Category: mathematics

Relating mathematics to questions that are relevant to many students can help address its image problem, argues Eugenia Cheng.

Mathematics has an image problem: far too many people are put off it and conclude that the subject just isn’t for them. There are many issues, including the curriculum, standardised tests and constraints placed on teachers. But one of the biggest problems is how maths is presented, as cold and dry.

Attempts at “real-life” applications are often detached from our daily lives, such as arithmetic problems involving a ludicrous number of watermelons or using a differential equation to calculate how long a hypothetical cup of coffee will take to cool.

I have a different approach, which is to relate abstract maths to questions of politics and social justice. I have taught fairly maths-phobic art students in this way for the past seven years and have seen their attitudes transformed. They now believe maths is relevant to them and can genuinely help them in their everyday lives.

At a basic level, maths is founded on logic, so when I am teaching the principles of logic, I use examples from current events rather than the old-fashioned, detached type of problem. Instead of studying the logic of a statement like “all dogs have four legs”, I might discuss the (also erroneous) statement “all immigrants are illegal”.

But I do this with specific mathematical structures, too. For example, I teach a type of structure called an ordered set, which is a set of objects subject to an order relation such as “is less than”. We then study functions that map members of one ordered set to members of another, and ask which functions are “order-preserving”. A typical example might be the function that takes an ordinary number and maps it to the number obtained from multiplying by 2. We would then say that if x < y then also 2x < 2y, so the function is order-preserving. By contrast the function that squares numbers isn’t order-preserving because, for example, -2 < -1, but (-2)² > (-1)². If we work through those squaring operations, we get 4 and 1.

However, rather than sticking to this type of dry mathematical example, I introduce ones about issues like privilege and wealth. If we think of one ordered set with people ordered by privilege, we can make a function to another set where the people are now ordered by wealth instead. What does it mean for that to be order-preserving, and do we expect it to be so? Which is to say, if someone is more privileged than someone else, are they automatically more wealthy? We can also ask about hours worked and income: if someone works more hours, do they necessarily earn more? The answer there is clearly no, but then we go on to discuss whether we think this function should be order-preserving or not, and why.

My approach is contentious because, traditionally, maths is supposed to be neutral and apolitical. I have been criticised by people who think my approach will be off-putting to those who don’t care about social justice; however, the dry approach is off-putting to those who do care about social justice. In fact, I believe that all academic disciplines should address our most important issues in whatever way they can. Abstract maths is about making rigorous logical arguments, which is relevant to everything. I don’t demand that students agree with me about politics, but I do ask that they construct rigorous arguments to back up their thoughts and develop the crucial ability to analyse the logic of people they disagree with.

Maths isn’t just about numbers and equations, it is about studying different logical systems in which different arguments are valid. We can apply it to balls rolling down different hills, but we can also apply it to pressing social issues. I think we should do both, for the sake of society and to be more inclusive towards different types of student in maths education.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Eugenia Cheng*

One of the essential skills students need to master in primary school mathematics are “multiplication facts.”

What are they? What are they so important? And how can you help your child master them?

What are multiplication facts?

Multiplication facts typically describe the answers to multiplication sums up to 10×10. Sums up to 10×10 are called “facts” as it is expected they can be easily and quickly recalled. You may recall learning multiplication facts in school from a list of times tables.

The shift from “times tables” to “multiplication facts” is not just about language. It stems from teachers wanting children to see how multiplication facts can be used to solve a variety of problems beyond the finite times table format.

For example, if you learned your times tables in school (which typically went up to 12×12 and no further), you might be stumped by being asked to solve 15×8 off the top of your head. In contrast, we hope today’s students can use their multiplication facts knowledge to quickly see how 15×8 is equivalent to 10×8 plus 5×8.

The shift in terminology also means we are encouraging students to think about the connections between facts. For example, when presented only in separate tables, it is tricky to see how 4×3 and 3×4 are directly connected.

Math education has changed

In a previous piece, we talked about how mathematics education has changed over the past 30 years.

In today’s mathematics classrooms, teachers still focus on developing students’ mathematical accuracy and fast recall of essential facts, including multiplication facts.

But we also focus on developing essential problem-solving skills. This helps students form connections between concepts, and learn how to reason through a variety of real-world mathematical tasks.

Why are multiplication facts so important?

