Best AI Sites for School Students to Improve their Maths Skills

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming more and more prevalent in our daily lives, and there are many AI-powered websites that can help school students improve their math skills. Here are the best AI sites for school students to help them develop their maths skills

Khan Academy (https://www.khanacademy.org/)

Khan Academy is a non-profit educational website that offers a wide range of math courses and resources for students of all ages. Their math courses are designed to be interactive, engaging, and accessible, making it easy for students to learn at their own pace. Khan Academy uses AI-powered algorithms to provide personalized recommendations for each student, ensuring that they are working on the concepts that they need to improve.

DreamBox Learning (https://www.dreambox.com/)

DreamBox Learning is an AI-powered math education platform that uses adaptive learning to provide personalized math lessons to students. The platform uses AI algorithms to analyze a student’s performance and provide personalized feedback and recommendations, ensuring that they are working on the concepts they need to improve. DreamBox Learning is designed for students from kindergarten through 8th grade.

IXL Math (https://www.ixl.com/math/)

IXL Math is an AI-powered math education platform that offers a wide range of math courses and resources for students of all ages. The platform uses AI algorithms to analyze a student’s performance and provide personalized recommendations for each student. IXL Math is designed to be interactive, engaging, and accessible, making it easy for students to learn at their own pace.

Matific (https://www.matific.com/)

Matific is an AI-powered math education platform that uses gamification to make math learning fun and engaging for students. The platform uses AI algorithms to analyze a student’s performance and provide personalized feedback and recommendations, ensuring that they are working on the concepts they need to improve. Matific is designed for students from kindergarten through 6th grade.

Prodigy (https://www.prodigygame.com/)

Prodigy is an AI-powered math game that helps students learn math in a fun and engaging way. The game uses AI algorithms to analyze a student’s performance and provide personalized recommendations for each student. Prodigy is designed for students from 1st through 8th grade and covers a wide range of math concepts.

There are many AI-powered websites that can help school students improve their math skills. These platforms use AI algorithms to provide personalized recommendations, feedback, and resources, ensuring that each student is working on the concepts they need to improve. By using these websites, students can improve their math skills and develop a love for learning that will serve them well throughout their academic careers.


Can Math Help Students Become Better Engineers?

Mathematics and engineering go hand in hand. Mathematics is an essential tool for engineers and plays a crucial role in helping students become better engineers. In this article, we will explore how math helps students become better engineers.

Understanding and Applying Principles:

Engineering is all about applying scientific principles to solve real-world problems. Mathematics is the language of science, and without it, engineers would not be able to understand the fundamental principles that govern the world around us. By studying math, students learn how to analyze and solve complex problems, which is a critical skill for any engineer. Moreover, math helps students understand the fundamental concepts of physics, which is essential to many engineering fields.

Analyzing and Solving Problems:

Engineers are problem solvers, and math is an essential tool for problem-solving. Math helps students develop critical thinking skills and teaches them how to analyze and solve problems systematically. Engineers use mathematical concepts to create models, analyze data, and make predictions. These models and predictions help engineers design and build products that meet specific needs and requirements. One standard approach to building your maths skills is by participating in Olympiads such as the International Maths Olympiad Challenge.

Design and Optimization:

Designing and optimizing systems is another essential part of engineering. Math plays a critical role in helping engineers design and optimize systems. Mathematical models help engineers simulate and optimize systems to ensure that they meet specific requirements. By understanding mathematical concepts like calculus, optimization, and linear algebra, students can learn how to design and optimize complex systems.

Communication:

Engineers must be able to communicate complex technical concepts to non-technical stakeholders. Math helps students develop this skill by teaching them how to use graphs, charts, and other visual aids to communicate complex data and concepts. By using math to present data and findings, engineers can help non-technical stakeholders understand the technical aspects of their work.

Mathematics is an essential tool for engineers. By studying math, students can develop critical thinking skills, learn how to solve complex problems, and design and optimize systems. Moreover, math helps students communicate complex technical concepts to non-technical stakeholders, an essential skill for any engineer. Therefore, it is important for engineering students to have a strong foundation in mathematics. By doing so, they can become better engineers and contribute to solving the world’s complex problems.


