Showing posts with label Math. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Math. Show all posts

Saturday, August 4, 2012

The Golden Ratio

Acknowledgement: Pretty Golden Ratio picture sourced from Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FakeRealLogSprial.svg
Once again, from "The Math Book" by Clifford Pickover ("Golden Ratio" - page 112, c.1509). The simple definition of one of the many interesting properties of the Golden Ratio was that:

(a + b)/b = a/b = phi (Golden Ratio) where b is the longer section.

I had primarily wanted to find out how the number 1.61... was derived.

In this case, Wikipedia had the answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

I was aware that the Fibonacci series was a common underlying feature in nature and was glad to see this partly discussed while examining the Golden Ratio's feature in the same aspects of nature. Come to think of it, I believe I was taught (just the facts, not any deeper understanding) the relationship between the Fibonacci series and the Continued Fraction form for describing the Golden Ratio. Somehow that fact never really stuck ... maybe merely learning the facts just wasn't very fun for an undergrad with so many things (including girls?) on my mind.

Anyway, through this entry, I had also learned that the square-root of any non-square natural number is irrational. Funny how it has taken me so many years to realize this! The proof can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_irrational

In any event, I think I am satisfied for now. This was pretty fun, I think I enjoyed the little adventure in Math (re-)exploration.




Deriving the Leibniz Formula for Pi/4

A while back, I picked up a fascinating book by Clifford Pickover ("The Math Book" - not exact, "a" is alpha, "B" is capital beta. I have yet to learn to put math symbols onto blogspot, and I'm feeling lazy right now) summarizing the chronological history of mathematical discoveries.

Today, I read the entry on the "Discovery of Series Formula for Pi" (page 110 - c.1500) and realized that while I had learned this, I had never appreciated its significance nor how it was derived.

So, given the sparse details of the entry, my question is:

"How did Leibniz, Gregory and (possibly) Somayaji independently derive the series formula for Pi? Was there a first-principles approach?"

Wikipedia, sadly, provides the proof using the Arctan series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_formula_for_%CF%80

My impression, having read the text, was that the series for arctan and pi/4 were independently derived, with arctan having been found by Gregory and Somayaji. Apparently, Gregory had not realized that arctan(1) was pi/4, which seemed a little strange.

Time to find out!

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Singapore Primary School Math (modified)

Here's something related to a primary school math problem in Singapore that has gotten me a little stumped. I'm not too bothered by this since I'm trying to have fun reasoning about it from first principles. Given the diagram below, where the arcs represent quadrants of a circle of radius r:


Is there a way to figure out the areas of A, B and C in terms of r in such a way that if r is provided, we are able to solve for A, B and C?

Here's the original problem as context. I could not solve for A (the same in both contexts) somehow. At the very least, I felt like I needed to be able to solve for C or D (D & B having the same areas because of symmetry, so B is a red herring). In the above case, I may have made it more difficult by breaking C and D (in the original) into their symmetric component parts. As an orthogonal question, I wonder about the proof of symmetry.

1. Find the area of B+C (trivial: Quarter the area of the circle)
2. Find the area of A (stumped)
3. Find the area of C-A (Needs some work, but not especially hard to find from first principles. That was what led to my drawing which completed all the symmetries)
4. Find the area of A+B (trivial: Area of square minus the quadrant)

Solution (via Trigonometry) - updated 7/4

Okay, so I cheated. I had intended to see if trigonometry could generate another equation that would allow A to be determined based solely on r and what we know about the areas of squares and circles. Well, trigonometry provides a direct answer:

There are two ways of determining the angles, the more direct being the radius of each arc. The angles are 60 and 30 degrees, with the height of the central triangle being sqrt(3) x 7. So, the area of the central triangle is sqrt(3) x 49. Each pie slice has area (1/12) x pi x 196. So the area of A is 196 - ((sqrt(3) x 49) + (1/6 x pi x 196)). Ignoring the original use of 22/7 as pi (which results in an error of 0.625 when computing the area of the two pie slices), we get the area of 8.50415041 for A. I do not believe there is a convenient integer representation of sqrt(3) in terms of pi, so I think I am prepared to call "bollocks" on the teacher(s) who thought A could be conveniently found in the original problem! Of course, I am also prepared to be wrong.

I am currently working on a sanity check. We know C - A = 112 (with pi = 22/7). So, I am trying to independently derive this answer through trigonometry.

Okay, sanity check done. C can be determined independently of A. There is a relationship between C, the 60-degree pie slice and the equilateral triangle in C. That works out to 120.38023. C - A in the original problem can be calculated to be 111.87608 by avoiding the lousy estimate of 22/7 for pi. That was 196 - (2 x (1/4 x pi x 196)). C - A computed using the direct determination of A and C via trigonometry yields exactly the same answer. So I'm definitely calling bollocks on those teachers.


Final Comment: Of course, through trigonometry, I have answered my first question - yes, we can determine A, B and C in terms of r.

Docking two vessels in orbit

So, it was in the news that the Chinese had become the third nation to achieve manual orbital docking of a spacecraft with the International Space Station. I wondered why this would be considered a feat and so I consulted Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_operations

Turns out this is not an intuitive operation. The primary reason is due to the effects of accelerating while under the influence of gravity - it raises the craft into a higher orbit which decreases relative velocities. Buzz Aldrin has written a Phd Thesis on the issues of Orbital Mechanics. So, the answers to my (would be) question are probably here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics

So, what I really want to do in this entry is to work out the simplest cases. If I have a spacecraft just behind (and slightly off to the side of) another in the same orbital plane:

1. What happens when I try to accelerate and then decelerate in order to catch up with it intuitively?

2. What do I have to do (I'll need to fill in the necessary parameters) in order to actually dock with the leading craft?