By the end of primary school, it is expected students will know multiplication facts up to 10×10 and can recall the related division fact (for example, 10×9=90, therefore 90÷10=9).

Learning multiplication facts is also essential for developing “multiplicative thinking.” This is an understanding of the relationships between quantities, and is something we need to know how to do on a daily basis.

When we are deciding whether it is better to purchase a 100g product for $3 or a 200g product for $4.50, we use multiplicative thinking to consider that 100g for $3 is equivalent to 200g for $6—not the best deal!

Multiplicative thinking is needed in nearly all math topics in high school and beyond. It is used in many topics across algebra, geometry, statistics and probability.

This kind of thinking is profoundly important. Research shows students who are more proficient in multiplicative thinking perform significantly better in mathematics overall.

In 2001, an extensive RMIT study found there can be as much as a seven-year difference in student ability within one mathematics class due to differences in students’ ability to access multiplicative thinking.

These findings have been confirmed in more recent studies, including a 2021 paper.

So, supporting your child to develop their confidence and proficiency with multiplication is key to their success in high school mathematics. How can you help?

Below are three research-based tips to help support children from Year 2 and beyond to learn their multiplication facts.

1. Discuss strategies

One way to help your child’s confidence is to discuss strategies for when they encounter new multiplication facts.

Prompt them to think of facts they already and how they can be used for the new fact.

For example, once your child has mastered the x2 multiplication facts, you can discuss how 3×6 (3 sixes) can be calculated by doubling 6 (2×6) and adding one more 6. We’ve now realized that x3 facts are just x2 facts “and one more”!

Strategies can be individual: students should be using the strategy that makes the most sense to them. So you could ask a questions such as “if you’ve forgotten 6×7, how could you work it out?” (we might personally think of 6×6=36 and add one more 6, but your child might do something different and equally valid).

This is a great activity for any quiet car trip. It can also be a great drawing activity where you both have a go at drawing your strategy and then compare. Identifying multiple strategies develops flexible thinking.

2. Help them practice

Practicing recalling facts under a friendly time crunch can be helpful in achieving what teachers call “fluency” (that is, answering quickly and easily).

A great game you could play with your children is “multiplication heads up” . Using a deck of cards, your child places a card to their forehead where you can see but they cannot. You then flip over the top card on the deck and reveal it to your child. Using the revealed card and the card on your child’s head you tell them the result of the multiplication (for example, if you flip a 2 and they have a 3 card, then you tell them “6!”).

Based on knowing the result, your child then guesses what their card was.

If it is challenging to organize time to pull out cards, you can make an easier game by simply quizzing your child. Try to mix it up and ask questions that include a range of things they know well with and ones they are learning.

Repetition and rehearsal will mean things become stored in long-term memory.

3. Find patterns

Another great activity to do at home is print some multiplication grids and explore patterns with your child.

A first start might be to give your child a blank or partially blank multiplication grid which they can practice completing.

Then, using colored pencils, they can color in patterns they notice. For example, the x6 column is always double the answer in the x3 column. Another pattern they might see is all the even answers are products of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. They can also notice half of the grid is repeated along the diagonal.

This also helps your child become a mathematical thinker, not just a calculator.

The importance of multiplication for developing your child’s success and confidence in mathematics cannot be understated. We believe these ideas will give you the tools you need to help your child develop these essential skills.

For more such insights, log into our website https://international-maths-challenge.com

Credit of the article given to Bronwyn Reid O’Connor and Benjamin Zunica, The Conversation

 

Not content with shapes in two or three dimensions, mathematicians like to explore objects in any number of spatial dimensions. Now they have discovered shapes of constant width in any dimension, which roll like a wheel despite not being round.

A 3D shape of constant width as seen from three different angles. The middle view resembles a 2D Reuleaux triangle

Mathematicians have reinvented the wheel with the discovery of shapes that can roll smoothly when sandwiched between two surfaces, even in four, five or any higher number of spatial dimensions. The finding answers a question that researchers have been puzzling over for decades.

Such objects are known as shapes of constant width, and the most familiar in two and three dimensions are the circle and the sphere. These aren’t the only such shapes, however. One example is the Reuleaux triangle, which is a triangle with curved edges, while people in the UK are used to handling equilateral curve heptagons, otherwise known as the shape of the 20 and 50 pence coins. In this case, being of constant width allows them to roll inside coin-operated machines and be recognised regardless of their orientation.

