couldn't get past ‘Set the Mode button to 4’ or ‘6 STO> ALPHA A’. The series
cannot be used for anything other than the TI-80, TI-83, and TI-82 as the instructions
in every question are so specific.
If you do have the right kit, then the series certainly covers all the functions
although many of them are a bit contrived − for example, simple equations are not
exactly equations − you put in the number first and do the operations then try to
guess what number you entered in the first place! Simultaneous equations are done
graphically, of course, as are quadratics; similarity of shapes is simply an exercise in
plotting points. However, a graphical calculator makes short work of all aspects of
handling data and number work, and the books do them well.
I don't see the series being used to teach all the aspects of the national
curriculum but more as explorations exciting pupils' interest preceding more explicit
work. Ideally, calculator work should encourage pupils to ask more questions rather
than provide answers and, in this sense, the books are too prescriptive in their
instructions, killing adventure rather than encouraging it. Of course, the authors have
had an up-hill struggle anyway, as any of us trying to use graphics calculators in the
classroom will tell − they're damn hard, rarely give the right result and actually
detract from the mathematics in question! Now, where's the chalk?
DAVID WHETTON
Basic mathematics skills: revision and practice, by A. Ledsham and M. E.
Wardle. Pp. 376. £10.00. 1998. ISBN 0 19 914704 3 (Oxford University Press).
Now this is the sort of mathematics textbook I always wanted to write. Millions
of examples, all of a practical and realistic nature covering everything in basic
number work including handling data and shape and space set in ‘everyday’
applications.
‘Basic mathematics skills has been written to provide a sound foundation in
basic skills specifically aimed at those students who wish to develop the numeracy
skills that are particularly applicable to everyday life.’ Whilst the authors go on to
state that the book is aimed at students working towards City and Guilds Numeracy
and RSA Number Skills Certificates etc., I think it is also ideally suited for
Foundation and ‘Basic Skills’ students in school, both mainstream and those taking
GNVQ courses.
Each topic is introduced with a mixture of teaching points and worked examples
followed by structured and progressive exercises. Although the introductory
explanations are brief, I think the book could equally be used by the independent
learner either as a source book or as a very useful revision guide. There is the
mandatory answers section at the back, something I personally loathe, and there are
no past exam-type questions, but I can't imagine a better basic skills (née arithmetic
and mensuration) book for both individual and class use. When I reviewed one or
two of the other books in the series GCSE mathematics: revision and practice, I had
the impression that they had been quickly cobbled together by Oxford from older
texts, but Basic mathematics skills has a fresh, new feel to it that is immediately
engaging. Highly recommended.
DAVID WHETTON
Oxford mathematics: Foundation GCSE, by Jim Kirkby, Peter McGuire, Derek
Philpott and Ken Smith. Pp. 400. £13.00. 1998. ISBN 0 19 914717 5.
Oxford mathematics: Intermediate GCSE, by Sue Briggs, Peter McGuire, Derek
Philpott, Susan Shilton and Ken Smith. Pp. 414. £13. 1997. ISBN 0 19 914694 2.
Oxford mathematics: Higher GCSE, by Sue Briggs, Peter McGuire, Derek
Philpott, Susan Shilton and Ken Smith. Pp. 416. £13.00; 1998 ISBN 0 19 914707 8
(Oxford University Press).
Each of the three Oxford mathematics GCSE books provides a self-contained,
two-year course for GCSE mathematics aimed at Years 10 and 11. They form the
final part of the Oxford mathematics series for Years 7 to 11 which includes the
twenty-four Year 7 and 8 topic books and the Year 9 Link books.
Each of the books is written with a view to organised learning − a fairly rare
and very refreshing approach − and uses some innovative ideas. Firstly, the index is
at the front and for each topic there are four references − the main section, its review,
practice and, finally, where it appears in any exam questions at the end of the book.
The second most striking feature is the intelligent use of full colour − blue panels for
REVIEWS 153
‘Starting Points’ (information and skills needed before starting a new section),
yellow panels for learning, occasional red text that links with other sections and blue
text for harder work.
Each section starts with a ‘need-to-know’ panel followed by highlighted
information and worked examples, a fair number of exercises and, finally, a review
in which each question has its skill cross-referenced. From time to time there is a
‘Skills Break’ − an extended piece of work based on a single, real life situation (for
example, a day trip to Paris) utilising all the different skills learnt so far − and ‘End
Points’ − a longer, basic revision exercise which is, again, cross-referenced. And if
that is not enough practice, there are about five, straightforward, major revision
sections with about 50 questions each!
There are one or two little niggles of course − irritating typing errors in algebra
and fractions; trigonometrical ratios being initially defined as OPP/HYP etc. then
having to be redefined for ratios of all angles; and some foundation work missing
from the Higher book which often jumps in with only higher work. But on the
whole this is an excellent set of books which should be attractive and interesting for
pupils without having fallen into the popularist trap.
On the flyleaf there is a free hotline number (0800 318245), a call to which
resulted in the overnight delivery of a very useful pack giving details of how the
whole series links together and even an analysis of every exam board's syllabus
statements against page numbers in the GCSE books. Organised learning and
teaching − now there's a winning formula!
DAVID WHETTON
Improve your maths! A refresher course, by Gordon Bancroft and Mike Fletcher.
Pp. 206. £11.95. 1998. ISBN 0 201 331306 (Addison-Wesley).
I quote from the preface: ‘This book aims to help all students who intend to start
or who have already started a course in business studies, the social sciences or other
subject areas that require a student to be reasonably numerate …. It can be used both
as an introductory text before a course begins and throughout a course wherever a
particular mathematical skill or concept causes difficulty. Individuals who are not
students, but who wish to develop numeracy skills vital to everyday life, may also
find this text a valuable aid.’ The chapter headings are: Arithmetic Operations;
Fractions and Decimals; Percentages and Ratios; Powers and Roots; Tables; Charts;
Co-ordinates; Graphs; Averages; Spread; Correlation; Probability; Simple Algebra;
Linear Equations; Simultaneous Equations; Quadratic Equations. Each chapter
begins with a statement of objectives, e.g. Chapter 2: ‘After reading this chapter you
should be able: to express a fraction in its simplest form; to add, subtract, multiply
and divide fractions; … (etc) …’. The text follows the usual routine of introductory
explanation, worked examples, and exercises. Basic definitions, formulae, and
techniques are labelled ‘Key Point’ and enclosed in a box.
All is very clearly set out in much detail. Although the book is intended for self-
study, there are places where a guiding hand might be helpful − e.g. to those
unfamiliar with it, the use of Σ notation in the statistics sections could be off-putting.
The book is purely practical: virtually no attempt is made to prove or justify
anything: e.g. a0 = 1 is taken almost for granted, some attempt to explain the
notation a−n is made, but (say) the formulae for the roots of a quadratic or for
calculating standard deviations are just stated. It is assumed that a calculator will be
used for all but the simplest arithmetical operations, and moreover that a fairly
sophisticated one is available, as reference is made to the use of an a bc key for