Mastery Learning Vs Performance-Oriented Learning, and Why Should Teachers Care?

Generally, the occurrence of students asking this question increases with growing age. Primary students know inside out that exams are very important. Brilliant middle school students consider a connection between their test results and semester mark sheets. Ultimately, upon graduation from secondary school, students have comprehended that the totality of their learning has less value than their results in the final exams.

Performance-Oriented Learning

Exam enthusiasm is an indication of performance-oriented learning, and it is intrinsic to our recent education management that needs standards-based reporting of student results. This focuses on performance apart from the method of learning and requests comparison of procurement amongst peers.

The focus for performance-aligned students is showing their capabilities. Fascinatingly, this leads to an affection of fixed mindset characteristics such as the ignorance of challenging tasks because of fear of failure and being intimidated by the success of other students.

Mastery-Oriented Learning

Mastery learning putting down a focus on students developing their competence. Goals are pliably positioned far away from reach, pushing regular growth. The phrase “how can this be even better?” changes the concept of “good enough”. Not to be bewildered with perfectionism, a mastery approach to learning encourages development mindset qualities such as determination, hard work, and facing challenges.

Most forms of mastery learning nowadays can be discovered in the work of Benjamin Bloom in the late 1960s. Bloom saw the important elements of one-to-one teaching that take to effective benefits over group-based classrooms and inspects conveyable instructional plans. Eventually, formative assessment was defined in the circumstances of teaching and learning as a major component for tracking student performance.

So where does mastery learning position in today’s classroom? The idea of formative assessment is frequent, as are posters and discussions encouraging a growth mindset. One significant missing element is making sure that students have a deep knowledge of concepts before moving to the next.

Shifting the Needle

With the growing possibilities offered by Edtech organizations, many are beginning to look to a tech-based solution like International Maths Olympiad Challenge to provide individualized learning possibilities and prepare for the maths Olympiad. The appropriate platform can offer personalized formative assessment and maths learning opportunities.

But we should take a careful viewpoint to utilize technology as a key solution. History shows us that implementing the principles of mastery learning in part restricts potential gains. Despite assessment plans, teachers will also have to promote a mastery-orientated learning approach in their classrooms meticulously. Some strategies are:

  • Giving chances for student agency
  • Encouraging learning from flaws
  • Supporting individual growth with an effective response
  • Overlooking comparing students and track performance

We think teaching students how to learn is far more necessary than teaching them what to learn.


Calling Maths Teachers: Here are Tips to Flip Your Classroom

What is a Flipped Classroom?

Most teachers understand the “Chalk and Talk” or “Direct Instruction” method. The teacher begins by reviving what they did the day before, then continue with some new theories and concepts on the board, generally seeking student attention to work through the instances. Then once the maths students have the right set of notes from the board, they would use their textbook for a particular chapter, start solving the questions given by the teacher, and expectantly complete those tasks at home for homework.

As maths tutors, we are familiar that daily practice is significant. However, the students experience problems when practising, and their teacher isn’t there to assist them. The flipped classroom vision reorganizes what comes about at home and school compared to a more conventional plan. In short, the students will first find new content mainly independently, often as homework. Then in class, most of the time burnt out practising, finishing exercises, asking questions, and working on other activities in groups, with the teacher there to guide them.

Why do a Flipped Classroom?

Flipped classrooms permit one-on-one sessions with maths students who are practising, especially for the International Maths Olympiad, so we can move further in more effective directions. Change is challenging, so why do a flipped classroom? In short, change can be strenuous but productive. Bloom’s Two Sigma Problem demonstrates that a one-on-one session is the best method for teaching and learning.

How to Flip Maths Classroom?

Choose a topic to begin with, based on the timing, but you may select a topic that you believe matches the new strategy perfectly.

No matter your standard or plan for the organization, we suggest making a calendar to organize your unit before you begin.

It would be best if you had a simple outline of what lessons or concepts you will cover each day.

If you plan to create your own video sessions, you must figure out the best video recording practices.

Explain to students

If students are used to a specific teaching style and method, changing the pattern can also be an issue for them. It’s necessary to be clear with them about the switch that is taking place, why they’re happening, and what the students should anticipate in the outcome.