Crucially, all of these shapes have a smaller area or volume than a circle or sphere of the equivalent width – but, until now, it wasn’t known if the same could be true in higher dimensions. The question was first posed in 1988 by mathematician Oded Schramm, who asked whether constant-width objects smaller than a higher-dimensional sphere might exist.

While shapes with more than three dimensions are impossible to visualise, mathematicians can define them by extending 2D and 3D shapes in logical ways. For example, just as a circle or a sphere is the set of points that sits at a constant distance from a central point, the same is true in higher dimensions. “Sometimes the most fascinating phenomena are discovered when you look at higher and higher dimensions,” says Gil Kalai at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel.

Now, Andrii Arman at the University of Manitoba in Canada and his colleagues have answered Schramm’s question and found a set of constant-width shapes, in any dimension, that are indeed smaller than an equivalent dimensional sphere.

Arman and his colleagues had been working on the problem for several years in weekly meetings, trying to come up with a way to construct these shapes before they struck upon a solution. “You could say we exhausted this problem until it gave up,” he says.

The first part of the proof involves considering a sphere with n dimensions and then dividing it into 2ⁿ equal parts – so four parts for a circle, eight for a 3D sphere, 16 for a 4D sphere and so on. The researchers then mathematically stretch and squeeze these segments to alter their shape without changing their width. “The recipe is very simple, but we understood that only after all of our elaboration,” says team member Andriy Bondarenko at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

The team proved that it is always possible to do this distortion in such a way that you end up with a shape that has a volume at most 0.9ⁿ times that of the equivalent dimensional sphere. This means that as you move to higher and higher dimensions, the shape of constant width gets proportionally smaller and smaller compared with the sphere.

Visualising this is difficult, but one trick is to imagine the lower-dimensional silhouette of a higher-dimensional object. When viewed at certain angles, the 3D shape appears as a 2D Reuleaux triangle (see the middle image above). In the same way, the 3D shape can be seen as a “shadow” of the 4D one, and so on.  “The shapes in higher dimensions will be in a certain sense similar, but will grow in complexity as [the] dimension grows,” says Arman.

Having identified these shapes, mathematicians now hope to study them further. “Even with the new result, which takes away some of the mystery about them, they are very mysterious sets in high dimensions,” says Kalai.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Alex Wilkins*

School mathematics teaching is stuck in the past. An adult revisiting the school that they attended as a child would see only superficial changes from what they experienced themselves.

Yes, in some schools they might see a room full of electronic tablets, or the teacher using a touch-sensitive, interactive whiteboard. But if we zoom in on the details – the tasks that students are actually being given to help them make sense of the subject – things have hardly changed at all.

We’ve learnt a huge amount in recent years about cognitive science – how our brains work and how people learn most effectively. This understanding has the potential to revolutionise what teachers do in classrooms. But the design of mathematics teaching materials, such as textbooks, has benefited very little from this knowledge.

Some of this knowledge is counter-intuitive, and therefore unlikely to be applied unless done so deliberately. What learners prefer to experience, and what teachers think is likely to be most effective, often isn’t what will help the most.

For example, cognitive science tells us that practising similar kinds of tasks all together generally leads to less effective learning than mixing up tasks that require different approaches.

In mathematics, practising similar tasks together could be a page of questions each of which requires addition of fractions. Mixing things up might involve bringing together fractions, probability and equations in immediate succession.

Learners make more mistakes when doing mixed exercises, and are likely to feel frustrated by this. Grouping similar tasks together is therefore likely to be much easier for the teacher to manage. But the mixed exercises give the learner important practice at deciding what method they need to use for each question. This means that more knowledge is retained afterwards, making this what is known as a “desirable difficulty”.

Cognitive science applied

We are just now beginning to apply findings like this from cognitive science to design better teaching materials and to support teachers in using them. Focusing on school mathematics makes sense because mathematics is a compulsory subject which many people find difficult to learn.

Typically, school teaching materials are chosen by gut reactions. A head of department looks at a new textbook scheme and, based on their experience, chooses whatever seems best to them. What else can they be expected to do? But even the best materials on offer are generally not designed with cognitive science principles such as “desirable difficulties” in mind.