calculations with vulgar fractions and to xy and x1/y keys for powers and roots. There
is no geometry at all, nor any trigonometry − in fact a better title for the book would
have been ‘Improve your numeracy!’! Answers are given to all the exercises, and
there is an index. Although we read in the preface: ‘It is important to realize that to
understand a piece of mathematics fully requires considerable application by
attempting and successfully completing a number of examples and exercises’, I
consider that, as with so many modern texts, compared with those of earlier days, the
provision of examples is rather meagre. The text is enlivened with a few reasonably
amusing cartoons.
It will be clear from my description that this is not a book for the would-be
mathematician, but for those who need to know about and use basic techniques and
are scared of the subject or lacking in confidence, it could be quite a useful guide.
A. ROBERT PARGETER
STP National Curriculum mathematics 10B, by L. Bostock, S. Chandler, A.
Shepherd, E Smith. Pp. 426. £12.00. 1999. ISBN 0 7487 3191 1 (Stanley Thornes).
The STP National Curriculum mathematics series is designed for secondary
school students working at Higher and Intermediate levels. The books are helpfully
numbered by year group, starting at book 7, and in two, parallel series, A for Higher
and B for Intermediate students. That, however, is about as good as it gets.
It might be that I was in poor humour at the end of a very busy term. It might
be that I had just reviewed one of the best of the new breed of school texts (the
Oxford mathematics series). Whatever the reason, this book just doesn't appeal and
is exactly the sort of mathematics text book that has put off generations of ‘normal’
people (defined as those not being totally mad about mathematics). It presents a dry,
featureless landscape with vast acres devoid of scenery to trudge through but one in
which the traveller fears he or she will soon get bogged down. Even the words are
negative − on the random page open at the moment introducing an exercise on
Pythagoras' Theorem we read ‘For the problems in this exercise … in most cases this
will involve adding a line. You will also need to know how to find the areas of
squares, rectangles, parallelograms and trapeziums.’ (my italics). And this before
you start. I can just picture Marcus telling me to ‘get a life Mr. W.’
From a teaching point of view I could see little organisation of learning in the
layout of the chapters. For example, we have this sequence of topics: formulas −
length, area and volume − enlargement − straight line graphs − similar figures −
changing the subject of a formula; and there seems no logic to the placing of
summary sections throughout the book which, in themselves, imply there is a
sequence to be followed. Sadly, in the introduction, the authors write to the pupil
‘Mathematics is an exciting and enjoyable subject.’ Not in this book it ain't.
DAVID WHETTON
Oxford revision guides GCSE : mathematics through diagrams, by Andrew
Edmondson. Pp. 128. £9.00. 1998. ISBN 0 19 914708 6 (Oxford University Press).
The introductory pages of this revision guide give a very full explanation of the
courses and examining bodies that pupils may encounter within the GCSE structure.
The introduction also has four pages that offer excellent advice and tips on how to
study, plan and prepare for examinations at all levels.
REVIEWS 155
The revision notes and questions in the book aim to cover all syllabuses,
examining bodies and levels within the structure. Notes and questions aimed at
pupils sitting the Higher level of the GCSE are marked with an H , but pupils who
are sitting exams at a Foundation or Intermediate tier may require assistance from a
teacher to highlight appropriate course content and suitable revision questions.
The main contents of the textbook are well-structured and presented with clear
explanations and examples. It must be emphasised however, that other revision texts
will be required to give full practice at examination questions as there are not enough
in this book. Fully worked solutions for the examination questions can be found at
the back, together with a formula sheet and a full index for quick topic and subject
reference.
Although this is a revision guide for pupils, I feel that they would gain most
benefit from using the book if they first have the aid of a teacher at a ‘study skills’
class, ensuring it is not read from cover to cover but used for reference to strengthen
knowledge. The book may therefore be better as a school resource given out before
exam time rather than as an individual pupil purchase.
CHRISTlNE HUNTER
Garnock Academy, Kilbirnie, Ayrshire KA25 7AX
Practice for advanced mathematics: pure mathematics, by K. M. Morley.
Pp. 244. £9.99. 1999. ISBN 0 340 70167 6 (Hodder & Stoughton).
Practice for advanced mathematics provides a bank of graded questions which
covers most of the post-2000 A level common core. Like its companion volumes in
mechanics and statistics, it is envisaged that the questions will mainly be used to
consolidate classroom understanding rather than for unsupported self-study, although
key points and worked examples are provided for those wanting to use it for revision
purposes. The exercises range from routine to A level standard: it is worth noting
that all are newly written rather than recycled and that there is a good blend of
calculator/non-calculator questions. The twelve chapters are organised thematically:
Algebra − Trigonometry − Coordinate Geometry and Functions − Differentiation −
Integration − Numerical Methods. This is a sensible response to what seems to be an
axiomatic fact of life: given any teacher, any textbook and any class, teaching order
≠ chapter order ≠ revision order! (When challenged about this by students, I mimic
Eric Morecombe's immortal reply to André Previn, ‘I am playing the right notes, but
not necessarily in the right order!’)
There are a few typos (such as transpositions of letters and non-italicised
variables) and a bizarre misprint on page 10 which seems to imply that all logarithms
are rational numbers. From a personal standpoint, I found the author's style rather
staccato and the pace, in places, uneven. In particular, while recognising that this is
not a conventional textbook, I did miss some of the commentary from the classroom
that supplies the glue to make the key points and methodology of the worked
examples really stick. I also had a few qualms about the syllabus coverage: there are
some variations in the content of the core-covering pure modules of the various post-
2000 specifications but no questions included here on the factor formulae, the form
a cos θ + b sin θ , the general binomial expansion, harder curve sketching (with
asymptotes and behaviour at infinity) and vectors. These though are minor quibbles:
this book merits a wide circulation − it is the sort of no-nonsense course companion
that I suspect a lot of us A level teachers would have liked to have got around to
writing!
NICK LORD
Practice for advanced mathematics: statistics, by Alan Smith. Pp. 188. £9.99.
1998. ISBN 0 340 70165 X (Hodder & Stoughton).
This book is primarily an extensive bank of practice questions (with answers)
serving the needs of AS/A level candidates either as a course support text or as a
revision aid. It is worth emphasising straightaway that the exercises are the book's
great strength: they are inventive, well-structured (being graded A, B, C where A are
single-skill questions and C are essentially A level questions) and notably fresh − the
author has resisted any urge to recycle old examination questions. Coverage extends
as far as hypothesis tests for two means, χ2-tests and the non-parametric sign and
Wilcoxon tests. Perhaps it is ‘top of the syllabus heavy’: I was surprised not to find
coding/pooling for means/variances, counting problems, or non-polynomial
probability density function questions. Each set of exercises is prefaced by a well-
chosen collection of worked examples: these are clearly set out in a friendly style
using ‘bubbles’ for reminders. Less successful to my eyes were the ‘Key point’
summaries: these are very thin and their very baldness tends to magnify lapses and
highlight omissions. For example, taking variance = Σx2 / n − ¯x2 as a definition
struck me as eccentric; the probability summary only really covers conditional
probability; there is an unfortunate discrete/continuous transposition near the top of
p. 28; and both the statement of the Central Limit Theorem (p. 86) and the definition
of a confidence interval (p. 90) are much too sloppy. And I always like to mention
the equation of a Normal distribution (to bring home that it is not any old bell-shaped
distribution!) and the fact that Spearman's rank is precisely the product moment
correlation coefficient for the rankings. To balance these gripes, the book is
excellent on protocols for hypothesis testing, the ‘big three’ distributions and their
mutual approximations, niggly details (such as continuity corrections, Yates, and
modelling assumptions for bivariate analysis) and the summary on Data Presentation
(including an inventive ‘spot the errors’ exercise) has gone straight into my teaching
file.
Overall then, a well-organised compendium of fresh, bread-and-butter statistics
questions which I could see as being particularly valuable in conjunction with a
modular series of texts where (with zealous or resitting candidates) it is all too easy
to run out of questions. But do check carefully against your own syllabus
requirements: you may find some surprises.
NICK LORD
Practice for advanced mathematics: mechanics, by Peter Nunn and David
Simmons. Pp. 212. £9.99. 1998. ISBN 0 340 70166 8 (Hodder & Stoughton).
This book supplies a comprehensive bank of practice questions to support an
AS/A level course in mechanics. With the possible exceptions of light frameworks
and dimensional analysis, all topics on current ‘pure with mechanics’ syllabuses are
covered, including variable acceleration, non-uniform circular motion, oblique
impact, calculus methods for Centre of Mass and SHM; the coverage is notably
thorough on motion in 2 dimensions and energy, work, power, momentum, impulse
and impacts. The questions are crisp, sharply focused and workman-like; they are
usefully graded A, B, C in terms of increasing difficulty and sophistication. In
particular, the C grade questions are not just recycled past examination questions, but
some arguably do have a rather dated feel relative to some recent syllabus
innovations.
The exercise sets are supplemented by worked examples and summaries of key
points: these are brisk and contribute to my personal hunch that some of the text may
REVIEWS 157
be a shade ambitious for the average student, for whom arguably the greatest hurdles
are the initial stages such as coping with vectors, setting up force diagrams,
formulating equations and matching mathematics to physical intuition. I noticed one
or two oddities: a rearranged equation on p. 7 should read v − u = at and the
highlighted tangential acceleration on p. 118 should be rθ¨ ; also s = vt − 12 at 2 is not
mentioned but 2a.r = v2 − u2 is, although the scalar product is nowhere defined or
used!
The teaching of mechanics tends to excite strong passions and Gazette readers
may have views about some of the authors' decisions such as to treat projectiles
entirely vectorially, to tend to leave g in equations until numerical evaluation at the
end, to use exclusively modulus of elasticity (and not stiffness) in Hooke's Law and,
on occasions, to suppress forces from force diagrams if they are not needed in the
analysis. But the book's undoubted strength is in its outstanding collection of well-
constructed exercises: these will almost certainly cover your syllabus needs and
usefully augment areas in which some of the recent modular texts are apt to be rather
thin.
NICK LORD
Calculus mysteries and thrillers, by R. Grant Woods. Pp. 131. £16.95. 1999. ISBN
0 883 85711 1 (Mathematical Association of America).
Calculus mysteries and thrillers is a collection of 11 problems suitable for
student projects. Each problem is introduced by means of a short story and the
projects take the form of a report to be prepared for a particular purpose. In effect,
the student is put in the position of a mathematical consultant reporting to a client.
The projects are classified as easy, moderate or difficult, though the term is
relative. For example, ‘The Case of the Swivelling Spotlight’ is described as difficult
‘because it is likely to be assigned early in a course’, though the mathematics
involved (tangents, normals and Newton-Raphson applied to a cubic) is within the
scope of an A level student. Indeed, most of the projects can be solved with A level
mathematics, the exceptions being three that require knowledge of arc-length or
surface of revolution and one that involves an application of the intermediate value
theorem. However, given the difficulties that students tend to experience when asked
to apply recently learned knowledge, some might prefer to use the problems in the
first year of a university course.
Model solutions, written in the style appropriate to the context, are provided for
all eleven problems. The publishers give permission for purchasers to copy the
projects for their students, so a mathematics department could legitimately buy a
single copy. This excellent classroom resource represents excellent value for money.
STEVE ABBOTT
Understanding statistics, by Graham Upton and Ian Cook. Pp. 657. £18.50. 1997.
ISBN 0 19 914391 9 (Oxford University Press).
Understanding statistics is designed to cover all A level syllabi and also to be
suitable for introductory statistics courses at university level. It is a large book and is
very comprehensive in its content. It has plenty of exercises, both single topic and
miscellaneous exercises at the end of each section. Answers to the exercises are
provided.
The book is well written and easy to read, with lots of helpful asides and notes.
There is a useful glossary of notation at the front. The layout is clear and easy to
understand. However, the authors aimed to produce more than just a comprehensive
introductory statistics course. In their introduction they say: ‘The purpose of this
book is to present a wide range of essential statistical ideas in a simple and (we hope)
enjoyable fashion. If a user of the book does not derive the tiniest bit of pleasure
from some part of the book then we will be disappointed (but there will be no cash
refunds).’ In order to fulfil this aim, they have provided historical notes and used
historical examples in some of the exercises. These are interesting. I enjoyed
looking at historical examples of graphs. These included graphs by Florence
Nightingale and a graphical record of Bonaparte's march to Moscow. I also found
out why a regression line is called a ‘regression’ line. Where historical examples are
not readily available for the exercises, the writers have introduced some light-hearted
questions to provide some variety. For example, one of the basic probability
questions begins: ‘A class of 100 students comprises a group of 40 people called
“idiots” and a group of 60 called “complete idiots” . . . . . .’ !
I am finding this a very useful book to have. The measure of enjoyment I get
from reading the book is to be found in how often I am distracted from the section I
am supposed to be looking at, because something interesting has caught my eye.
This happens quite a lot!
I think every statistics teacher should have a copy of this book. For those who
cannot afford this book for their pupils, the authors have produced a slightly shorter
version Introducing statistics for only £12.50 which was reviewed in the Gazette 83
(November 1999) p. 550.
H. MASON
Madras College, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9EJ
The art and craft of problem solving, by Paul Zeitz. Pp. 280. £19.99. 1999. ISBN
0 471 13571 2 (Wiley).
Those who enjoy good problems − either for themselves or for their students −
will welcome this book. The first half contains four chapters on generalities (‘What
this book is about and how to read it’, ‘Strategies for investigating problems’,
‘Fundamental tactics for solving problems’, ‘Three important crossover tactics’); the
second half has four topic oriented chapters (on Algebra, Combinatorics, Number
theory, and Calculus). Each chapter contains dozens of problems suitable for
interested students in their last two years at school, or in undergraduate courses with
a problem solving theme.
However the book claims not only to contain lots of good problems, but to
introduce the reader to ‘The art and craft of problem solving’. This is a bold claim,
and I shall examine it on two levels.
First, any mathematician who loves good problems and who sees how they can
be used to catch the imagination and to motivate hard work in their students is bound
to look for ways of sharing such problems with a wider audience.
In a culture with a rich problem solving tradition among students and teachers it
may sometimes suffice simply to print lists of problems − structured by topic, or by
approximate level of difficulty. ‘But most people don't grow up in [such a] problem
solving culture’ (Preface, page x). Lacking such a culture, the prospective author
needs a framework within which this rich material can be presented, and through
which students and teachers can be tempted to try more of the problems than they
otherwise might. Hence, some such context is certainly needed. In this instance, the
approach chosen by the author has allowed him to structure the problems he
REVIEWS 159
presents, and so to improve the likely impact of the book. As long as readers expect
no more than this, and are prepared to work on a relatively high level, they will not
be disappointed.
However, the title appears to promise rather more than this. As the new century
dawns it may be worth taking this opportunity to look back over recent attempts to
make the ‘craft of problem solving’ something which can be explicitly taught.
Every good mathematics teacher has to coordinate two conflicting features of
mathematics. First, most worthwhile activity depends on using good problems − that
is, problems that can be relatively easily understood, but whose solution is far from
obvious, leading the would-be solver into unexpected territory. Second, good
problems of this kind are by their nature unpredictable, and so are generally
perceived as being ‘too hard’ for most students.
One way of resolving this conflict is to restrict the mass of ordinary students to
a more predictable diet of routine ‘exercises’. This has the unfortunate effect of
presenting mathematics as a kind of over-processed mental pap − with all the
interesting (and hence problematic) tastes, spices and lumps removed, and with
nothing left for students to really chew on. When such students meet real food, their
mental digestive systems cannot adapt, and they are left to pick at the pieces in an
unsatisfying and ineffective way.
In recent years there have been, at all levels, attempts whose declared
motivation was to break with this perceived tradition. Primary schools have
encouraged exploration; secondary curricula and examinations have included
investigation and problem solving − both as part of the routine diet and as assessed
coursework − and universities and teacher training courses have developed modules
which focus on the ‘process’ of solving problems.
At first sight such moves appear attractive. However, much of this work has
been rooted in optimism or ideology (e.g. ‘key skills’) rather than in any serious
pedagogical or didactical framework. Rhetoric has regularly outpaced reality, and
the outcome has often been to reduce potentially rich problem solving activity to
something strangely similar to (but less useful than) the ‘predictable diet of routine
exercises’ it was meant to replace. Faced with a very difficult task, and lacking any
effective didactical framework, students, teachers and examiners have naturally been
forced to make the task more manageable. In the process they have often
misrepresented the mathematical character of the problems used, and have replaced
the elusive nature of the problem solving process by a more predictable ritual (‘Make
a table; try a few simple cases; etc.’) whose main virtue is that it can be taught and
assessed.
Such degeneration is not necessary. Videos of ordinary mathematics lessons in
other countries show how one can develop a didactically precise way of using hard
problems to motivate the development and application of routine techniques.
Lacking such a framework, the best we can often do to keep the flame of
mathematics alive is to ensure that students have the experience of struggling to
solve good problems.
In mathematics, insight and confidence can only be bought at a price. Euclid,
when asked to recommend a short-cut to wisdom, is credited with the reply: ‘there is
no royal road to geometry’. And when Gauss was asked how he achieved his
profound insights, he replied that if others would think on things as long and as hard
as he did himself, they could not fail to achieve similar insights. Most of the
problems presented and discussed in this book are entirely consistent with this
message. And as long as the author's chosen framework is perceived as a light-
hearted way of encouraging his readers to travel further along this path than they
otherwise would, little harm will be done. But it is important to realise that the title
means no more than this.
The level of pedagogical sophistication is visible already in the Preface (page
ix): ‘The average (non-problem solver) math student is like someone who goes to the
gym three times a week to do lots of repetitions with low weights on various exercise
machines. In contrast the problem solver goes on a long, hard backpacking trip.
Both people get stronger. The problem solver gets hot, cold, wet, tired and hungry.
The problem solver gets lost, and has to find his or her way. The problem solver
gets blisters ... .’; and again on page 5 ‘Some branches of mathematics have very
long histories, with many standard symbols and words. Problem solving is not one
of them. We use the terms “strategy”, “tactics” and “tools” to denote three different
levels of problem solving.’ Such details are not only harmless, but − for those who
are not already committed problem solvers − can provide welcome packaging
between successive bouts of exertion. However, when the author seeks to develop
his private psychology of solving problems as part of some universal ‘art and craft of
problem solving’, this reviewer regularly lost patience. The overall strategy is too
often naive (‘Anything that stimulates investigation is good’ (page 29)); and when
the author attempts to motivate solutions which might elude the beginner, the
motivation is sometimes harder to swallow than the solution being motivated (e.g.
page 7).
Such idiosyncratic details are an inevitable feature of courses taught by
individuals − and can contribute to their appeal. But a book whose main title
promises so much should be more than a printed version of such a course. So buy
the book for problems to solve − but be prepared to take the advertised ‘art and craft
of problem solving’ with a pinch of salt.
TONY GARDINER
77 Farquhar Rd, Birmingham B15 2QP
A primer of abstract algebra, by Robert B. Ash. Pp. 181. £19.95. 1998. ISBN 0
883 85708 1 (Mathematical Association of America).
It has often been remarked that there is a considerable difference between the
mathematics studied at school and that met in an undergraduate course. Many
students find it difficult to cope with the abrupt leap in abstraction. This book is
designed to precede first courses in abstract algebra and analysis, and so ease the
transition.
The material included is well-chosen, though the title suggests a much broader
range of topics than is actually included. Vector spaces are the only algebraic
structure covered in any depth, for example. The exposition follows the definition-
theorem-proof style typical of more advanced texts, but includes plenty of discussion
of ideas to sweeten the pill. Each chapter has a number of exercises to which
solutions are provided in an appendix.
There are six chapters, beginning with Logic and Foundations, which introduces
truth tables, quantifiers, proofs, sets, functions and relations. The next two chapters
deal with numbers: first in the sense of counting and countability, then via some
basic number theory. The latter chapter includes the Euclidean algorithm, unique
factorisation, congruences and Diophantine equations, including the Chinese
remainder theorem. The opportunity is taken to define algebraic structures such as
groups, rings and fields, with the integers modulo n serving as examples. Fermat's
little theorem is given as a corollary of Euler's theorem. The chapter ends with a
REVIEWS 161
section defining the Möbius function and linking it with Euler's φ function.
Chapter 4 returns to the theme of sets and the thorny issues of the well-ordering
principle, Zorn's lemma and the axiom of choice. The last two chapters are devoted
to a more extensive study of vector spaces and linear operators. Though the
definitions are given in terms of arbitrary fields, the examples are mostly set in rn.
Chapter 5 covers linear independence, change of basis, inner product spaces and
eigenvalues. By the last chapter we are well beyond anything a student is likely to
have met at school. Jordan canonical form, normal and self-adjoint operators are
introduced leading to proofs of the Cayley-Hamilton Theorem and the spectral
theorems. The existence proof for Jordan canonical form is given in the last section,
but readers are advised to skip it on a first reading.
Although it was written with American students in mind, this primer follows on
rather neatly from English A level mathematics courses, and is therefore well worth
a look. The book could be used as the basis of an introductory course for first year
undergraduates or for pre-course reading. Very able school students might find the
first four or five chapters useful in preparation for Olympiads.
STEVE ABBOTT
Probability and random variables: a beginner's guide, by David Stirzaker.
Pp. 368. £16.95 (paperback) £45.00 (hardback). 1999. ISBN 0 521 64445 3
paperback) ISBN 0 521 64297 3 (hardback) (Cambridge University Press).
‘Probability is the only branch of mathematics in which good mathematicians
frequently get results which are entirely wrong.’ This quote, from C. S. Pierce, is
typical of the many true and entertaining remarks that occur in this fine book. The
case of Paul Erdõs, who was wrong about the Monty Hall problem, discussed on
page 84, might have been mentioned (The man who loved only numbers, Paul
Hoffman. 1998 London: Fourth Estate). Wrong results would be reduced if the
mathematician had read this clear exposition of the basic concepts of mathematical
probability and random variables. Continuous distributions naturally need some
calculus, but otherwise the prerequisites are modest and clearly explained at the
beginning of each chapter. After introductory material concerned with the nature of
probability, rather than its mathematics, there is a chapter on the rules of probability,
which are then applied to counting and gambling. The first part concludes with a
chapter on distributions. Part two deals with random variables in both discrete and
continuous cases and concludes with a chapter on generating functions. There are
many examples, most of which are both mathematically interesting and of practical
relevance. There are numerous exercises, with hints and solutions provided for
most.
The most impressive feature is the clarity of the writing. The author has the
ability to proceed carefully and at length yet, at the same time, is not boring. It is
difficult to introduce humour into a mathematical text, yet here there are several
delightful touches that enliven what could easily become dull, repetitive logic.
Historical references also add to the interest. It is one of the most impressive
introductions to the theory of probability, explaining the basic concepts and
developing them to the point where the results are interesting, yet not to where they
become obscure or difficult. As an introduction for a mathematician to probability,
it has rarely been bettered.
It does have its limitations, for its primary, and intended, emphasis is on the
theory, so that the practice is principally confined to the many excellent examples
and exercises. For example, suppose you are presented with the usual die with six
faces; then there is a difference between your belief that it will show a 6, say, when
reasonably tossed, and the frequency of 6's in a long series of similar tosses. In a
classic experiment, Weldon had a belief of 1/6 but the frequency exceeded this
value. In presenting probability as frequency, the author does restrict the application
of his topic, in particular to statistical questions. He fortunately does not show the
snobbishness towards statistics that is common amongst probabilists, except when he
suggest we statisticians are labourers (page 214); this in connection with the aptly-
named law of the unconscious statistician. It is unreasonable to criticise an author
for omitting something it was not intended to cover, but some criticism might be
levelled at his failure to distinguish between continuity and its stricter form, absolute
continuity. The treatment of independence for more than two events is cursory,
though at least the definition is correct. Although he quotes Jeffreys ‘probability is a
function of two propositions’ he often fails to recognize this. The justification for
expectation is not convincing.
These are but minor blemishes to set against the genuine achievement of writing
a clear, and interesting, introduction to mathematical probability that all involved in
teaching at sixth-form, or first-year undergraduate, levels should look at.
Remarkably, even the ‘blurb’ does not exaggerate.
D. V. LINDLEY
Woodstock, Quay Lane, Minehead TA24 5QU
Bernhard Riemann 1826 − 1866: turning points in the conception of
mathematics, by Detlef Laugwitz, translated by Abe Shenitzer. Pp. 357. SFr148.
1999. ISBN 3 7643 4040 1 (Birkhäuser).
Riemann, topology and physics (2nd edition), by Michael Monastyrsky, translated
by Roger Cooke. Pp. 215. SFr98. 1999. ISBN 3 7643 3789 3 (Birkhäuser).
In his short mathematical career, Riemann made important contributions to real
and complex analysis, analytic number theory, geometry, topology and mathematical
physics. His name is associated with the Riemann Hypothesis, the Riemann integral
and Riemannian geometry. Many developments in modern mathematics are related
to Riemann's mathematics.
The two books under review complement each other nicely. In his book, Detlef
Laugwitz describes the work of Riemann and of many other nineteenth century
mathematicians and argues that Riemann was responsible for a major change in
mathematical culture. Michael Monastyrsky devotes more space to Riemann's life,
but then switches to an account of twentieth century developments in topology and
physics that can be traced back to Riemann.
Laugwitz has structured his book to bring out the revolutionary nature of
Riemann's contributions to mathematics. The first three chapters (numbered 0 to 2)
cover Riemann's life, his work on complex analysis and number theory, and his
contributions to real analysis. Chapter three has sections on Riemann's geometry,
physics and philosophy. In each of these chapters the author describes at some length
the situation in the years before and after Riemann's own work. In this way, he
throws Riemann's efforts into relief, allowing the reader to appreciate the scale of the
changes in mathematical thinking in the mid-nineteenth century.
In the final chapter, Turning Points in the Conception of Mathematics, Laugwitz
discusses some of the ‘paradigm shifts’ in mathematical thinking and suggests that
Riemann's importance in this respect has hitherto been overlooked by many
commentators. He constructs an argument based on historical evidence from
REVIEWS 163
Riemann's own papers and the writings of others such as Dedekind, Cantor and
Hilbert. He identifies a number of turning points where he considers Riemann's ideas
to have been influential and proposes a unifying theme: that Riemann worked
conceptually, seeking to understand ideas in preference to the algorithmic thinking of
his contemporaries. In this respect Riemann helped change the way mathematicians
operate.
The extensive background material that Laugwitz has marshalled to support his
main thesis also serves as an excellent general account of the development of
mathematics in the nineteenth century.
Monastyrsky first wrote a biography of Riemann because there was nothing
available in Russian. He also wrote a separate book on topological themes in modern
physics. Both were so well received that they were translated into English and
published together in 1987, with some updating of the work on topology and
physics. The primary purpose of the second edition is to further update this second
section. The biographical section of around 80 pages is largely unchanged, and
remains an excellent account of Riemann's life and mathematics.
Since the Russian edition was published, mathematical physics has moved on.
Monastyrsky can (and does) congratulate himself on foreseeing the continued vitality
of this field, and now updates his account. He describes a variety of ways in which
topology and physics have developed through the interaction of shared concepts. He
deals with symmetry breaking, liquid crystals, gauge fields, instantons, solitons,
knots and braids, and the future. The whole area is noted for the difficulty of the
mathematics and resists attempts to give a description for the lay-person. However,
Monastyrsky does achieve a description that can be appreciated by mathematically
well-informed readers such as the readers of the Gazette.
Both books are important for anyone who wants to understand how mathematics
changes its nature over the years.
STEVE ABBOTT
La correspondance entre Henri Poincaré et Gösta Mittag-Leffler, Présentée et
annotée par Philippe Nabonnand. Pp. 421. SFr228. 1999. ISBN 3 7643 5992 7
(Birkhäuser).
Mittag-Leffler (1846-1927) and Poincaré (1854-1912) corresponded regularly
from 1881 to 1911, when Mittag-Leffler retired. Following his graduation, in 1872,
from Uppsala University in Sweden, Mittag-Leffler studied with Hermite in Paris
and attended lectures by Weierstrass in Berlin before settling in Helsingfors. In 1882,
newly installed as a Professor at the Högskola in Stockholm, he founded the journal
Acta Mathematica. Hermite alerted Mittag-Leffer to the talents of his students
Appell, Picard and Poincaré, with the result that Poincaré contributed a number of
lengthy papers to the first few issues of the journal.
Poincaré had attended the Ecole Polytechnique and the Ecole des Mines before
achieving his doctorate in 1879. He spent two years at the University of Caen before
moving to the University of Paris in 1881. He is considered by some to be the last
man whose interests encompassed the whole of the mathematics of his time.
This book is a publication of the Archives Henri-Poincaré, the first in a planned
series of four volumes of Poincaré's correspondence. It collects 259 letters that
passed between the two mathematicians. Most are held at the Mittag-Leffler Institute
and all are written in French. Many of them are quite short, particularly in the later
years, but some have a substantial mathematical content. The editor, Phillipe
Nabonnand, has annotated the letters to provide much background detail and many
references to the works of other mathematicians of the period. In many cases the
annotations are longer than the letters. A few letters that passed between Poincaré
and Fredhom, Gyldén and Phragmén are collected in appendices.
In the first letter of this collection Mittag-Leffler seeks information about
Poincaré's work on automorphic functions. Poincaré's first two papers in Acta
Mathematica concerned Fuchsian functions, a particular class of automorphic
functions.
The book contains a substantial bibliography and a list of names, and
Nabonnand has written a 26 page introduction which includes much biographical
information about Mittag-Leffler as well as Poincaré. However, for most historians
of mathematics the interest will lie in the letters themselves. As well as being
primary historical sources for those interested in the two correspondents and their
fields of mathematics, the letters shed light on other aspects of scientific life at the
turn of the twentieth century.
The second volume in the series will cover Poincaré's correspondence with
physicists, the third his correspondence with other mathematicians and the fourth his
private and administrative letters.
STEVE ABBOTT
Mathematics and mathematicians: mathematics in Sweden before 1950, by Lars
Gårding. Pp. 288. 1998. $75. ISBN 0 8218 0612 2 (American Mathematical Society/
London Mathematical Society).
In this book, which he dedicates to Swedish mathematicians, the distinguished
analyst Lars Gårding gives an in-depth chronological account of the history of
mathematics in Sweden. This is largely a tale of three university centres Uppsala
(founded in 1477), Lund (1668) and Stockholm (1880); (moreover, with just half-a-
dozen mathematics professors between them even early in this century, it is a story
largely driven by the talents and charisma of individuals.
Gårding only cites the work of two pre-nineteenth century mathematicians
(Klingenstierna and Bring) and the bulk of the book centres on the period 1860 to
1950 − from the birth of modern Sweden to the post-war reorganisation of its
universities. He supplies a crisp, urbane commentary with neat summaries of
background mathematical themes (in modern gloss) and an insider's sympathy for
peculiarities of Swedish academic life. One of these concerns the perils of
appointments by open committees: we learn that in 1873, Björling was preferred to
Bäcklund (of transformations fame) and that, in 1923, the experts were unable to
decide between the merits of Marcel Riesz and one Nils Zeilon! Although Gårding's
primary aim is ‘to write about the work of mathematicians for readers interested in
mathematics’, he fleshes out the mathematics with historical and biographical
details. He is not afraid to express strong opinions and his witty one-liners, together
with anecdotal quotations from archival sources, and the 40 photographs at the end
of the text serve to bring the pen-portraits to life.
Sweden was rather a mathematical backwater until the 1880s and the
appointment of Gösta Mittag-Leffler as the first professor of mathematics at the
newly-founded Stockholm University. Fired with Weierstrassian enthusiasm for the
theory of analytic functions, it was not so much his own mathematical achievements
as his energy, vision and initiative which led to him becoming an internationally
respected figure with the clout to put Swedish mathematics on the map. This was
REVIEWS 165
reflected in his founding of the journal Acta Mathematica (in the early volumes of
which Poincaré published on Fuchsian groups and Cantor on set theory), in his
promotion of the 1885 King Oscar II Prize Competition (one of the winners of which
was Poincaré on the three body problem), in his securing of the appointment of
Sonya Kovalevski to a post at Stockholm, and in his bequest of what later became
the Mittag-Leffler Institute. (There is even a linkage to more recent times: André
Weil, who died in August 1998, testified to Mittag-Leffler's nose for young
mathematical talent when he recalled how the latter, just before his death in 1927,
promised to publish his thesis (unseen and then unfinished!) in Acta.) Since then, as
Gårding puts it, Sweden has not been lacking in good mathematicians: I'll list a few
of those described together with brief reminders of their work.
Bendixon (Cantor-Bendixon theorem)
Beurling (inner/outer functions, spectral analysis)
Carleman (Carleman kernels, quasianalytic functions)
Cramer (modern probability theory) Fredholm (integral equations)
Frostman (potential theory) von Koch (snowflake curve)
Nagell (number theory) Nörlund (difference equations)
M. Riesz (conjugate functions, Riesz-Thorin theorem).
But, as Gårding rather elegiacally reflects in a postscript, the attraction of a book
such as this is not so much in the rehearsing of those names which Posterity
sanctifies but in the dusting-off of those which Time has forgotten: who now has
heard of Björling, Dillner, Falk, Malmsten, Wiman, or Gullstand (who won the 1911
Nobel Prize for Medicine)? Indeed, to share a personal reminiscence, the name
Edvard Phragmén rang a rusty bell with me from the Phragmén-Lindelöf principle
(an extension of the maximum modulus theorem to sectors). He now emerges from
the shadows first as the eagle-eyed proof-reader who detected Poincaré's serious
mistake in his initial submission for the King Oscar II Prize (the rectification of
which led Poincaré to his intimation of the possibility of chaotic behaviour of
solutions to the three body problem, [1]). He then succeeded Kovalevski as
professor at Stockholm in 1892 but (as Erdös would have put it) he ‘died’ in 1903 to
become a highly successful chief inspector of insurance!
I found this book full of such surprises and fresh insights: I can warmly
recommend both it, and the preceding twelve volumes (such as [1]) of the joint
AMS/LMS History of Mathematics series in which it takes it place.
Reference
1. June Barrow-Green, Poincaré and the three body problem, AMS/LMS (1997),
reviewed in Math. Gaz. 83 (July 1999), p. 343.
NICK LORD
The mathematics of Plato's Academy: a new reconstruction (2nd edn.), by
D. H. Fowler. Pp. 441. £60. 1999. ISBN 0 19 850258 3 (Clarendon Press).
The first edition of this book caused considerable interest, and even controversy,
from its appearance in 1987, for the author really did offer a new interpretation of
Greek mathematics, especially Euclid's Elements. The principal theses, which
concern both the mathematics itself and the available sources, may be summarised as
follows:
1) Reliable historical evidence for all ancient Greeks is scanty, and not only for
the deep past such as the Pythagoreans; for example, the provenance of the statement
over Plato's Academy ‘let no one unskilled in geometry enter’ dates only from the
+6th century, and even the reading of the word ‘geometry’ needs pondering (ch. 6).
2) The emphasis on geometry was indeed strong; the objects treated were, for
example, lines, rather than lengths upon which a manner of measuring and thereby
arithmetic has been imposed. In particular, ratios of lines have to be distinguished
from rational numbers (chs. 1-4).
3) The Euclidean algorithm led to a sophisticated theory of (say) geometrical
magnitudes and their parts (ch. 2), with especial attention in Euclid's Book 10 to
properties (including ratios) of the forms ( a + b) and ( a + b) for given
magnitudes a and b; relationships between squares and their sides was an important
motivation (ch. 5). This theory resembles that of continued fractions in arithmetic,
though not to be identified with it; but features of the latter, a curiously fugitive topic
in mathematics, can be examined (ch. 9) to improve understanding.
4) Much doubt is to be cast upon the well-known claim that the discovery of
irrational numbers caused a crisis in Greek mathematics. Apart from the distinction
between such numbers and incommensurable ratios anyway, there are good reasons
to think that the properties of the algorithms, including periodicity of the residues in
many cases, led to exciting developments (ch. 8).
5) Many of the oldest texts are written on materials such as papyrus or wood, so
that their layout and state needs to be considered in detail (ch. 6 and several plates).
So do the systems of numerals deployed, especially concerning fractions (ch. 7).
The chapter numbers given above are still valid, for the new edition does not
exhibit major remodelling. Some further plates are provided, and ch. 5 has been
rewritten; but the main addition is a new ch. 10, which focuses mainly upon theses 3)
and 4) above. The reader is now advised to start with the opening section of this new
chapter before proceeding to its predecessors; but this is not very satisfactory if (as is
likely) he is unfamiliar with the kinds of argument deployed.
Two features of the first edition have been retained where change would have
been appreciated. First, the textual references to items in the substantial
bibliography are given as, say, 'Hogendijk HTATGIG', which is an unwelcome use
of acronyms. Second and more important as an example of the dominance of
geometry, these Greek mathematicians spoke of, for example, ‘the square on the
side’ and not ‘the square of the side’, which is redolent of the multiplication of
lengths. The author's stress on this point is sabotaged by his denoting a square on
line b by the notation ‘b2’, which has been read in the other sense for centuries under
the influence of common algebra. Preferable alternative notations include ‘T (b)’,
the tetragon (or square) on b, which was adopted by E. J. Dijksterhuis in his Dutch
edition of the Elements in 1929-1930, along with similar symbols for cubes, circles,
and so on.
The summary above shows that this book is a research monograph par
excellence, and so not directly usable for mathematics teaching before a late stage in
a first-degree course. But the issues raised are of major importance in order not to
misunderstand ancient Greek mathematics, and the book deserves to play an
important role on the rewriting of general and introductory histories of mathematics.
I. GRATTAN-GUlNNESS
Middlesex University at Enfield EN3 4SF
REVIEWS 167
Geometry civilized: history, culture and technique, by J. L. Heilbron. Pp. 309.