This is how one can flip for a maths classroom. Happy teaching!


Case Study: How a maths teacher makes his subject interesting

It’s first period, Monday morning, and I’ve written a math problem on the board. But in front of me is a room full of blank stares and lowered heads.

I’ve got to get this class motivated, so I look to one of the students in the last row. “Hey Sally,” I ask, “did you watch the Giants game yesterday?”

“No, I’m a Jets fan. They’re way better.”

Another student, Sam, pipes up, “The Patriots are the best. They have Tom Brady.”

A few other kids chime in, throwing out their favorite teams. This goes on for a minute or two. Then I turn back to Sally and ask, “What was the score of the Jets game?”

“27–14. They beat the Dolphins.”

“Was it a close game?”

I get puzzled looks, but at least the whole class is looking at me now.

“No way! They won by 13, it was a blowout,” scoffs Sally.

Another student raises his hand, “Two more touchdowns and the Dolphins would have won. The quarterback threw an interception that should’ve been a touchdown.”

“Well, what did the Dolphins need to do in order to tie the game? A few field goals?”

Heads pop up. Now I’ve got their attention.

I start by writing on the board all the ways to score in football, and how many points a team gets for each: 6 for a touchdown, 3 for a field goal, 2 for a safety, and 1 (extra point kick) or 2 (scoring on a run or pass) for a conversion after a touchdown.

Excited, the students start discussing how the game could have been tied by the Dolphins. After a bit of back and forth, they agree that a touchdown, an extra point and two field goals is the best solution to tie the game. (6 + 1 + 3 + 3 = 13 points.) Though a field goal and five safeties would have been cool to see. (3 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 13 points.)

If you have a child who struggles with math, one thing you can do is connect math to his everyday life and interests. That real-world connection can get your child excited and engaged in learning.

Football is one of my favorite ways to motivate kids because there’s literally a new, fun math problem on every play. If you watch a game with your child, you can use this to your advantage.

Ask questions about score changes, yards gained or lost, time remaining, and so on. You’re not solving problems on a worksheet. This is a chance to be the coach or the announcer and analyze the game, all while reinforcing math concepts.

Want to try it out? Here are a few of my favorite conversation starters to get the football math flowing:

Situation #1: The score is Giants 17, Dolphins 21. There’s only enough time for the Giants to run one more play. Should the Giants go for a touchdown or kick a field goal?


Merging AI and Human Efforts to Tackle Complex Mathematical Problems

By rapidly analysing large amounts of data and making accurate predictions, artificial intelligence (AI) tools could help to answer many long-standing research questions. For instance, they could help to identify new materials to fabricate electronics or the patterns in brain activity associated with specific human behaviours.

One area in which AI has so far been rarely applied is number theory, a branch of mathematics focusing on the study of integers and arithmetic functions. Most research questions in this field are solved by human mathematicians, often years or decades after their initial introduction.

Researchers at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) recently set out to explore the possibility of tackling long-standing problems in number theory using state-of-the-art computational models.

In a recent paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they demonstrated that such a computational approach can support the work of mathematicians, helping them to make new exciting discoveries.

“Computer algorithms are increasingly dominant in scientific research, a practice now broadly called ‘AI for Science,'” Rotem Elimelech and Ido Kaminer, authors of the paper, told Phys.org.

“However, in fields like number theory, advances are often attributed to creativity or human intuition. In these fields, questions can remain unresolved for hundreds of years, and while finding an answer can be as simple as discovering the correct formula, there is no clear path for doing so.”

Elimelech, Kaminer and their colleagues have been exploring the possibility that computer algorithms could automate or augment mathematical intuition. This inspired them to establish the Ramanujan Machine research group, a new collaborative effort aimed at developing algorithms to accelerate mathematical research.

Their research group for this study also included Ofir David, Carlos de la Cruz Mengual, Rotem Kalisch, Wolfram Berndt, Michael Shalyt, Mark Silberstein, and Yaron Hadad.

“On a philosophical level, our work explores the interplay between algorithms and mathematicians,” Elimelech and Kaminer explained. “Our new paper indeed shows that algorithms can provide the necessary data to inspire creative insights, leading to discoveries of new formulas and new connections between mathematical constants.”