My colleagues and I have been researching educational designthat applies principles from cognitive science to mathematics teaching, and are developing materials for schools. These materials are not designed to look easy, but to include “desirable difficulties”.

They are not divided up into individual lessons, because this pushes the teacher towards moving on when the clock says so, regardless of student needs. Being responsive to students’ developing understanding and difficulties requires materials designed according to the size of the ideas, rather than what will fit conveniently onto a double-page spread of a textbook or into a 40-minute class period.

Switching things up

Taking an approach led by cognitive science also means changing how mathematical concepts are explained. For instance, diagrams have always been a prominent feature of mathematics teaching, but often they are used haphazardly, based on the teacher’s personal preference. In textbooks they are highly restricted, due to space constraints.

Often, similar-looking diagrams are used in different topics and for very different purposes, leading to confusion. For example, three circles connected as shown below can indicate partitioning into a sum (the “part-whole model”) or a product of prime factors.

These involve two very different operations, but are frequently represented by the same diagram. Using the same kind of diagram to represent conflicting operations (addition and multiplication) leads to learners muddling them up and becoming confused.

Number diagrams showing numbers that add together to make six and numbers that multiply to make six. Colin Foster

The “coherence principle” from cognitive science means avoiding diagrams where their drawbacks outweigh their benefits, and using diagrams and animations in a purposeful, consistent way across topics.

For example, number lines can be introduced at a young age and incorporated across many topic areas to bring coherence to students’ developing understanding of number. Number lines can be used to solve equations and also to represent probabilities, for instance.

Unlike with the circle diagrams above, the uses of number lines shown below don’t conflict but reinforce each other. In each case, positions on the number line represent numbers, from zero on the left, increasing to the right.

A number line used to solve an equation. Colin Foster

A number line used to show probability. Colin Foster

There are disturbing inequalities in the learning of mathematics, with students from poorer backgrounds underachieving relative to their wealthier peers. There is also a huge gender participation gap in maths, at A-level and beyond, which is taken by far more boys than girls.

Socio-economically advantaged families have always been able to buy their children out of difficulties by using private tutors, but less privileged families cannot. Better-quality teaching materials, based on insights from cognitive science, mitigate the impact for students who have traditionally been disadvantaged by gender, race or financial background in the learning of mathematics.

For more such insights, log into our website https://international-maths-challenge.com

Credit of the article given to SrideeStudio/Shutterstock

For all the students wondering why they would ever need to use the Pythagorean theorem, Katie Steckles is delighted to report on a real-world encounter.

Recently, I was building a flat-pack wardrobe when I noticed something odd in the instructions. Before you assembled the wardrobe, they said, you needed to measure the height of the ceiling in the room you were going to put it in. If it was less than 244 centimetres high, there was a different set of directions to follow.

These separate instructions asked you to build the wardrobe in a vertical orientation, holding the side panels upright while you attached them to the base. The first set of directions gave you a much easier job, building the wardrobe flat on the floor before lifting it up into place. I was intrigued by the value of 244 cm: this wasn’t the same as the height of the wardrobe, or any other dimension on the package, and I briefly wondered where that number had come from. Then I realised: Pythagoras.

The wardrobe was 236 cm high and 60 cm deep. Looking at it side-on, the length of the diagonal line from corner to corner can be calculated using Pythagoras’s theorem. The vertical and horizontal sides meet at a right angle, meaning if we square the length of each then add them together, we get the well-known “square of the hypotenuse”. Taking the square root of this number gives the length of the diagonal.

In this case, we get a diagonal length a shade under 244 cm. If you wanted to build the wardrobe flat and then stand it up, you would need that full diagonal length to fit between the floor and the ceiling to make sure it wouldn’t crash into the ceiling as it swung past – so 244 cm is the safe ceiling height. It is a victory for maths in the real world, and vindication for maths teachers everywhere being asked, “When am I going to use this?”

This isn’t the only way we can connect Pythagoras to daily tasks. If you have ever needed to construct something that is a right angle – like a corner in joinery, or when laying out cones to delineate the boundaries of a sports pitch – you can use the Pythagorean theorem in reverse. This takes advantage of the fact that a right-angled triangle with sides of length 3 and 4 has a hypotenuse of 5 – a so-called 3-4-5 triangle.