£35. 1998. ISBN 0 19 850078 5 (Oxford University Press).
As the subtitle indicates, this beautifully produced and sumptuously illustrated
book is a multi-layered work. The mathematical canvas consists of a faithful
account of Euclid's Elements (Book I-IV and some of VI) but Heilbron embroiders
this to make a rich cultural and historical tapestry depicting the place of geometry in
the natural and man-made worlds, its traditional role in a liberal education and the
pure pleasure of geometrical problem solving. He touches on a wide spectrum of
applications − from Vedic altars to manhole covers, from native American patterns
to Gothic tracery, from the ovals used in the lay-out of St.Peter's Square, Rome to the
octagons favoured by Thomas Jefferson in domestic architecture. And he integrates
an impressive range of early sources: among many such gobbets, we learn that there
is a reference to the ‘angle in a semicircle theorem’ in Dante's Divine Comedy and
that the surprising observation that, in a walk round the Equator, the extra distance
your head travels compared with your feet is independent of the size of the Earth,
goes back at least as far as a problem posed in 1715.
After an introductory chapter, the next four chapters take geometry from basic
definitions, postulates and common notions as far as familiar angle, triangle,
Pythagoras and circle theorems; chapter 6 tackles some harder applications. Two
samples will, I hope, convey the flavour of Geometry civilized. First, in between
pages 152 and 153 there are 8 colour plates; these depict Islamic geometrical
mosaics, the great octagonal dome of Santa Maria del Fiore, Florence, a mosaic of
the death of Archimedes (one of several Archimedes episodes mentioned), two
lovely illustrations ‘Geometria’ and ‘Surveying’ from Reisch's Margarita
philosophica (1512), contrasting pedagogic uses of colour in Byrne's Euclid (1847)
and in the Chinese dissection method of ‘colour and cut’, and Raphael's famous
School of Athens fresco (1510-11) − with a convincing identification of the theorem
about star hexagons that Euclid appears to be enunciating there. Second, in chapter 5
‘From Polygons to Pi’, which is ostensibly about circle theorems, we encounter en
route Stonehenge, Descartes' explanation of the rainbow, inscribed/circmscribed/
escribed triangles, regular n-gons (with exact constructions for n = 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 15
and Renaldini's approximation, [1]), Gothic windows, Archimedes' bounds for π
(and related Egyptian and Chinese calculations), a table of specific cross-references
to Euclid, and 35 exercises.
Some proofs are given with full Euclidean pomp (including, pleasingly, several
of the reductio ad absurdum arguments) but Heilbron sensibly uses alternative
arguments and methods either for clarity or for contrast or, especially in his use of
algebra and trigonometry, for the comfort of modern readers. Several later
developments are included, notably the theorems of Ceva, Menelaus, Ptolemy, the
lines of Euler and Simson, Hero's area formula and Descartes' algebraic solution of
Apollonius' three-circle tangency problem [2], charmingly reconstructed from his
correspondence with Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia. There are also some
fascinating cameo digressions; Eratosthenes on the size of the Earth and Columbus'
planning for his New World voyages, surveying methods for inaccessible heights,
the dangers of misleading diagrams, refraction (rainbows and burning-mirrors) and
Huygens' acceleration of Archimedes' method for calculating π. Raw theory is
further consolidated by an excellent collection of some 150 solved exercises from
sources as diverse as ancient Chinese texts, the 1802 Cambridge Tripos papers and
(especially) the pages of the Ladies' Diary. Heilbron has a connoisseur's eye for an
attractive problem − indeed, he cites his own delight in solving geometry problems
as a major motivation for composing this book. My only quibble concerns his
solutions: I noticed several algebraical typos and a number which could be tidied-up.
For example, Exercise 5.2.4 (p. 205) features three circles radii a, x, b sharing two
common tangents with the middle circle touching the other two. The published
a b + b a
solution leads to the expression x = which the author fails to cancel to
a + b
x = ab which, in fact, would have fallen out immediately from a different, shorter
argument. Also, although I can understand Heilbron's desire not to range beyond
algebra and basic trigonometry in his repertoire of techniques, it was a pity not to
find references to alternative methods such as transformation geometry, [3], for the
theorems of Aubel and Napoleon (4.2.26, 4.2.27), inversion (as in [4]) for the radii of
nested circles in Gothic tracery (6.5), or to previous work on what the author calls
the ‘Tantulus problem’. The latter seems to have caused quite a stir when it surfaced
in the columns of the Washington Post in 1995, but will be all too familiar to Gazette
readers as the ‘adventitious angles’ configuration of [5, 6].
The teaching of geometry was, of course, the contentious issue which led to the
formation of the Association for the Improvement of Geometrical Teaching − the
precursor of the Mathematical Association − in 1871. Geometry civilized is a timely
reminder of just what we lose in mathematical, pedagogical and cultural terms if we
fail to teach an honest dose of geometry, ‘... geometry exercises, whereas algebra
relaxes, the mind’ (p. 27l). With the readability, leap-off-the-page enthusiasm and
wide-ranging scope of one of David Attenborough's Natural History blockbusters,
perhaps the OUP could be persuaded to produce a more attractively priced paperback
edition − even if we cannot have an associated television series!
References
1. D. Bousfield, The construction of an approximately regular n-gon, Math. Gaz.
66 (Oct. 1982) pp. 229-30.
2. H. Dörrie, 100 great problems of elementary mathematics, Dover (1965)
pp. 154-60.
3. J. Rigby, Aubel & Thébault's theorems, SymmetryPLUS 9 (Summer 1999)
pp. 4-5.
4. M. Harvey, Ever decreasing circles and inversion, Math. Gaz. 82 (Nov. 1998)
pp. 472-475.
5. C. Tripp, Adventitious angles, Math. Gaz. 59 (June 1975), pp. 98-106.
6. D. A. Quadling, Last words on adventitious angles, Math. Gaz. 62 (Oct. 1978),
pp. 174-183.
NICK LORD
A history of algorithms: from the pebble to the microchip, by Jean-Luc Chabert
(ed.), tr. Chris Weeks. Pp. 524. 1999. ISBN 3 540 63369 3 (Springer-Verlag).
History of mathematics, histories of problems, Inter-IREM Commission, tr. Chris
Weeks. Pp. 429. 1997. ISBN 2 7298 4730 8 (Ellipses, Paris).
In recent years French readers have benefited from the astonishing energies of a
group of French historians and mathematics teachers, many associated with the
history and epistemology section of the nationwide ‘IREM’ movement (Institutes for
Research into Mathematics Education). A large number of collaborative works have
appeared in print, in which mathematical texts from the past are studied and re-
presented as resources for mathematics teachers today. The combination of
REVIEWS 169
experienced mathematics teachers, mathematics educators and historians of