The first objective of the recent study by Elimelech, Kaminer and their colleagues was to make new discoveries about mathematical constants. While working toward this goal, they also set out to test and promote alternative approaches for conducting research in pure mathematics.

“The ‘conservative matrix field’ is a structure analogous to the conservative vector field that every math or physics student learns about in first year of undergrad,” Elimelech and Kaminer explained. “In a conservative vector field, such as the electric field created by a charged particle, we can calculate the change in potential using line integrals.

“Similarly, in conservative matrix fields, we define a potential over a discrete space and calculate it through matrix multiplications rather than using line integrals. Traveling between two points is equivalent to calculating the change in the potential and it involves a series of matrix multiplications.”

In contrast with the conservative vector field, the so-called conservative matrix field is a new discovery. An important advantage of this structure is that it can generalize the formulas of each mathematical constant, generating infinitely many new formulas of the same kind.

“The way by which the conservative matrix field creates a formula is by traveling between two points (or actually, traveling from one point all the way to infinity inside its discrete space),” Elimelech and Kaminer said. “Finding non-trivial matrix fields that are also conservative is challenging.”

As part of their study, Elimelech, Kaminer and their colleagues used large-scale distributed computing, which entails the use of multiple interconnected nodes working together to solve complex problems. This approach allowed them to discover new rational sequences that converge to fundamental constants (i.e., formulas for these constants).

“Each sequence represents a path hidden in the conservative matrix field,” Elimelech and Kaminer explained. “From the variety of such paths, we reverse-engineered the conservative matrix field. Our algorithms were distributed using BOINC, an infrastructure for volunteer computing. We are grateful to the contribution by hundreds of users worldwide who donated computation time over the past two and a half years, making this discovery possible.”

The recent work by the research team at the Technion demonstrates that mathematicians can benefit more broadly from the use of computational tools and algorithms to provide them with a “virtual lab.” Such labs provide an opportunity to try ideas experimentally in a computer, resembling the real experiments available in physics and in other fields of science. Specifically, algorithms can carry out mathematical experiments providing formulas that can be used to formulate new mathematical hypotheses.

“Such hypotheses, or conjectures, are what drives mathematical research forward,” Elimelech and Kaminer said. “The more examples supporting a hypothesis, the stronger it becomes, increasing the likelihood to be correct. Algorithms can also discover anomalies, pointing to phenomena that are the building-blocks for new hypotheses. Such discoveries would not be possible without large-scale mathematical experiments that use distributed computing.”

Another interesting aspect of this recent study is that it demonstrates the advantages of building communities to tackle problems. In fact, the researchers published their code online from their project’s early days and relied on contributions by a large network of volunteers.

“Our study shows that scientific research can be conducted without exclusive access to supercomputers, taking a substantial step toward the democratization of scientific research,” Elimelech and Kaminer said. “We regularly post unproven hypotheses generated by our algorithms, challenging other math enthusiasts to try proving these hypotheses, which when validated are posted on our project website. This happened on several occasions so far. One of the community contributors, Wolfgang Berndt, got so involved that he is now part of our core team and a co-author on the paper.”

The collaborative and open nature of this study allowed Elimelech, Kaminer and the rest of the team to establish new collaborations with other mathematicians worldwide. In addition, their work attracted the interest of some children and young people, showing them how algorithms and mathematics can be combined in fascinating ways.

In their next studies, the researchers plan to further develop the theory of conservative matrix fields. These matrix fields are a highly powerful tool for generating irrationality proofs for fundamental constants, which Elimelech, Kaminer and the team plan to continue experimenting with.

“Our current aim is to address questions regarding the irrationality of famous constants whose irrationality is unknown, sometimes remaining an open question for over a hundred years, like in the case of the Catalan constant,” Elimelech and Kaminer said.

“Another example is the Riemann zeta function, central in number theory, with its zeros at the heart of the Riemann hypothesis, which is perhaps the most important unsolved problem in pure mathematics. There are many open questions about the values of this function, including the irrationality of its values. Specifically, whether ζ(5) is irrational is an open question that attracts the efforts of great mathematicians.”