If you measure 3 units along one side from the corner, and 4 along the other, and join them with a diagonal, the diagonal’s length will be precisely 5 units, if the corner is an exact right angle. Ancient cultures used loops of string with knots spaced 3, 4 and 5 units apart – when held out in a triangle shape, with a knot at each vertex, they would have a right angle at one corner. This technique is still used as a spot check by builders today.

Engineers, artists and scientists might use geometrical thinking all the time, but my satisfaction in building a wardrobe, and finding the maths checked out perfectly, is hard to beat.

Katie Steckles is a mathematician, lecturer, YouTuber and author based in Manchester, UK. She is also puzzle adviser for New Scientist’s puzzle column, BrainTwister. Follow her @stecks

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Peter Rowlett*

It is said that the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras came up with the idea that musical note combinations sound best in certain mathematical ratios, but that doesn’t seem to be true.

Pythagoras has influenced Western music for millennia

An ancient Greek belief about the most pleasing combinations of musical notes – often attributed to the philosopher Pythagoras – doesn’t actually reflect the way people around the world appreciate harmony, researchers have found. Instead, Pythagoras’s mathematical arguments may merely have been taken as fact and used to assert the superiority of Western culture.

According to legend, Pythagoras found that the ringing sounds of a blacksmith’s hammers sounded most pleasant, or “consonant”, when the ratio between the size of two tools involved two integers, or whole numbers, such as 3:2.

This idea has shaped how Western musicians play chords, because the philosopher’s belief that listeners prefer music played in perfect mathematical ratios was so influential. “Consonance is a really important concept in Western music, in particular for telling us how we build harmonies,” says Peter Harrison at the University of Cambridge.

But when Harrison and his colleagues surveyed 4272 people in the UK and South Korea about their perceptions of music, their findings flew in the face of this ancient idea.

In one experiment, participants were played musical chords and asked to rate how pleasant they seemed. Listeners were found to slightly prefer sounds with an imperfect ratio. Another experiment discovered little difference in appeal between the sounds made by instruments from around the world, including the bonang, an Indonesian gong chime, which produces harmonies that cannot be replicated on a Western piano.

While instruments like the bonang have traditionally been called “inharmonic” by Western music culture, study participants appreciated the sounds the instrument and others like it made. “If you use non-Western instruments, you start preferring different harmonies,” says Harrison.

“It’s fascinating that music can be so universal yet so diverse at the same time,” says Patrick Savage at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. He says that the current study also contradicts previous research he did with some of the same authors, which found that integer ratio-based rhythms are surprisingly universal.

Michelle Phillips at the Royal Northern College of Music in Manchester, UK, points out that the dominance of Pythagorean tunings, as they are known, has been in question for some time. “Research has been hinting at this for 30 to 40 years, as music psychology has grown as a discipline,” she says. “Over the last fifteenish years, people have undertaken more work on music in the whole world, and we now know much more about non-Western pitch perception, which shows us even more clearly how complex perception of harmony is.”

Harrison says the findings tell us both that Pythagoras was wrong about music – and that music and music theory have been too focused on the belief that Western views are held worldwide. “The idea that simple integer ratios are superior could be framed as an example of mathematical justification for why we’ve got it right over here,” he says. “What our studies are showing is that, actually, this is not an inviolable law. It’s something that depends very much on the way in which you’re playing music.”

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Chris Stokel-Walker*

An unsatisfying caveat in a mathematical breakthrough discovery of a single tile shape that can cover a surface without ever creating a repeating pattern has been eradicated. The newly discovered “spectre” shape can cover a surface without repeating and without mirror images.

The pattern on the left side is made up of the “hat” shape, including reflections. The pattern on the right is made up of round-edged “spectre” shapes that repeat infinitely without reflections

David Smith et al

Mathematicians solved a decades-long mystery earlier this year when they discovered a shape that can cover a surface completely without ever creating a repeating pattern. But the breakthrough had come with a caveat: both the shape and its mirror image were required. Now the same team has discovered that a tweaked version of the original shape can complete the task without its mirror.

Simple shapes such as squares and equilateral triangles can tile a surface without gaps in a repeating pattern. Mathematicians have long been interested in a more complex version of tiling, known as aperiodic tiling, which involves using more complex shapes that never form such a repeating pattern.