mathematics has generated reliable and well-judged books in which the riches of the
mathematical past are made available and contextualized in a historical and
educational narrative, thus providing material for teachers to use in their
mathematics lessons in a variety of ways.
Only a small proportion of this cornucopia has hitherto been translated into
English. An early such venture was the set of essays published by the Mathematical
Association in 1990 under the title History in the mathematics classroom: the IREM
papers. Two years ago there appeared a volume of fifteen essays, History of
mathematics, history of problems, containing material on a range of topics to appeal
to upper secondary school pupils such as infinity, prime numbers, ruler and compass
constructions, and non-Euclidean geometry. Since some thirty IREM members were
involved in working on the book, somewhat like an Open University Course Team, it
has modestly appeared under the authorship of ‘The Inter-IREM Commission’,
though one of the driving forces was evidently the Commission's chair, Evelyne
Barbin.
Any of these essays serves to illustrate the style and quality of this production.
‘How may pictures appear to be real?’ by Didier Bessot and Jean-Pierre Le Gaff,
from the Caen IREM, is a well-illustrated survey of perspective and projection from
Euclid to Lambert, through Brunelleschi, Alberti, Piero della Francesca, Dürer, and
Desargues, with a number of in-text exercises and their answers (called ‘How did
you get on?’). Jean-Pierre Friedelmayer's ‘A desperate search’ is a clear and lively
tour through the history of equation-solving from the Rhind Papyrus to Galois,
impressive in the way it combines a strong narrative flow with sufficient
mathematical exposition for students to get their teeth into. And the other essays are
equally helpful and accessible.
History of mathematics, histories of problems was translated into English by
Chris Weeks, whose growing reputation as a skilful translator of material like this is
well-deserved, built on his experience as a teacher and teacher educator over many
years. Now his translation has appeared of the splendid Histoire d'algorithmes: du
caillou à la puce (Berlin 1994). This work, written by a similar team and indeed
some of the same writers, under the overall leadership of Jean-Luc Chabert of the
University of Picardy, is one of the most enthralling of these collective works, in part
because it has a single theme richly illustrated and built up over several hundred
pages. To ensure the highest standards of scholarship, the team of seven included a
leading historian of Arab mathematics (Ahmed Djebbar) and of Chinese
mathematics (Jean-Claude Martzloff). The result is a delight and should be on every
teacher's bookshelf. The book can serve as a resource for teaching numerical
analysis, but more than that presents a view of current mathematics as the inheritor
of its history, and of mathematics teaching as something that can be enriched and
strengthened by knowledge of that history. As history books go, it has a large
quantity of original sources (in translation), so is well suited for a number of
different classroom approaches, styles and needs.
All concerned with this production, from the authors and translator to the
publishers and their designers are to be congratulated on an excellent addition to
educational and historical resources for English-speaking mathematicians.
JOHN FAUVEL
Faculty of Mathematics, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA
The emergence of the American mathematical research community 1876-1900:

J. J. Sylvester, Felix Klein and E. H. Moore, by Karen Hunger Parshall and David
E. Rowe. Pp. 500. £25.00. 1997. ISBN 0 8218 9004 2 (American Mathematical
Society / London Mathematical Society).
As International Exhibitions go, the one which took place in Chicago in 1893
was small beer. Only 2.5 million attended compared with 32 million who had turned
up to marvel at the new Eiffel Tower in Paris four years earlier, and, when the
Exhibition returned to Paris in 1900, no fewer than 50 million passed through the
turnstiles (these attendance figures according to the latest edition (2000) of Le petit
Larousse).
The authors of this book on the beginning of American mathematical research
see the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893—to celebrate 500 years post
Christopher Columbus—and the associated Mathematical Congress as a pivotal
point in the growth of American mathematical research. The city of marble (‘White
City’) which arose on the marshlands on the south side of Chicago was host to the
Europeans, and in particular a strong German mathematical presence. The Germans
came to the New World with their latest mathematical wares (abstruse theses, erudite
books, geometrical models), led by Felix Klein and Göttingen mathematics. By this
time many young American post-graduates had visited Germany to sample the
educational system at first-hand, and were receptive to a new mood and thirst for
research.
The conjunction of the old world meeting the new is nicely captured on the front
cover with a picture of the ‘White City’, flags fluttering around its mock classical
architecture, and combined with a sepia insert of a gathering of the German
mathematical establishment. In a rapidly constructed venue linked by waterways to
the industrial exhibits and showcases, American mathematics received an definite
impulse by way of the mathematical exhibits. It was only technically inter-national
since there were only four non-American mathematicians present, but many others
sent good wishes and had their papers read in absentia. David Hilbert, Heinrich
Weber, Eugen Netto and Adolf Hurwitz were in absentia on the opening day
followed later by Hermann Minkowski, Charles Hermite and Arthur Schönflies, with
the show rounded off by Felix Klein in person. After the Exposition, Klein gave his
famous Evanston Colloquium Lectures.
The structure of the book gives a well-rounded picture. An overview of the
‘Emergence’ is followed by an outline of American mathematics immediately prior
to Chicago. Sylvester’s contribution was a shock to the American way such as it
existed at that time. He encouraged the callow youth to abandon a view of
mathematics as a body of knowledge carved in stone waiting to be learnt off by
heart. Sylvester, as no other could do, demonstrated that mathematics was a living
subject. During 1876-1882 Sylvester showed his small band of students at Johns
Hopkins University that they too could do research, and that it was the real business
of mathematicians to make new discoveries. As the authors point out, Sylvester’s
classroom was no place for the student who placed a premium on taking away a clear
set of lecture notes—he never even had a set himself. Lectures from Sylvester were
launched from his latest mathematical thought and the whole class, which in a very
real sense included himself, were involved with speculation, inductive reasoning,
wild guesses and all those artifices which mathematicians are not supposed to use.
Meanwhile some students were travelling abroad, and by the late 1880s, a
steady stream of post-graduates had shiny new German PhDs to show their
prospective employers. (It is surprising to learn that the much heralded German PhD
could be obtained for as little as a semester in residence, writing a thesis followed by
REVIEWS 171
an oral examination.) The experience of each traveller varied. Those who went to
Berlin, for example, received a wide exposure to mathematical ideas, unlike the ones
who took part in Sylvester’s seminar, where the fare was limited to his own subjects:
higher algebra, analytical geometry and specialised questions in the theory of
numbers. In Göttingen Klein soared above the details and exposed his students to the
vastness of mathematics. The section of the book devoted to Klein teases out his
character. At root a highly competitive man, Klein ran his Göttingen Seminar on
autocratic lines. He did not tolerate fools gladly, as the hapless James Boyd
discovered. Boyd made the fatal mistake of not learning the basics of mathematics
first!
Towards the end of the nineteenth century researchers in mathematics were
beginning to be grown at home. The principal schools emerging in the USA were
Chicago, Harvard and Princeton. In Chicago, E. H. Moore was the main driving
force. The young group of mathematicians to emerge from this school at the
beginning of the new century included L. E. Dickson, Oswald Veblen, R. L. Moore
(of the ‘Moore method’ of teaching mathematics) and George David Birkhoff. Each
one made a mark in his own way, although Dickson is perhaps undervalued today.
To specialists in the history of nineteenth century mathematics this will be an
indispensable source. Throughout the book factual material is supplied, which
otherwise might be scattered or difficult to obtain. There is a list of lectures given at
Klein’s Seminar between 1881-1896 (the Leipzig and Göttingen years) and the
lecture programme of the Chicago Mathematical Congress is carefully documented,
to give just two examples. The authors are expert on the mathematicians in the title
of the book, Parshall (on Sylvester and Moore) and Rowe (on Klein and German
mathematics). Although two authors were involved, they have succeeded in writing
a seamless book and one which reads well. It is fully footnoted and there is an
extensive bibliography. Photographs enliven the presentation and especially
welcome are the photographs of the lesser known American mathematicians who
laid the groundwork for the research schools of America which exist today.
TONY CRILLY
Middlesex Business School, The Burroughs, Hendon, London NW4 4BT
e-mail: t.crilly@mdx.ac.uk
Introduction to cardinal arithmetic, by M. Holz, K. Steffens and E. Weitz.