The ultimate goal of this team of researchers is to successfully use their experimental mathematics approach to prove the irrationality of one of these constants. In the future, they also hope to systematically apply their approach to a broader range of problems in mathematics and physics. Their physics-inspired hands-on research style arises from the interdisciplinary nature of the team, which combines people specialized in CS, EE, math, and physics.

“Our Ramanujan Machine group can help other researchers create search algorithms for their important problems and then use distributed computing to search over large spaces that cannot be attempted otherwise,” Elimelech and Kaminer added. “Each such algorithm, if successful, will help point to new phenomena and eventually new hypotheses in mathematics, helping to choose promising research directions. We are now considering pushing forward this strategy by setting up a virtual user facility for experimental mathematics,” inspired by the long history and impact of user facilities for experimental physics.

For more insights like this, visit our website at www.international-maths-challenge.com.

Credit of the article given to Ingrid Fadelli , Phys.org


The Integral Domain Hierarchy, Part 1

Here is a list of some of the subsets of integral domains, along with the reasoning (a.k.a proofs) of why the bullseye below looks the way it does. Part 2 of this post will include back-pocket examples/non-examples of each.

Integral Domain: a commutative ring with 1 where the product of any two nonzero elements is always nonzero

Unique Factorization Domain (UFD): an integral domain where every nonzero element (which is not a unit) has a unique factorization into irreducibles

Principal Ideal Domain (PID): an integral domain where every ideal is generated by exactly one element

Euclidean Domain: an integral domain RR with a norm NN and a division algorithm (i.e. there is a norm NN so that for every a,b∈Ra,b∈R with b≠0b≠0, there are q,r∈Rq,r∈R so that a=bq+ra=bq+r with r=0r=0 or N(r)<N(b)N(r)<N(b))

Field: a commutative ring where every nonzero element has an inverse

Because… We can just choose the zero norm: N(r)=0N(r)=0 for all r∈Fr∈F.

Proof: Let FF be a field and define a norm NN so that N(r)=0N(r)=0 for all r∈Fr∈F. Then for any a,b∈Fa,b∈F with b≠0b≠0, we can writea=b(b−1a)+0.a=b(b−1a)+0.

Because… If I◃RI◃R is an arbitrary nonzero ideal in the Euclidean domain RR, then I=(d)I=(d), where d∈Id∈I such that dd has the smallest norm among all elements in II. Prove this using the division algorithm on dd and some a∈Ia∈I.

Proof: Let RR be a Euclidean domain with respect to the norm NN and let I◃RI◃R be an ideal. If I=(0)I=(0), then II is principle. Otherwise let d∈Id∈I be a nonzero element such that dd has the smallest norm among all elements in II. We claim I=(d)I=(d). That (d)⊂I(d)⊂I is clear so let a∈Ia∈I. Then by the division algorithm, there exist q,r∈Rq,r∈R so that a=dq+ra=dq+r with r=0r=0 or N(r)<N(d)N(r)<N(d). Then r=a−dq∈Ir=a−dq∈I since a,d∈Ia,d∈I. But my minimality of dd, this implies r=0r=0. Hence a=dq∈(d)a=dq∈(d) and so I⊂(d)I⊂(d).

Because…Every PID has the ascending chain condition (acc) on its ideals!* So to prove PID ⇒⇒ UFD, just recall that an integral domain RR is a UFD if and only if 1) it has the acc on principal ideals** and 2) every irreducible element is also prime.

Proof: Let RR be a PID. Then 1) RR has the ascending chain condition on principal ideals and 2) every irreducible element is also a prime element. Hence RR is a UFD.

Because… By definition.

Proof: By definition.

‍*Def: In general, an integral domain RR has the acc on its principal ideals if these two equivalent conditions are satisfied:

  1. Every sequence I1⊂I2⊂⋯⊂⋯I1⊂I2⊂⋯⊂⋯ of principal ideals is stationary (i.e. there is an integer n0≥1n0≥1 such that In=In0In=In0 for all n≥n0n≥n0).
  2. For every nonempty subset X⊂RX⊂R, there is an element m∈Xm∈X such that whenever a∈Xa∈X and (m)⊂(a)(m)⊂(a), then (m)=(a)(m)=(a).