The most famous aperiodic tiles were created by mathematician Roger Penrose, who in the 1970s discovered that two different shapes could be combined to create an infinite, never-repeating tiling. In March, Chaim Goodman-Strauss at the University of Arkansas and his colleagues found the “hat”, a shape that could technically do it alone, but using a left-handed and right-handed version. This was a slightly unsatisfying solution and left the question of whether a single shape could achieve the same thing with no reflections remaining.

The researchers have now tweaked the equilateral polygon from their previous research to create a new family of shapes called spectres. These shapes allow non-repeating pattern tiling using no reflections at all.

Until now, it wasn’t clear whether such a single shape, known as an einstein (from the German “ein stein” or “one stone”), could even exist. The researchers say in their paper that the previous discovery of the hat was a reminder of how little understood tiling patterns are, and that they were surprised to make another breakthrough so soon.

“Certainly there is no evidence to suggest that the hat (and the continuum of shapes to which it belongs) is somehow unique, and we might therefore hope that a zoo of interesting new monotiles will emerge in its wake,” the researchers write in their new paper. “Nonetheless, we did not expect to find one so close at hand.”

Sarah Hart at Birkbeck, University of London, says the new result is even more impressive than the original finding. “It’s very intellectually satisfying to have a solution that doesn’t need the mirror image because if you actually had real tiles then a tile and its mirror image are not the same,” she says. “With this new tile there are no such caveats.”

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Matthew Sparkes*

There are no rabbits pulled out of hats here – these tricks rely on mathematical principles and will never fail you, says Peter Rowlett.

LOOK, I’ve got nothing up my sleeves. There are magic tricks that work by sleight of hand, relying on the skill of the performer and a little psychology. Then there are so-called self-working magic tricks, which are guaranteed to work by mathematical principles.

For example, say I ask you to write down a four-digit number and show me. I will write a prediction but keep it secret. Write another four-digit number and show me, then I will write one and show you. Now, sum the three visible numbers and you may be surprised to find the answer matches the prediction I made when I had only seen one number!

The trick is that while the number I wrote and showed you appeared random, I was actually choosing digits that make 9 when added to the digits of your second number. So if you wrote 3295, I would write 6704. This means the two numbers written after I made my prediction sum to 9999. So, my prediction was just your original number plus 9999. This is the same as adding 10,000 and subtracting 1, so I simply wrote a 1 to the left of your number and decreased the last digit by 1. If you wrote 2864, I would write 12863 as my prediction.

Another maths trick involves a series of cards with numbers on them (pictured). Someone thinks of a number and tells you which of the cards their number appears on. Quick as a flash, you tell them their number. You haven’t memorised anything; the trick works using binary numbers.

Regular numbers can be thought of as a series of columns containing digits, with each being 10 times the previous. So the right-most digit is the ones, to its left is the tens, then the hundreds, and so on. Binary numbers also use columns, but with each being worth two times the one to its right. So 01101 means zero sixteens, one eight, one four, zero twos and one one: 8+4+1=13.

Each card in this trick represents one of the columns in a binary number, moving from right to left: card 0 is the ones column, card 1 is the twos column, etc. Numbers appear on a card if their binary equivalent has a 1 in that place, and are omitted if it has a 0 there. For instance, the number 25 is 11001 in binary, so it is on cards 0, 3 and 4.

You can work this trick by taking the cards the person’s number appears on and converting them to their binary columns. From there, you can figure out the binary number and convert it to its regular number. But here’s a simple shortcut: the binary column represented by each card is the first number on the card, so you can just add the first number that appears on the cards the person names. So, for cards 0 and 2, you would add 1 and 4 to get 5.

Many self-working tricks embed mathematical principles in card magic, memorisation tricks or mind-reading displays, making the maths harder to spot. The key is they work every time.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Peter Rowlett*

After decades of searching, mathematicians discovered a single shape that can cover a surface without forming repeating patterns, launching a small industry of “aperiodic monotile” merchandise.

The “hat” shape can tile an infinite plane without creating repeating patterns

It is rare for a shape to make a splash, but this year one did just that with the announcement of the first ever single tile that can cover a surface without forming repeating patterns. The discovery of this “aperiodic monotile” in March has since inspired everything from jigsaw puzzles to serious research papers.

“It’s more than I can keep up with in terms of the amount and even, to some extent, the level and depth of the material, because I’m not really a practising mathematician, I’m more of a computer scientist,” says Craig Kaplan at the University of Waterloo, Canada. He is on the team that found the shape, which it called the “hat”. Mathematicians had sought such an object for decades.