Pp. 304. SFr88. 1999. ISBN 3 7643 6124 7. (Birkhäuser).
It is not uncommon for The Mathematical Gazette to receive a paper on cardinal
arithmetic, but very few are published. The reason for rejection is usually that the
author has misunderstood some aspect of Cantor's work. For example, a recent paper
claimed to show that the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is countable. In fact it
showed only that the set of numbers with finite decimal fraction representations is
countable. This will not surprise anyone who knows that the rational numbers are
countable.
I doubt that these misguided authors would appreciate a text book on cardinal
arithmetic, for their minds are made up: they cannot accept the concept of a bigger
infinity than the cardinality of the natural numbers. For the rest of us however, this
textbook provides a valuable, if fairly intense introduction to the classical ideas and
more recent work on cardinal arithmetic.
Chapter 1 begins with the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms of set theory and the axiom
of choice (the ZFC theory of sets) and develops the classical theory of Bernstein,
Cantor, Hausdorff, König and Tarski from the period 1870-1930. Even this first
chapter is quite hard going for anyone starting from scratch: there are dozens of
definitions to absorb before one can make sense of the considerable number of
lemmas and theorems. In addition, there is much discussion of what can be
established with various different axiomatisations of set theory. Indeed, in the
introduction, readers are warned if they want to accept the generalised continuum
hypothesis (that 2κ is the smallest infinite cardinal greater than κ) they can stop
reading immediately, since the exponentiation of cardinals then obeys very simple
rules. More interesting is the study of exponentiation using the ZFC axioms alone.
Note that, between them, Kurt Gödel and Paul Cohen proved that the consistency of
ZFC implies the consistency of ZFC with the generalised continuum hypothesis
(Gödel) and with its negation (Cohen).
The second chapter is based on the work of Galvin, Hajnal and Silver from the
1970s. Tarski and Gödel had already noted the importance of the gimel function
κ → 2ck(κ), where ck (κ) is the cofinality of the infinite cardinal κ. The Galvin-
Hajnal formula provides an estimate for the possible size of the value of the gimel
function when the argument is one of the successor cardinals of ¼0, the cardinality of
the natural numbers. From this formula springs a wealth of other results on cardinals.
The first two chapters make up almost half of the book. The remaining seven
chapters are devoted to a presentation of pcf theory, which was developed by S.
Shelah in the 1990s to deal with many of the open questions that remained from the
seventies. This later material brings the determined reader almost to the limit of
present knowledge of cardinality results provable in ZFC.
The press release claims that the book is aimed at ‘undergraduates, and also at
postgraduate students and researchers who want to broaden their knowledge of
cardinal arithmetic’. I doubt the validity of including of undergraduates in the
audience for the book. Perhaps things are different in Germany, the authors' home
country, but in Britain, I would be surprised if even final year students were able to
get far beyond the first chapter.
STEVE ABBOTT
Logic as algebra, by Paul Halmos and Steven Givant. Pp. 141. $27. 1998. Vol.
21. ISBN 0 88385 327 2 (Mathematical Association of America).
The algebraization of logic, envisaged first possibly by Leibniz, received its first
significant boost with the work of George Boole. Recognising the inadequacies of
Aristotelian syllogistic reasoning as a basis for a general theory of inference, Boole,
by restricting numerical algebra to two values 1 and 0, developed Boolean algebra.
Others, notably De Morgan, W. S. Jevons, C. S. Peirce and E. Shröder, by their
elaboration of the algebra of logic based on Boole's work, edged ever closer to
fulfilling Leibniz's dream of a Characteristica Universalis.
This slim volume is the 21st in the series Dolciani Mathematical Expositions, a
significant proportion of which have been written by Ross Honsberger. What does it
provide? As the title suggests it is intended ‘to show that logic can (and perhaps
should) be viewed from an algebraic perspective …. Moreover, the connection
between the principal theorems of the subject and well-known theorems in algebra
become clearer.’ Readers anticipating arguments based on truth tables or diagrams
of switching circuits will be disappointed. In compensation they will be entertained
by a rich array of algebraic concepts such as prime and maximal ideals, filters,
homomorphisms, equivalence classes, kernels, quotient algebras and duality, all in
the service of logic. As the authors state, ‘propositional logic and monadic predicate
REVIEWS 173
calculus − predicate logic with a single quantifier, are the principal topics treated’.
The propositional calculus and Boolean algebra are introduced in a gentle and clear
manner and their relationship explained. This leads to a section on Boolean
universal algebra which culminates in the maximal ideal theorem and the powerful
representation theorem of M. H. Stone which asserts that every Boolean algebra is
isomorphic to a field of sets, a field of sets being a collection of subsets of a set
closed under complementation, union and intersection. (A theorem that asserts that,
for a given axiomatic theory T , a distinguished subset of the set of all models has the
property that every model is isomorphic to some member of this subset, is a
representation theorem for T ).
Pre-Boolean algebras, quotient algebras and Boolean logics feature in the next
section, Logic via Algebra, where propositional logic receives a more thoroughgoing
algebraic treatment than hitherto. This section concludes with the deduction
theorem, the strong soundness theorem, (every theorem is valid), the strong
completeness theorem, (every valid formula is a theorem) and, finally, the
compactness theorem for this system. The short section that follows this adumbrates
the concept of a lattice which constitutes a generalisation of Boolean algebra.
In the final chapter, Monadic Predicate Calculus, quantifiers (‘there exists’ and
‘for all’) now appear. It should be recalled that first order predicate calculus enabled
mathematicians to formalise set theory, which in turn provided them with an
adequate foundation for formulating all other mathematical objects and structures.
Now the algebraization of this area of logic seems to have been realised first by S.
M. Ulam and C. J. Everett in their Projective algebra I (1945), where the authors
sought to express abstractly the Boolean algebra of subsets of a plane and their
projections on the two coordinate axes, thus facilitating an algebraic treatment of
logical quantifiers. Subsequently, two further generalisations of Boolean algebra
were created, namely, the cylindric algebras of Tarski and his collaborators and the
polyadic algebras of one Paul Halmos. The last chapter of this book, however, deals
with monadic algebra which is defined as a Boolean algebra together with an
existential qualifier. The authors proceed ‘to show how the theory of syllogisms
finds a simple and natural expression in the framework of monadic algebras.’ Not
until the final sentence of this tract does the creator of polyadic algebras refer to his
own exposition on the subject in Algebraic logic. Accordingly, we can conceive of
this last chapter as an an introduction to more profound matters. Indeed, the whole
will serve as a neat, succinct, introduction to logic particularly for readers very much
at home with algebraic concepts.
GRAHAM HOARE
3 Russett Hill, Chalfont St. Peter SL9 8JY
Introduction to set theory (3rd edn.) by Karel Hrbacek and Thomas Jech. Pp. 291.
$69.75. 1999. ISBN 0 8247 7915 0 (Dekker).
This very nicely constructed little book really needs two reviews. The first one
is all praise. The aim of the authors is to provide a final undergraduate year
introduction to set theory as complete as possible without requiring the reader to
master any symbolic logic. This aim is completely met and in a very readable form,
especially because of the way in which the numerous straightforward but often
lengthy proofs are set as examples (with hints), keeping only the important ones to
be set out in the text. They begin with the intuitive notion of a set, introducing
Russell's Paradox as early as page 2, to motivate the need for care. The whole book
provides a reasoned argument for Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with (after Chapter 8)
the Axiom of Choice. In addition, the uses of set theory in the construction of the
natural numbers, the reals, cardinal arithmetic and ordinal arithmetic are fully dealt
with. This third edition adds later chapters on filters and ultra filters, partitions for
uncountable cardinals, Suslin's problem, large cardinals and the axiom of foundation.
These later chapters do not prove everything − this would hardly have been possible
with the absence of logic − but they do give enough to give the reader a good idea of
the notions and the general approach of proofs. In this way the reader is brought into
contact with the latest work in an active field, although without full proofs.
The second review is slightly more critical. As well as teaching the young how
‘to do the sums’ in set theory, they should be told what they are doing; the authors do
not shirk this task. On page 1 they nail their colours to the mast: ‘Sets are not
objects of the real world, like tables or stars, they are created by our minds, not by
our hands.’ What is being said here? It is clear from later on that the first clause is
not to be read as denying sets are objects, only the sort of object. So it seems that the
distinction being made is between a box of 144 apples and a set of 144 apples. But
does the box then contain the set (as well as the apples)? Does it have 145 objects
albeit of different kinds in it? These are not quibbles; they have exercised many
minds. The question of whether the third member of the Holy Trinity was really the
set of the other two divided the Western and Eastern churches. So it seems to me
that there are two questions about their statement: firstly, to explore its meaning in
the way it is used; secondly, to see whether it pays off in the later understanding of
the theory.
As I noted above, the early motivation for axiomatic set theory comes from
Russell's Paradox. They draw the lesson that ‘by merely defining a set we do not
prove its existence (similarly as by defining a unicorn we do not prove that unicorns
exist).’ Surely something is wrong here? When we define a unicorn, there is
something created by our minds, and it is hard to see how this does not exist (though
not like tables or stars, but like sets)! It would have helped here to have had
something more on the relation between existence and consistency. By page 39 we
reach the usual ZF definition of the natural numbers as sets; so we have to conclude
that the natural numbers also are not objects of the real world but created by our
minds. This has the advantage of brushing away any questioner like Frege, who may
want to know what the natural numbers are, though the shoe pinches in other places.
Is it only a creation of our minds that 2 + 2 = 4? Wittgenstein would have it that this
was a grammatical proposition; Quine that it was no different from an empirical one,
accepted to ‘expedite our dealings with sense experience’. Where do the authors
stand between these two? Certainly they put some emphasis on being concerned
‘only with sets of mathematical objects, such as numbers, points of space, functions
or sets. Actually, the first three concepts can be defined ... as sets ... So the only
objects with which we are concerned from now on are sets.’ (The apparent
conjuring trick of climbing up with no objects at all is achieved, of course, by
starting with the null set.)
What of the pay-off for this rather specific notion of reality? Here it seems to
me that not as much use has been made of it as might be. To take only one example:
the axiom of choice is introduced in a fairly standard way. It is shown that a finite
system has a choice function, and pointed out that the same proof will not do for a
countable system. Then the axiom is described as a new principle of set formation,
different because non-effective. Gödel and Cohen and their results are mentioned. I
would have thought that a useful pay-off would be to see Cohen's results as showing
that the mind has the power to construct different systems of sets − to remove, as it
were, any philosophical cramp about the axiom of choice or equally about the
Continuum Hypothesis.
REVIEWS 175
Such nit-picking should not be read as saying that the book is other than an
excellent introduction to the techniques of set theory. Besides, I cannot but warm to
a book which gives me such a quotable paragraph as: ‘Some mathematicians object
to the Axiom of Infinity on the grounds that a collection of objects produced by an
infinite process ... should not be treated as a completed entity. However, most
people with some mathematical training have no difficulty visualising the collection
of natural numbers that way.’ Note the implied threat in the second sentence;
perhaps it can be read as a warning against ‘some mathematical training’.
C. W. KILMISTER
Red Tiles Cottage, High Street, Barcombe BN8 5DH
Practical foundations of mathematics, by Paul Taylor. Pp. 572. £50. 1999. ISBN
0 521 63107 6 (Cambridge University Press).
Whereas the motivation for logicians in medieval times was theology, today it is
more likely to be mathematics and programming. The book offers an understanding
of foundations of mathematics and informatics, beyond the mere codification of
mathematics in logical scripture. The subject matter is becoming important,
especially because the possibility of automated deduction may help with computer-
assisted construction, verification and dissemination of proofs. Take, for example,
the concept of ‘types’. Many readers will be at least vaguely aware of the work of
Georg Cantor on the magnitude of sets, and the subsequent work of Bertrand Russell
on the theory of types in his attempt to resolve paradoxes in set theory. More
recently, in the development of high level computer languages, it was found that a
distinction between integer and real data has to be made if only because they have
different storage requirements. Nowadays, the software industry has learned from
informatics that the type discipline helps to make programs more reliable.
The first part of this research-level book is well worth reading by any
mathematician or computer scientist, treating it as a text on ‘discrete math for grown-
ups’. There is a well written account on the difference between object-language and
meta-language, and also between classical and intuitionistic logic, and why the latter
is used in the current context. Order structures are introduced as tools for
investigating semantics, and they serve to describe systems of propositions, and also
as the substance of individual types. The wide-ranging examples transcend
disciplinary boundaries between universal algebra, type theory, category theory, set
theory, sheaf theory, topology and programming. No part of the book can be
described as easy reading, and the more mathematics, logic and informatics you
know, the more you will benefit from reading it. If you already know some, or are
particularly keen to find out about, category theory then much of the book is very
interesting and useful, but it will be tough going. In any case, unless one is
reasonably familiar with ZF theory and categorical type theory, the second half of
the book will be quite impenetrable.
The following chapter titles are not very informative, but they may convey at
least an impression of what the book is about: 1 First Order Reasoning; 2 Types and
Induction; 3 Posets and Lattices; 4 Cartesian Closed Categories; 5 Limits and
Colimits; 6 Structural Recursion; 7 Adjunctions; 8 Algebra with Dependent Types;
9 The Quantifiers. Each chapter opens with a well considered preliminary section
which describes in broad terms what is installed in the chapter. For example, the
following is the opening paragraph for Chapter 4. Category theory unifies the
symbolic (Formalist) and model-based (Platonist) views of mathematics. In
particular, it offers an agnostic solution to the question we raised in Section 1.3 of
whether a function is an algorithm or an input-output relation.
There are some 50 exercises at the end of each chapter, but only a few of them
are really exercises as such; the rest of them seem to be miscellaneous related facts
for which the author could not spare extra space. Several hundred items are listed in
the bibliography, and there is a good index. The book is a beautiful product of the
labour of the author, who composed it using Emacs, typesetting it in TEX using his
own commutative diagram and design macros. Students and teachers of computing,
mathematics and philosophy will find it good value as a reference work.
P. SHIU
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Loughborough University LE11 3TU
The mathematics of ciphers: number theory and RSA cryptography, by
S. C. Coutinho. Pp. 196. £19.00. 1999. ISBN 1 56881 082 2 (A. K. Peters).
I quote from the Preface: ‘This book will take you on a journey whose final
destination is the celebrated Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman (RSA) public key
cryptosystem. In fact, the book is more concerned with mathematics than with
cryptography. Although the working of the RSA cryptosystem is described in detail,
we will not be concerned with details of its implementation. Instead, we concentrate
on the mathematical problems it poses, which are related to the factorization of
integers, and to determining whether a given integer is prime or composite. ... The
way number theory is presented in this book differs in some important respects from
the classical treatment of some older books. Thus we emphasize the algorithmic
aspects everywhere, not forgetting to give complete mathematical proofs of all the
algorithms that appear in the book. ... Hence this is really a book about algorithmic
number theory and its applications to RSA cryptography. ...’
This is certainly the most readable book about the RSA system that I have seen.
Perhaps ‘about’ is not quite the right word: the description of the RSA cryptosystem
comes only in the last chapter, of 9 pages! − but of course this brevity is the result of,
and is justified by, the detailed and thorough build-up of the underlying ideas,
through fundamental algorithms which include the Euclidean algorithm for the gcd
of 2 integers (which, from my school-days, I still prefer to call the hcf!), prime
numbers (including Mersenne and Fermat primes), unique factorisation, the sieve of
Eratosthenes, modular arithmetic, Fermat's little theorem, pseudoprimes, Carmichael
numbers, systems of congruences, the Chinese remainder theorem, groups (up to
Lagrange's theorem), the Lucas-Lehmer and other tests for primes. Although the
preface states that the required previous knowledge of mathematics does not go
beyond geometric progressions and the binomial theorem, the proofs in the book
require close attention and are sometimes rather abstract − more in the way of
numerical instances might have been helpful. Each algorithm, once established, is
displayed as an outline program, which the reader can then implement for himself on
his own equipment. The historical comments are smoothly interwoven into the text,
adding much to the attractiveness and readability of the book. There is a set of
exercises at the end of each chapter − but as these are by no means trivial, it is a pity
that no answers are given. There is a bibliography, and indexes of algorithms and
‘main results’ as well as a general index.
For anyone interested in this branch of number theory and its application to
cryptography, who is prepared to study the text seriously, this book is to be highly
recommended.
A. ROBERT PARGETER
REVIEWS 177
Introduction to abstract algebra (2nd edn.), by W. Keith Nicholson. Pp. 599.

£58.50. 1999. ISBN 0 471 33109 0 (Wiley).
At 599 pages this is a big book, mainly because nearly everything is proved
fully and carefully, there are lots of exercises and lots of examples to illuminate and
consolidate the theory, and the overall style is fairly discursive. All this should, and
does, make it a text suitable for readers working on their own. The only disincentive
to this is the price tag − students able or willing to invest £58.50 on a single book
will be hard to find.
There are of course many books with this title, contents and emphasis, and at a
similar level. A text which has been around for a long time, and with which many
readers will be familiar, is Fraleigh's Abstract algebra. I would suggest this as a
suitable comparison if you are thinking of buying Nicholson's book.
The author claims that different selections from the contents make a one- or
two-semester course. This is certainly true, though my impression is that two or
more one-semester courses in different years would be most appropriate, due to the
rising level of treatment. The early chapters certainly lead the reader by the hand,
leaving little to chance, whereas later chapters leave far more for the reader to fill in
from his or her own initiative, and depend more on the assumption that mathematical
maturity has had time to develop.
The starting level is very basic: chapter 0 is a careful explanation of the
necessary preliminaries on types of proof, sets, mappings and equivalence relations.
I then turned to some of the early topics which I know from experience can be
difficult to teach − induction, well-defined operations, conservation of parity of
permutations. The treatment of these seemed excellent.
At a higher level of abstractness, I turned to the material on field theory, in
particular the existence of splitting fields. Here too the treatment was thorough, took
advantage of the power of abstractness, yet kept the reader's feet on the ground with
plenty of concrete illustrations.
To promulgate the message that abstract algebra is not just for pure
mathematicians the more applicable aspects of the subject get a decent exposure −
cryptography, linear codes, cyclic and BCH codes, Polya counting, classical
construction problems and Galois theory.
The end level of the book is a survey of work on algebra associated with the
names of Wedderburn, Jacobson, Artin, Brauer, Chevalley and Noether, including a
proof of Wedderburn's theorems and some of its extensions. It is written in an
appetite-whetting way, which is of course how all books should end.
So the panorama is wide, and Nicholson is a good guide, definitely worth
considering.
JOHN BAYLIS
Department of Mathematics, The Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street,
Nottingham NG1 4BU
Classical invariant theory, by Peter J. Olver. LMS Student Texts 44. Pp. 280.
£13.95 (pb), £37.50 (hb). 1999. ISBN 0 521 55821 2 (pb), 0 521 55243 5 (hb)
(Cambridge University Press).
Very recently Gian-Carlo Rota wrote of invariant theory (the ‘classical’
invariant theory largely concerned with polynomials) as ‘the great Romantic story of
mathematics’ [1]. It was one of his principal research interests—and indeed he was
a modern champion of the theory and one who stood in direct line from George
Boole, Arthur Cayley and a whole gamut of algebraists down the last 150 years.
Sadly Rota died on 19 April 1999, but he would have seen this work under review
written by one of his former students at MIT. Indeed Peter Olver paid due respect to
his former teacher and the ‘wonderful lectures [which] opened my vistas’ (p. xxi).
Invariant theory aims to bring out intrinsic properties. In the simple case of
polynomials of one variable there would be no point in treating say, x3 + 2x − 3
and 8x3 − 12x2 + 10x − 6 separately, since one is a linear transformation of the
other: they are therefore equivalent in an algebraic sense. In the language of invariant
theory both have the same set of invariants and covariants. In practice invariant
theory does not deal with numerical polynomials but with symbolic ones. The
simplest example of an invariant is the discriminant b2 − 4ac for the ordinary
quadratic polynomial ax2 + bx + c. In projective geometry, invariant theory is
concerned with the intrinsic properties which do not depend on choice of coordinate
axes.
The history of invariant theory reminds us that mathematics is subject to the
vagaries of fads and fashions just as any other human enterprise. While a topic in
mathematics comes back into fashion at intervals it invariably comes back wearing
different clothes. Modern invariant theory hardly follows the lines of Cayley’s and
Sylvester’s research programme. Rota erected an abstract scheme for the theory in a
way never dreamed of by the pioneers of the 1840s and 1850s though his work built
on theirs. In any explanation of invariant theory, it is significant that the common
discriminant b2 − 4ac of the quadratic remains the standard exemplar for all the
algebraic versions of the subject which have arisen. The newness of present day
modern invariant theory is due to the central role which group theory plays.
The present book brings much of classical invariant theory up-to-date. Group
theory is introduced early, and there is the recognition of the part David Hilbert
played in the 1880s. However, the modern theory is far from being a continuation
from the point at which Hilbert left off. To be sure, Hilbert’s Basis Theorem, the
Syzygy theorem and the Nullstellensatz are still central planks of the theory, but
there has been a reorganisation too.
It might be well to compare the present text with a text which appeared a
century ago that was designed for the same purpose as the book under review: i.e. to
bring invariant theory within the compass of students and to bring it up to date. The
algebra of quantics was written by Edwin Bailey Elliott, who taught the subject at
Oxford when Sylvester was there in the 1880s. The work is highly derivative of the
English approach to invariant theory, as we might expect, with only a brief nod in
the direction of the German mathematicians Paul Gordan and Alfred Clebsch, though
it does contain a summary of Hilbert’s work [2].
A good portion of Elliott’s text is bound up with combinatorial techniques in the
shape of Eulerian generating functions. This was quite natural for Elliott since
generating functions could be used not only to count the number of irreducible
invariants and covariants but to discover them and the linear dependencies (syzygies)
between them. Elliott, influenced very heavily by the English school, used his
introductory chapters for an amplification of material found in George Salmon’s
texts. It adopts the English terminology and it contains a thorough discussion of
Cayley’s twin differential operators Ω and Ο . Elliott gives the complete listing of the
irreducible invariants and covariants for the polynomials of degree five and six
(already established by the ‘King of the invariants’ Paul Gordan, using a compressed
notation) and goes on to show the connection between invariant theory and analytical
geometry. (Olver decided to leave out the combinatorial aspect of invariant theory in
his book because of pressure of space, so he refers the reader elsewhere [3]).
REVIEWS 179
As mentioned above, the modern view of invariant theory makes transformation

groups as the unifying idea. From this there is an easy extension from polynomials to
the study of differential invariants of Lie groups. It also lends itself to an easier
appreciation of Sophus Lie’s attempt to construct a ‘Galois theory’ for differential
equations. Olver’s book gains added interest since his own background is in
differential equations and mathematical physics. An interesting feature of the book is
the reappearance of Sylvester’s ‘chemical’ viewpoint, a way of representing
invariants and covariants by formulae expressed graphically.
Invariant theory is a highly technical subject. To study it will never be easy but
the present text presents the leading modern ideas in a highly cogent and
understandable form.
References
1. Gian-Carlo Rota, Two turning points in invariant theory, The Mathematical
Intelligencer 21 (1999), pp. 20-27.
2. E. B. Elliott, An introduction to the algebra of quantics, 2nd edn. Reprint.
(1913).
3. Bernd Sturmfels, Algorithms in invariant theory, Springer (1993).
TONY CRILLY
Abelian groups and modules, edited by Paul Eklof and Rüdiger Göbel. Pp. 373.
SFr168. 1999. ISBN 3 7643 6172 7. (Birkhäuser).
Analysis and geometry in several complex variables, edited by Gen Komatsu and
Masatake Kuranishi. Pp. 314. SFr158. 1999. ISBN 3 7643 4067 3. (Birkhäuser).
These books, published in the Trends in Mathematics series, contain conference
proceedings. Naturally, the papers deal with matters at the forefront of research.
The first book arises from the International Conference on Abelian Groups and
Modules that was held in Dublin during August 1998. Some of the papers deal with
methods borrowed from other areas of mathematics and applied to abelian groups
and modules, including model theory, category theory, infinite combinatorics,
classical algebra and geometry. Other papers use abelian group theory in the study of
module theory and non-commutative groups.
The second book is a collection of papers from the 40th Taiguchi Symposium
Analysis and Geometry in Several Complex Variables, held in Kataka, Japan in June
1997. Several of the papers cover recent applications of complex analysis to other
areas, such as partial differential equations, differential geometry, quantum
mechanics and algebraic geometry.
These books will have limited appeal beyond the respective research
communities, but both contain papers which may interest workers in other fields.
STEVE ABBOTT
Combinatorics: a problem oriented approach, by Daniel A. Marcus. Pp. 136.
£16.95. 1999. ISBN 0 883 85710 3 (Mathematical Association of America).
As the title might suggest, the greater part of this attractive little book consists
of problems. The four sections that make up Part I cover Strings, Combinations,
Distributions and Partitions. Part II covers more advanced methods of counting, with
sections on Inclusion and Exclusion, Recurrence Relations, Generating Functions

and the Pólya-Redfield Method. Within each section there are introductory problems
that build towards one of the nineteen Standard Problems (for example, #9 is ‘Find
the number of distributions of a given set of identical balls into a given set of distinct
boxes’). These are generally followed by further problems that can be solved by
suitable adaptation of the Standard Problem. The problems are connected by fairly
short sections of text which include examples and any definitions that are required.
The first 6 sections are found in most elementary books on combinatorics, and
the treatment of generating functions is quite short, so as far as content is concerned,
it is the final section that distinguishes the book from its competitors. The Pólya-
Redfield Method is useful for solving counting problems where there is an element
of symmetry. One example of this type of problem is to find the number of ways of
colouring the squares of a 3 by 3 grid using two colours, two colourings being
considered the same if one can be obtained by rotating the other. Not surprisingly,
this final section contains a dose of group theory.
The book is based on the author's problem-led course on combinatorics to
‘mathematics and computer science majors … generally third and fourth year’ at
California State Polytechnic University. The prerequisites are few however, and the
book could form the basis of a first-year undergraduate course. It would also be
suitable for independent study, for example by a student preparing for the Olympiad.
STEVE ABBOTT
Discrete mathematics using latin squares, by Charles F. Laywine and Gary L.
Mullen. Pp. 305. £51.95. 1998. ISBN 0 471 24064 8 (Wiley-Interscience).
A latin square of order n is an n × n array in which n distinct symbols are
arranged so that each symbol occurs once in each row and column. Readers may
have come across such objects in statistical designs used to determine whether
significant differences in some variable exist between various samples. The subject
itself is rich with unsolved problems, and methods employed on obtaining general
results touch on a variety of other mathematical areas, especially in combinatorics,
finite geometry and coding theory.
The book introduces many basic properties and results of latin squares together
with diverse applications. The sixteen chapters are divided into four parts, with the
first two parts devoted to the introduction to latin squares and generalisations such as
permutation cubes, orthogonal hypercubes and frequency squares. Related
mathematics, such as the sieve principle, groups and graphs, are dealt with in the
third part. The nine chapters on applications are given in the last part, which
constitutes half of the book. There is a useful chapter on ‘nets’, which are point sets
with a very uniform distribution in a high dimensional cube, and can be used to
overcome the problem of generating truly random sequences in numerical techniques
such as Monte Carlo methods. Other topics include affine designs, statistics, error-
correcting codes and cryptology, with some topics being discussed in quite
considerable detail. Duplicate bridge players may be interested in a short chapter on
‘Room squares’, a topic based on the article [1] in the Gazette by T. G. Room, which
is related to the construction of Howell movements. The last chapter gives short
introductions to more applications including conflict-free access to parallel
memories, broadcast squares and tournaments. Thus, although many readers will be
able to construct solutions to round-robin tournaments, perhaps few will be able to
tackle a mixed-doubles tournament with a spouse-avoiding condition.
REVIEWS 181
The well-written book, which can be read by undergraduates, contains very

useful notes and references at the end of each chapter. Many of the exercises have
hints or partial solutions given in an appendix. Unfortunately, I am afraid that the
very high price for such a text means that it may only be bought by libraries.
Reference
1. T. G. Room, A new type of magic square, Math. Gaz. 39 (1955), p. 307.
P. SHIU
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Loughborough University LE11 3TU
Graph theory as I have known it, by W. T. Tutte. Pp. 156. £27.50. 1998. ISBN
0 19 850251 6 (Oxford University Press).
W. T. Tutte is one of the principal pioneers in the field of graph theory, where
he has exerted a major influence for over 60 years. This book is an account of a pre-
retirement series of lectures that Tutte gave in 1984 in which he reflected on his life's
work and disclosed many of his lines of thought, creative processes, triumphs and
frustrations. As he has also memorably described elsewhere in [1], Tutte's
introduction to graph theory occurred while he was an undergraduate at Cambridge
in the 1930s through his involvement with the Trinity College ‘Team of Four’
(Brooks, Smith, Stone, Tutte). Initially fired by one of H. E. Dudeney's Canterbury
puzzles, they eventually disproved Lusin's conjecture, that there is no dissection of a
square into a finite number of unequal smaller squares, and Tait's conjecture (which
implies the Four Colour Theorem, FCT), that there is a Hamiltonian circuit on the
edges of any convex polyhedron. ‘Squaring the square’ led to generalisations,
involving triangulations of triangles and parallelograms, and to work on rotational
symmetries of graphs (including the search for highly symmetrical graphs) and on
graphs on spheres: here Tutte whisks us from Brooks' Theorem via Hadwiger's
Conjecture (which generalises the FCT and is still unproved) to the theory of bridges
of bonds, ‘a beautiful theory needing applications’. Apart from the FCT, two other
nineteenth century precursors of twentieth century graph theoretical concerns were
Cayley's famous enumeration formula nn − 2 for the number of labelled trees on n
vertices and Kirchhoff's ‘Matrix-Tree’ Theorem which asserts that the singular
n × n matrix K = (cij) associated to the graph G = {v1, … , vn} by:
cii = valency of vi,
cij = −1 if vi, vj are adjacent,
= 0 otherwise,
has constant cofactors, the constant being the number of spanning trees of G.
Tutte describes his own work on the enumeration of various types of
triangulations: this is a fiendishly difficult task which put me in mind of Piet Hein's
‘grook’, ‘Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.’. Kirchhoff's
ideas spurred Tutte's interest in subgraphs which culminated in his f-Factor Theorem.
Another important enumerative tool is the chromatic polynomial, P (G, x), of a
(loopless) graph G. This has degree equal to the number of vertices of G and, for
any whole number m, P (G, m) is the number of colourings of the vertices of G using
m colours in which no edge has both its ends the same colour. Much of Tutte's later
work has dealt with specific properties of the roots of P (G, x) or chromatic
eigenvalues, including reasons for the ubiquitous appearance of the golden ratio and
other Beraha numbers of the form 4 cos2 (π / k), and also with generalisations such as
the 2-variable Tutte polynomial which mimics the behaviour of the chromatic
polynomial with respect to contraction and formation of subgraphs. His paper with
the catchy title, ‘All the King's horses’ demonstrated, among other things, that
P (G, x) can be reconstructed from a knowledge of P (G − {vi } , x) for
i = 1, … , n, although Ulam's full reconstruction conjecture − that G is determined
up to isomorphism by the isomorphism classes of the subgraphs G − {vi} − remains
stubbornly unresolved. More abstract algebraic techniques also feature: Tutte traces
the impact of some homological ideas from combinatorial topology, and the route
that led to his 1959 characterisation of which abstract matroids are graphic.
This is unusual and enchanting book which will be accessible to anyone who is
comfortable with the contents of [2]. Tutte modestly shows us ‘mathematics in the
making’ and portrays in a delightfully whimsical, personal manner the multi-
dimensional warps and wefts, cul de sacs, wishful thinking, pleasures and
satisfaction associated with a fulfilled life in mathematics.
References
1. Martin Gardner, More mathematical puzzles and diversions. Penguin. 1980.
Chapter 17.
2. Robin J. Wilson, Introduction to graph theory. Longman. 1975.
NICK LORD
Graph theory and its applications, by Jonathan Gross and Jay Yellen. Pp. 585.
£47.50. 1999. ISBN 0 8493 3982 0 (CRC Press)*.
Graph theory is a relatively new area of mathematics with many applications in
optimisation, scheduling, communication networks, computer architecture and even
biology. This comprehensive text assumes little background and the authors claim it
can be used as the basis of advanced undergraduate or beginning graduate courses in
general graph theory, data structures and algorithms, or operations research and
optimisation.
The first few chapters cover the fundamentals of graph theory such as types of
graph, matrix representation, spanning trees, Eulerian trails, Hamiltonian cycles and
travelling salesman problems. Later chapters introduce more advanced ideas and
applications such as drawing graphs on various surfaces, planarity, graph colourings,
digraph applications, network flows, enumeration, voltage graphs and non-planar
layouts. The variety of courses is possible by being selective in the coverage of the
later chapters in particular.
Although the book caters in theory for readers with minimal background, in
practice such readers would have to absorb an awful lot. Taking Chapter 8 (Drawing
Graphs and Maps) as a typical example, there are 72 definitions, 17 remarks and 20
propositions, theorems and corollaries. The first section is particularly tough for
anyone without any knowledge of topology: there are 20 definitions to be mastered
in order to state (but not prove) the Jordan Curve Theorem. To be fair though, an
advanced undergraduate who has not studied the topology of surfaces, and therefore
has to work hard in this chapter, will probably have studied topics which make other
chapters more straightforward.
As well as being comprehensive, the book has several other useful features.
There are hundreds of illustrations ‘to strengthen intuition’ and over 1600 exercises,
* CRC Press has become part of the same group as Springer-Verlag.