After revealing the tile in March, the team unveiled a second shape in May, the “spectre”, which improved on the hat by not requiring its mirror image to tile fully, making it more useful for real surfaces.

The hat has since appeared on T-shirts, badges, bags and as cutters that allow you to make your own ceramic versions.

It has also sparked more than a dozen papers in fields from engineering to chemistry. Researchers have investigated how the structure maps into six-dimensional spaces and the likely physical properties of a material with hat-shaped crystals. Others have found that structures built with repeating hat shapes could be more resistant to fracturing than a honeycomb pattern, which is renowned for its strength.

Kaplan says a scientific instrument company has also expressed an interest in using a mesh with hat-shaped gaps to collect atmospheric samples on Mars, as it believes that the pattern may be less susceptible to problems than squares.

“It’s a bit bittersweet,” says Kaplan. “We’ve set these ideas free into the world and they’ve taken off, which is wonderful, but leaves me a little bit melancholy because it’s not mine any more.”

However, the team has no desire to commercialise the hat, he says. “The four of us agreed early on that we’d much rather let this be free and see what wonderful things people do with it, rather than trying to protect it in any way. Patents are something that, as mathematicians, we find distasteful.”

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Matthew Sparkes*

A mathematical game governed by simple rules throws up patterns of seemingly infinite complexity – and now a question that has puzzled hobbyists for decades has a solution.

A pattern in the Game of Life that repeats after every 19 steps

A long-standing mystery about repeating patterns in a two-dimensional mathematical game has been solved after more than 50 years with the discovery of two final pieces in the puzzle.

The result is believed to have no practical application whatsoever, but will satisfy the curiosity of the coterie of hobbyists obsessed with the Game of Life.

Invented by mathematician John Conway in 1970, the Game of Life is a cellular automaton – a simplistic world simulation that consists of a grid of “live” cells and “dead” cells. Players create a starting pattern as an input and the pattern is updated generation after generation according to simple rules.

A live cell with fewer than two neighbouring live cells is dead in the next generation; a live cell with two or three neighbouring live cells remains live; and a live cell with more than three neighbouring live cells dies. A dead cell with exactly three neighbouring live cells becomes live in the next generation. Otherwise, it remains dead.

These rules create evolving patterns of seemingly infinite complexity that throw up three types of shape: static objects that don’t change; “oscillators”, which form a repeating but stationary pattern; and “spaceships”, which repeat but also move across the grid.

One of the enduring problems in Game of Life research is whether there are oscillators with every “period”: ones that repeat every two steps, every three steps and so on, to infinity. There was a strong clue that this would be true when mathematician David Buckingham designed a technique that could create oscillators with any period above 57, but there were still missing oscillators for some smaller numbers.

Now, a team of hobbyists has filled those last remaining gaps by publishing a paper that describes oscillators with periods of 19 and 41 – the final missing shapes.

One member of the team, Mitchell Riley at New York University Abu Dhabi, works on the problem as a hobby alongside his research in a quantum computing group. He says there are lots of methods to generate new oscillators, but no way has been found to create them with specific periods, meaning that research in this area is a game of chance. “It’s just like playing darts – we’ve just never hit 19, and we’ve never hit 41,” he says.

Riley had been scouring lists of known shapes that consist of two parts, a hassler and a catalyst. Game of Life enthusiasts coined these terms for static shapes – catalysts – that contain a changing shape inside – a hassler. The interior reacts to the exterior, but leaves it unchanged, and together they form an oscillator of a certain period. Riley’s contribution was writing a computer program to discover potentially useful catalysts.

“The stars have to align,” he says. “You need the reaction in the middle to not destroy the thing on the outside, and the reaction in the middle, just by chance, to return to its original state in one of these new periods.”

Riley says that there are no applications known for this research and that he was drawn to the problem by “pure curiosity”.

Susan Stepney at the University of York, UK, says the work demonstrates some “extremely clever and creative techniques”, but it certainly isn’t the final conclusion of research on Conway’s creation.

“I don’t think work on Game of Life will ever be complete,” says Stepney. “The system is computationally universal, so there is always more behaviour to find, and it is seemingly so simple to describe, but so complex in its behaviour, that it remains fascinating to many.”

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Matthew Sparkes*