REVIEWS 183
some to secure understanding and others to challenge. In many sections explicit

algorithms are given for those who wish to use computers to solve particular
problems. Finally, a large number of applications are described, some in
considerable detail.
The Chinese postman problem (in Chapter 6) provides one example of the
‘algorithm and applications’ approach. The problem, proposed in 1962 by the
Chinese mathematician Meigu Guan, is to find the shortest closed walk that traverses
every edge of a graph at least once. It corresponds to the postman (or woman)
seeking the shortest route that allows all the mail to be delivered, starting and
finishing at the sorting office. The authors describe an algorithm for solving the
problem and give five examples of applications: street sweeping, mechanical graph
plotters, arranging a sequence of two-person meetings, determining an RNA chain
from its fragments, and information encoding. For the RNA example, they devote
three pages to providing enough information about RNA fragmentation for readers to
appreciate the value of the solution.
This book succeeds in its aim of comprehensive coverage. It will be useful for
anyone needing to learn about algorithms, applications, specific topics or about
graph theory in general.
STEVE ABBOTT
Theory of differentiation: a unified theory of differentiation via new derivate
theorems and new derivatives, by Krishna M. Garg. Pp. 525. £80.95. 1998. ISBN
0 471 25387 1 (Wiley).
This imposing research monograph is the outcome of a life-time's research into
the minutiae of the theory of differentiation. In it, Garg heroically strives to collate,
unify, systematize and, in several instances, improve the various results about
generalised derivatives that have sporadically appeared in the literature since the
days of the early pioneers such as Dini, Peano, Denjoy, Perron, G. C. and W. H.
Young, Lusin, Banach and Saks.
The archetypal unilateral ‘derivates’ are the upper and lower Dini derivates:
f (x + h) − f (x) f (x + h) − f (x)
D+f (x) = limsup , D−f (x) = liminf
h↓0 h h↑0 h
(with analogous definitions for D+f (x) and D−f (x)).
Notable early theorems were those of Denjoy-Young (Almost everywhere, either
f is differentiable or one of the upper derivates is +∞ and one of the lower derivates
−∞.) and of Denjoy-Young-Saks (An arbitrary function is differentiable at almost
every point at which it has a unilateral derivative.). Garg bases his development on
what he calls upper and lower new derivatives defined − where they exist − as the
set-valued functions x [ D+f (x) , D−f (x)] and x [ D f (x) , D+ f (x)] ; the sets
−
involved are, in fact, singletons nearly everywhere. (These link with the
subgradients of convex analysis and the notions of sub/super/semi-differentiability in
non-smooth analysis.)
What might be hoped for of a generalised derivative?
• Versions of the familiar manipulative devices such as the product,
quotient, chain and l'Hôpital's rules.
• Versions of characteristic results such as the mean value theorem and
the ‘monotonicity theorem’, guaranteeing that a function is non-
decreasing if its derivative is non-negative.
• Versions of familiar structural properties of derivatives such as the

Darboux (intermediate value) property, the Denjoy property (that
(f ′)−1 (a, b) is either empty or non-null), and the Lusin property (f (E) is
null whenever E is null).
• Reconstructibility of a function from its derivative by a suitably
generalised Denjoy-Perron integration process.
• Analogues of the Banach-Saks theorem, which characterises those
continuous functions f that are differentiable (everywhere) on almost
all of their level sets f −1 (y).
• Although since Weierstrass it has been known that continuous, nowhere
differentiable functions exist, a continuous function might have a
generalised derivative on, hopefully, a rich set of points. Again, the set
of somewhere differentiable functions is meagre in the space of
continuous functions: does the same hold for generalised derivatives?
These constitute some of the recurring themes explored in this book which
culminates in an axiomatic framework which, building on work with new
derivatives, explains the differences in behaviour of the various notions of
generalised derivative that have appeared in the literature (Garg lists over a dozen
such!). Throughout, the author's canvas is that of real-valued functions defined on
subsets of r − indeed, he is able to use the symbol C to denote the spaces of
continuous functions on [0, 1]!
This is a dauntingly technical work (the index of symbols runs to 5 pages!)
which demands close concentration on the part of the reader. But, as a not
inconsiderable feat of presentation of a frustratingly diffuse area of analysis, it will
repay such attention by real-variable aficionados.
NICK LORD
Functional analysis and differential equations in abstract spaces, by S. Zaidman.
Pp. 226. £36.00. 1999. ISBN 1 58488 011 2 (Chapman & Hall/CRC).
In form and content, this is very much a book of two contrasting halves. The
first half consists of a carefully written, smoothly organised introduction to classical
linear functional analysis. The route chosen to the three big theorems (uniform
boundedness, closed graph, Hahn-Banach) is a very familiar one, but there are some
nice pedagogical flourishes (such as the easy proof of Hahn-Banach for Hilbert

spaces: extend f defined on Y to Y by uniform continuity and thence to the whole

space by setting f = 0 on Y ⊥). After that, the topics presented reflect the less
standard prerequisites for the second half of the text with material on unbounded/
closed/closable operators, operator semigroups and their infinitesimal generators,
compact operators, symmetric operators (with their square roots obtained by a pretty
iterative method) and a soupçon of spectral theory.
In the more technical second half of the book, these tools are shown in action in
the context of results taken from the recent research literature on differential
equations in Hilbert and Banach spaces. As ever, the devil is in the details, but we
can glimpse something of what is involved from the simplest first order problem:
solve u′ = Au with u0 given. Here, u : [0, ∞) → X is a Banach space-valued
function, u′ is the strong derivative (obtained by replacing | . | by . in the usual
definition of derivative) and A is a closed densely defined operator. If the problem is
well-posed in a strong enough sense, the prescription u (t) = T (t) u0 gives rise to an
operator semigroup T (t) : X → X with infinitesimal generator A, i.e.
REVIEWS 185
Ax = limt ↓ 0 (T (t) x − x) / t , and the solution of the related non-homogeneous

equation u′ = Au + f (u0 given) is
t
u (t) = T (t) u0 + ∫0 T (t − s) f (s) ds.
The majority of Zaidman's later theorems relate to the question of uniqueness of

solutions. He introduces the concepts of weak and ultraweak solutions (which rely
on test functions in much the same way that these are used in the theory of
distributions) and, via delicate differential inequalities, proves restricted uniqueness
results in this situation for u″ = Mu (M symmetric on Hilbert space) and u′ = Au
(A closed and densely defined on a reflexive Banach space). He is also able to
transfer well-known results such as the resolvent representation formula
∞
∫0 e−λtT (t) x dt = (λI − A)−1 x (T, A as above, Re λ large) to the ultraweak setting.
Finally, on a different tack, he discusses the striking theorem that, for solutions of
equations such as u′ = Au + f (with A the infinitesimal generator of an almost
periodic (a.p.) group of operators and f a.p.) the concepts of weakly a.p and strongly
a.p. coincide with a simple connection between the spectrums of f and u: here, u is
weakly a.p. if x′u is a.p. in the classical sense for all x in X′ and strongly a.p. if u
mimics the classical definition but with . replacing | . |.
There are no exercises and, to my mind, a dearth of illustrative and motivational
examples in the text. The juxtaposition of the elementary and rather standard
contents of the first half with the specialised and much more rarefied concerns of the
second half certainly give the book an unusual and very distinctive flavour but may,
I fear, serve to split its potential readership.
NICK LORD
Ordinary differential equations and applications: mathematical methods for
applied mathematicians, physicists, engineers, bioscientists, by Werner S.
Weigelhofer and Kenneth A. Lindsay. Pp. 215. £14. 1999. ISBN 1 898563 57 8
(Horwood Publishers).
This book, according to the authors' preface, is based on lecture notes for a third
year course on mathematical methods at Glasgow University. The book opens with
three chapters entitled respectively: Differential Equations of First Order; Modelling
Applications; and Linear Differential Equations of Second Order. The content of the
first and third is fairly conventional, but the second deals with a variety of modelling
topics coming from fields not usually touched on in differential equation textbooks,
such as Newton's law of cooling, the Gompertz population law and pursuit curves.
The fourth chapter contains work on a variety of methods which have proved useful
in the solution of linear second order equations. The fifth chapter on oscillatory
motion includes a discussion on the concept of resonance.
The later chapters deal with more advanced work. The sixth chapter gives an
introduction to the use of Laplace transforms for solving linear differential equations
with constant coefficients. The seventh chapter deals with higher order initial value
problems (the marching problems of numerical analysis) and introduces the idea of
the Wronskian. The eighth chapter discusses systems of first order linear equations
and shows how such systems can be dealt with using the aid of matrices. The two
final chapters deal with more sophisticated material. The ninth introduces the
concept of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions and Sturm-Liouville theory, and the tenth
gives an introduction to the calculus of variations and considers some elementary
examples. An appendix gives a number of self-study projects from a variety of
fields; for example, rockets, bridges and snowploughs. Examples with solutions are
scattered throughout each chapter and at the end of each chapter there are a number
of tutorial examples, the answers to which (taking up about a quarter of the book) are
given in a second appendix.
This is an interesting book and reads easily. The topic mix may not suit every
course, but many will find it a useful textbook. Parts of chapter 1 and chapters 2, 3
and 5 could in fact be useful to A level students. (Might one suggest a pamphlet on
these lines by the authors?) There are one or two places where I feel the book could
be improved. In the first chapter there is a mention of singular solutions but no
mention of envelopes, and some discussion could have been given in the ninth and
tenth chapters of the connection between eigenvalues and the calculus of variations.
However, the appearance of the book is pleasing and the price is, for these days,
reasonable. I have no hesitation in recommending it.
Ll. G. CHAMBERS
School of Mathematics, University of Bangor LL57 1UT
Elementary Lie group analysis and ordinary differential equations, by Nail H.
Ibragimov (Mathematical Methods in Practice 4). Pp. 347. £55. 1999. ISBN 0 471
97430 7 (Wiley).
The series Mathematical Methods in Practice is intended to provide a one-stop-
shop for applied scientists who wish to use mathematics in their work. The idea is to
combine some of the theory traditionally taught in pure mathematics courses with
applications that are sometimes taught in the absence of rigour. Lie originally
developed his theory as a way of unifying the treatment of many types of differential
equations, analogous to Galois's theory for algebraic equations. Many books on Lie
groups develop the theory in the most general form, requiring the reader to be
acquainted with topological groups and manifolds, which are difficult ideas for
beginners. This book is intended for students who wish to understand Lie group
analysis specifically in the context of differential equations.
In order that the book be self-contained, the first part gives a brief but fairly
comprehensive treatment of the classical approach to differential equations. The first
chapter gives many excellent examples of the use of differential equations in
mathematical modelling. The next three cover methods for various ordinary
equations, general properties of solutions and first order partial differential
equations. The second part develops the fundamental ideas of Lie group analysis,
beginning with an interesting historical survey of Lie theory from Lie's original
work, to the resurrection of applied group analysis led by L. V. Ovsyannikov in the
sixties and seventies. The other chapters cover transformation groups, infinitesimal
transformations and local groups, differential algebra, symmetry of differential
equations and invariants. Having established the machinery of Lie group analysis in
part two, the remaining section is devoted to showing how it brings unity to the ad
hoc methods for differential equations presented in the first part.
This book presents Lie groups in a way that will appeal to two groups: those
who want an accessible introduction to the theory and those who primary focus is on
differential equations. Each chapter is supplemented with numerous historical notes
and references and a collection of problems, graded in difficulty. Answers or hints
are collected in an appendix.
STEVE ABBOTT
REVIEWS 187
Beginning partial differential equations, by Peter V. O’Neil. Pp. 500. £51.95.

1999. ISBN 0 471 23887 2 (Wiley).
This is a self-confessed bread-and-butter book on partial differential equations.
Since the subject is a difficult one for students, the appearance of this book is very
welcome, although the price will not be conducive to large sales. In fact, its
exorbitant price will ensure its exclusion from all but the most well-heeled libraries.
The topics chosen are first and second order differential equations, Fourier
analysis, the treatment of the wave and heat equations (the latter now used as a tool
in financial mathematics) and finally, a long section on the Dirichlet and Neumann
problems. To his credit the author makes certain prerequisites clear at the beginning,
and it is not one of those books with lofty ideas (not to mention blurbs written by the
marketing department) about teaching the latest research to students without GCSE.
The reader is not asked to plunge into partial differential equations without a facility
with the standard properties of real-valued functions of n real variables, vector
calculus (theorems of Green and Gauss), a post-calculus course on ordinary
differential equations and the convergence of series and improper integrals. Access
to the computer software MAPLE would also be handy, but is not essential for a
proper study of the mathematical contents of this book.
The very sparse historical comments are too incomplete to be of much help but
their inclusion is a nod in the right direction. A few afternoons in a reasonable library
would have offered much more to bolster the meagre comments made here. Why not
give us a bit more (than nothing) on say, Jean Marie Constant Duhamel (1797-1872),
who crops up in various places in the book. And which Neumann of the Neumann
problem is the author not talking about? A curious diversion in a technical book is
the long historical digression on ‘The Great Debate Over the Age of the Earth’ (pp.
317-320). One can only guess that this is still a popular topic in Alabama, where the
author is based. In this portion, which is presented well, the author summarises Joe
Burchfield’s Lord Kelvin and the age of the Earth (1875) and shows the way
William Thomson used the heat equation to gain his estimate of the Earth’s age as
between 100 and 400 million years.
The book will appeal mostly to applied mathematicians and those engineers
who are relatively strong mathematically. The presentation of surfaces in three
dimensions in these days of computer graphics leaves something to be desired. It is a
useful book but the same information can be found in books which are more
reasonably priced.
TONY CRILLY
Numerical solution of partial differential equations in science and engineering,

by Leon Lapidus and George F. Pinder. Pp. 677. £41.95. 1999. ISBN 0 471 35944 0
(paperback) (Wiley).
Originating as a support text for courses given by both authors at Princeton
University, this book is ideally suited to students from a variety of academic
disciplines. It is virtually free from jargon or other nomenclature which may deter
certain students; however it provides references to applications in a diversity of
subject areas.
It is very sad to report the sudden death (5 May 1977) of co-author, Leon
Lapidus, whilst at work in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Princeton
University. This tragedy undoubtedly contributed to the delay in publication ....
which in no way devalues this work. The objectives of providing a balanced

treatment of finite differences and finite element methods which can be read either
by equation-type or by numerical approximation have been fully achieved.
The first quarter of the text consists of introductory material relating to partial
differential equations of the first and second orders including their classification,
together with the method of characteristics. Basic concepts of finite differences and
finite elements follow, the latter being extended to include triangular, isoparametric
and three-dimensional elements. There are limited references here covering both
standard texts such as R. Courant and D. Hilbert Methods of mathematical physics
(Interscience 1962) and some less readily available publications!! For example B. G.
Galerkin, Vestn. Inzh. Tekh (USSR), 19, pp. 897-908 (1915).
As expected the majority of the book is trisected to cover parabolic, elliptic and
hyperbolic partial differential equations. Each section concludes with a very
substantial list of references. The absence of sets of exercises for the reader is only
partially offset by the inclusion of selected ‘Example Problems’ within the body of
the text. However the style of presentation is such that almost all readers would be
expected to go away and practice what they have assimilated; either in ‘real world’
applications or in sets of exercises taken from elsewhere.
The three types of PDE each receive a thorough treatment, carefully balanced
between finite differences and finite elements, as well as between one, two and three
spatial dimensions.
Authors of the twenty-first century attempting to supersede this work, possibly
by the inclusion of extensive material relating to digital computer software, will do
well to ask themselves ‘Which came first, the chicken or the egg?’
Whilst the publication price of £41.95 for a paperback edition of approximately
700 pages may be considered substantial it must be emphasised that − despite its
origins − the work is lecturer independent. Thus the reader has a readily accessible
self-contained reference work for the subject of the numerical solution of PDEs −
itself central to all applicable mathematics. This book is strongly recommended for
all students with significant involvement in this subject area.
MICHAEL R. MUDGE
23, Gors Fach, Pwll-Trap, St Clears SA33 4AQ
Evaluation and optimisation of electoral systems, by Pietro Grilli di Cortona,
Cecilia Manzi, Aline Pennisi, Federica Ricca and Bruno Simeone. Pp. 230. $53
(SIAM members $42.40). 1999. ISBN 0 89871 422 2 (Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics).
The problem of determining the best electoral system has occupied many minds
in this country recently. New assemblies in Scotland and Wales and the currently
suspended assembly for Northern Ireland have been established and the system for
electing Members of the European Parliament has been changed. Reform of the
House of Lords and the possibility of proportional representation for the Commons
will keep the subject of electoral systems in the public mind.
This book is the result of a collaboration involving experts from operational
research, statistics, decision sciences and political sciences. It has four sections, three
presenting mathematical treatments of various aspects of electoral systems and a
final section taking the political view. The mathematical treatment has been kept as
accessible as possible in the hope of attracting readers from beyond the mathematical
community. Though the book is essentially mathematical, the consequences of the
various equations and formulas have been interpreted in words for those
uncomfortable with mathematical notation.
REVIEWS 189
Previous analyses of electoral systems have taken various points of view; for
example, axiomatic, statistical, game-theoretic and geometric approaches have all
been used. The present authors consider the optimisation of various criteria.
In Chapter 2, Cecilia Manzi proposes a general set-theoretic model for electoral
systems that encompasses quotient methods and first-past-the-post, double ballot,
alternative transferable vote and single transferable vote systems. This model enables
a classification of the electoral systems of many countries. These systems can be
compared using a variety of criteria and indicators that are dealt with in the
following chapter. The next five chapters, by Aline Pennisi, consider the design of
electoral systems. Different electoral formulas are treated as algorithms that
minimise certain measures of unfairness, with the surprising result that the same
formula may minimise more than one measure.
The third section, by Fedrica Ricca, considers the problem of designing
electoral districts. An artificial example is given of a territory consisting of 45 wards
to be grouped into 9 equal constituencies. Although 24 wards favour party C and 21
favour party P, it is possible to assign wards to constituencies to achieve 8 seats to 1
victories for either party. The political sensitivity of deciding constituency
boundaries could not be better illustrated.
In the final section, Pietro Grilli di Cortona analyses the benefits, limitations and
political implications of the methodology presented in the first three parts.
This is a fascinating study that deserves to be widely read.
STEVE ABBOTT
Perplexing problems in probability: Festschrift in honor of Harry Kesten, ed.
Maury Bramson and Rick Durrett. Pp. 398. DM158. 1999. ISBN 3 7643 4093 2
(Birkhauser).
It has become fashionable recently for academics to honour a distinguished
colleague on reaching a certain age by publishing a Festschrift, being a collection, in
book form, of papers, each on a topic on which the person honoured has worked.
Often the contributors are former students. Cynics say this is a device for the authors
to get another paper to add to their c.v. Others would say that it provides an
opportunity both to honour a major contributor and to present a view of the state of
knowledge in a particular field. The book under review is such a Festschrift in
honour of Harry Kesten, consisting of a paper by Rick Durrett, which summarizes
his work, and twenty papers of original material on topics on which Kesten has
worked. The honorand has made major contributions to mathematical probability
and has gained a deserved reputation as a superb solver of problems and, as such, his
work is not confined to a single topic.
The papers therefore range widely and all require substantial background for
their appreciation. One class of problems concerns percolation processes. Take a
square, integer lattice and add edges connecting adjacent sites. Imagine the edges to
be channels conveying a fluid which are open (or closed) with probability p
(or 1 − p) independently of other channels. A question of physical interest is the set
of sites that can be reached from the origin by the use of open channels. It turns out
that there is a critical value at p = 12 and the number of such sites is infinite with
positive probability only if p exceeds that value. Kesten has extended enormously
our knowledge of the behaviour for values of p near to 12 . Another problem, again on
the lattice, is the self-avoiding random walk, which is the usual walk except that a
walk can never visit the same site twice. This is an especially difficult scenario
because the process has to remember all its past and cannot forget most of it, unlike a
Markov process.
These are difficult papers of limited appeal. When a writer says ‘well-known’
he likely means ‘well-known to 500 people’. But nevertheless they represent real
advances in difficult problems and form a fine testimonial to one of the world's
leading probabilists.
D. V. LINDLEY
Woodstock, Quay Lane, Minehead TA24 5QU
Resampling methods: a practical guide to data analysis, by Phillip I. Good.
Pp. 269. SFr118. 1999. ISBN 3 7643 4091 6 (Birkhäuser).
This book has been written for a diverse audience: medical students, health
workers, business people, biologists, social scientists, industrial statisticians and
statistical consultants are all mentioned in the preface as potential beneficiaries. As
the title suggests, it is not a traditional statistics text, preferring to emphasise ‘table-
free’ resampling methods (bootstrap, density estimation and permutations) rather
than methods based on tables of standard distributions.
Much of the first part of the book is aimed at those with minimal experience of
statistics. The first two chapters include such material as types of data, measures of
average, statistical diagrams and the binomial distribution. However, the resampling
approach is introduced as early as chapter one, where the bootstrap method is used to
establish the precision of a sample median. This involves repeatedly sampling with
replacement from the original sample of size 22, each case yielding another sample
of size 22, usually involving repetitions. The sample medians of 50 ‘resamples’ are
computed. These are illustrated on a number line to ‘provide a feel for what might
have been had we sampled repeatedly from the original population’. Clearly such a
method has drawbacks, and these are discussed in a section headed ‘Caveats’.
Permutation tests are introduced in the third chapter, Testing Hypotheses. Two
samples are compared: one has been subjected to a treatment that the other has not.
The results of the treated sample are 121, 118, 110; those of the untreated sample
results are 34, 22, 12. The total of the treated sample is compared with the totals of
every possible choice of 3 results. Since it is the highest of the 20 possible results
one can assert at the 5% significance level that the treatment was effective.
Density estimation is not introduced until chapter 10, Classification and
Discrimination, which considers the problem of deciding how many distinct
populations are represented in a sample. Suppose that a sample containing data from
n distinct populations is used to construct a histogram. Whether or not the histogram
shows the n sub-populations depends on the number of intervals used and the extent
to which the populations ‘overlap’. The histogram can be smoothed by replacing
each of its blocks by a normal distribution curve of corresponding area, centred on
the block, and then summing the results. The resulting curve is likely to have a
number of modes (maxima). The process can be repeated for many different interval
widths to determine the smallest interval width hk that gives k modes. For each of
these critical interval widths, bootstrap resampling can be used with the smoothing
process to estimate the proportion of times that more than k modes appear. This
proportion will be close to 1 if k < n and close to 0 if k ≥ n, thus allowing us to
estimate the value of n.
This book illustrates many applications of resampling methods. In each case, the
author discusses the assumptions that have been used and the corresponding
limitations. He writes in a conversational style and makes effective use of concrete
REVIEWS 191
examples to introduce the various methods. Each chapter has a chapter summary, a
section called ‘To Learn More’ guiding readers to appropriate references, and a set
of exercises. Overall this is a helpful introduction, but one that will stretch many of
the target groups mentioned in the preface. His claim that readers need only ‘high-
school algebra’ is stretching the truth: an expression like
( )
B n
ˆ ] = 1 ∑ 1 ∑ [ yi, η [ xi, w∗b]]
eff [ w∗, F
B b=1 n i=1
would frighten the life out of most ‘Physicians and physicians in training, nurses and
nursing students’ of this reviewer's acquaintance!
STEVE ABBOTT
Epidemiology: study design and data analysis, by Mark Woodward. Pp. 699.
£39.95. 1999. ISBN 1 584 88009 0. (Chapman & Hall/CRC).
This book has been aimed at statisticians who want to see how their subject can
be applied to epidemiology and to medical researchers who need a better
understanding of statistics. The first two chapters reflect this dual aim: the
statisticians need Chapter 1 to get a basic understanding of the fundamental issues of
epidemiology and the researchers need Chapter 2 to remind them of the basic tools
of statistics.
Epidemiologists investigate the causes of disease as well as modelling the
spread of disease. The emphasis in this book is on the first category of questions,
including the estimation of risk, the effect of confounding variables and the
interaction among risk factors. A good example of a confounding variable is the
presence of grey hair among stroke victims: the important risk factor is age, but grey
hair increases with age. An example of interaction between two risk factors occurs in
the study of lung disease among porcelain painters: lung function is affected by
exposure to cobalt, but this is much worse among painters who smoke.
Necessarily Woodward pays a good deal of attention to the design of studies to
investigate risk factors, with chapters on cohort studies, case-control studies and
intervention studies.
The last four chapters present statistical methods such as hypothesis testing,
analysis of variance for one or more explanatory variables, various forms of
regression analysis and probability models for hazard and survival functions, such as
the exponential and Weibull distributions
The book contains many examples and exercises based on real epidemiological
data. In some cases, where the data set is large, the information is also provided
electronically on an associated web site (http://www.reading.ac.uk/AcaDepts/sn/
wsn1/publications99.html).
The use of real data sets to illustrate ideas, the emphasis on practicality and the
omission of proofs are all features that will appeal to those interested in applying
statistical methods to the study of disease. The book looks particularly suitable for
students.
STEVE ABBOTT
THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION

The fundamental aim of the Mathematical Association is to promote good
methods of mathematical teaching. A member receives each issue of the
Mathematical Gazette and/or Mathematics in School (according to the class
of membership chosen), together with Newsletters. Reports are published
from time to time and these are normally available to members at a reduced
rate. Those interested in becoming members should contact the Executive
Secretary for information and application forms. The address of the
Association Headquarters is 259 London Road, Leicester LE2 3BE, UK
(telephone 0116 221 0013). The Association should be notified of any
change of address. If copies of the Association periodicals fail to reach a
member through lack of such notification, duplicate copies can only be
supplied at the published price. If change of address is due to a change of
appointment, the Association will be glad to be informed. Subscriptions
should be submitted to the Treasurer via Headquarters. Correspondence
relating to Teaching Committee should be addressed to Mr Doug French.
The Association's Library is housed in the University Library, Leicester.
THE MATHEMATICAL GAZETTE

Editor: Production Editor: Problem Corner:
Mr Steve Abbott, Mr Bill Richardson, Mr Graham Hoare,
91 High Road West, Kintail, 3 Russett Hill,
Felixstowe Longmorn, Chalfont St. Peter,
IP11 9AB Elgin IV30 8RJ Bucks SL9 8JY
Reviews Editors: e-mails

'Bud' Winteridge, Mrs Rosalie McCrossan, Bill Richardson
The University of Garnock Academy, wpr3@tutor.open.ac.uk
Birmingham, Westhill, School Road,
Weoley Park Road, Kilbirnie, Bud Winteridge
Birmingham B29 6LL KA25 7AX d.j.winteridge@bham.ac.uk
Material for publication should be sent to the Editor.

Suggestions for improvements will be welcome.
Books for review should be sent to Bud Winteridge.
Advice to authors of notes and articles.
Study the format of articles in the Gazette. Please note the format for
references. MSS should be typed (two copies please) and formulae that
cannot be typed should be clearly hand written. If, in addition, files on disk
are submitted the disks should be 3½ inch. TEX files are welcome.
This edition of the Gazette was produced on an Acorn machine using
TechWriter and Draw.

Maths Gazette PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Maths Gazette PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The

Sir Wifred H. Cockcroft

Volume 84: Number 499 March 2000

PRESIDENT Never say never: some mistaken identities Mark J. Cooker 94

Professor John Berry A curious property of the integer 24 M. H. Eggar 96

THE MATHEMATICAL GAZETTE

The Fermat-Torricelli points of n lines Roy Barbara 24

Continued fractions Robert Macmillan 30

A construction of magic cubes Marián Trenkler 36

The factorial function: Stirling's formula David Fowler 42

A simple energy-conserving model Richard Bridges 51

The Hale-Bopp comet explored H. R. Corbishley 58

Notes 84.01 to 84.28

Digital roots and reciprocals of primes Alexander J. Gray 86

Vol. 84 March 2000 No. 499

Editorial: It's voting time again!

One hundred years on

the so-called problems vary from specific mathematical questions to

2. To establish the consistency of the axioms of arithmetic

3. To show, using only the congruence axioms, whether two tetrahedra

4. To investigate geometries (metrics) in which the line segment between

a Lie group by A. Gleason (1952) and by D. Montgomery and L. Zippin

6. The mathematical axiomatisation of physics

7. To establish the transcendence of certain numbers

8. To investigate problems concerning the distribution of prime numbers; in

9. To find the most general law of reciprocity in an algebraic number field

10. To find an algorithm for deciding whether any given Diophantine

11. To investigate the theory of quadratic forms over an arbitrary algebraic

12. Extension of Kronecker's theorem on Abelian fields to an arbitrary

13. To show the impossibility of the solution of the general algebraic

Solved by V. I Arnol'd (1957) for continuous functions; still unsolved if

14. To consider invariants which arise when only the transformations of a

15. To establish the foundations of algebraic geometry, in particular,

16. To study the topology of real algebraic curves and surfaces

Solved, affirmatively, by Artin (1926-1927) for real closed fields. In

18. To investigate the existence of non-regular space-filling polyhedra

19. To determine whether the solution of regular problems in the calculus

20. To investigate the existence of solutions of partial differential equations

∑ aij ∂ xi∂ xj + F x1, … , xn, u,

depend linearly on those first chosen. The matrix of constants which

22. Uniformisation of complex analytic functions by means of automorphic

23. To extend the methods of the calculus of variations

Lewis Carroll − mathematician and teacher of

It is well known that Lewis Carroll enjoyed the company of children

* I am indebted to my friend Edward Wakeling for his permission to quote

Croft-on-Tees: ‘I went to the Boys' School in the morning to hear my father

time afterwards to watch: for want of teachers, the master (Charles

Fortunately his association with the children at Croft School ended on a

Snubbing with and without eta

A more general approach

Eratosthenes had to do some travelling about Egypt to make his

we include the icosahedron (which is a snub tetrahedron). The other 5 (in a

If every edge is of length 2 units, the vertex figures of all these

To find the circumscribing polyhedron

[ 1/ (1 − t) − cot2 (π/ p)]

TABLES: numerical results for snub edge = 2

Notes on the tables

internally, giving the familiar icosahedron, or externally, giving the great

Use it or lose it!!

The Fermat-Torricelli points of n lines

d (X, Li) is the distance from X to Li. A question of interest is to minimise f ,

point. A half line Vx ⊆ some Li , containing exactly one vertex V , is a ray,

The main result and examples