**To see this, use part 1 of the definition above. If I1⊂I2⊂⋯I1⊂I2⊂⋯ is an acsending chain, consider their union I=⋃∞n=1InI=⋃n=1∞In. That guy must be a principal ideal (check!), say I=(m)I=(m). This implies that mm must live in some In0In0  for some n0≥1n0≥1 and so I=(m)⊂In0I=(m)⊂In0. But since II is the union, we have for all n≥n0n≥n0(m)=I⊃In⊃In0=(m).(m)=I⊃In⊃In0=(m).Voila!

Every field FF is a PID

because the only ideals in a field are (0)(0) and F=(1)F=(1)! And every field is vacuously a UFD since all elements are units. (Recall, RR is a UFD if every non-zero, non-invertible element (an element which is not a unit) has a unique factorzation into irreducibles).

In an integral domain, every maximal ideal is also a prime ideal. 

(Proof: Let RR be an integral domain and M◃RM◃R a maximal ideal. Then R/MR/M is a field and hence an integral domain, which implies M◃RM◃R is a prime ideal.)

Butut the converse is not true (see counterexample below). However, the converse is true in a PID because of the added structure!

(Proof: Let RR be a PID and (p)◃R(p)◃R a prime ideal for some p∈Rp∈R. Then pp is a prime – and hence an irreducible – element (prime ⇔⇔ irreducible in PIDs). Since in an integral domain a principal ideal is maximal whenever it is generated by an irreducible element, we conclude (p)(p) is maximal.)

This suggests that if you want to find a counterexample – an integral domain with a prime ideal which is not maximal – try to think of a ring which is not a PID:   In Z[x]Z[x], consider the ideal (p)(p) for a prime integer pp. Then (p)(p) is a prime ideal, yet it is not maximal since(p)⊂(p,x)⊂Z[x].(p)⊂(p,x)⊂Z[x].

If FF is a field, then F[x]F[x] – the ring of polynomials in xx with coefficients in FF – is a Euclidean domain with the norm N(p(x))=degp(x)N(p(x))=deg⁡p(x) where p(x)∈F[x]p(x)∈F[x].

By the integral domain hierarchy above, this implies every ideal in F[x]F[x] is of the form (p(x))(p(x)) (i.e. F[x]F[x] is a PID) and every polynomial can be factored uniquely into a product of prime polynomials (just like the integers)! The next bullet gives an “almost converse” statement.

If R[x]R[x] is a PID, the RR must be a field.

To see this, simply observe that R⊂R[x]R⊂R[x] and so RR must be an integral domain (since a subset of a integral domain inherets commutativity and the “no zero divisors” property). Since R[x]/(x)≅RR[x]/(x)≅R, it follows that R[x]/(x)R[x]/(x) is also an integral domain. This proves that (x)(x) is a prime ideal. But prime implies maximal in a PID! So R[x]/(x)R[x]/(x) – and therefore RR – is actually a field.

  • This is how we know, for example, that Z[x]Z[x] is not a PID (in the counterexample a few bullets up) – ZZ is not a field!

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

*Credit for article given to Tai-Danae Bradley*


Crowds Beat Computers in Answer to Wikipedia-Sized Maths Problem

A maths problem previously tackled with the help of a computer, which produced a proof the size of Wikipedia, has now been cut down to size by a human. Although it is unlikely to have practical applications, the result highlights the differences between two modern approaches to mathematics: crowdsourcing and computers.

Terence Tao of the University of California, Los Angeles, has published a proof of the Erdős discrepancy problem, a puzzle about the properties of an infinite, random sequence of +1s and -1s. In the 1930s, Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős wondered whether such a sequence would always contain patterns and structure within the randomness.

One way to measure this is by calculating a value known as the discrepancy. This involves adding up all the +1s and -1s within every possible sub-sequence. You might think the pluses and minuses would cancel out to make zero, but Erdős said that as your sub-sequences got longer, this sum would have to go up, revealing an unavoidable structure. In fact, he said the discrepancy would be infinite, meaning you would have to add forever, so mathematicians started by looking at smaller cases in the hopes of finding clues to attack the problem in a different way.

Last year, Alexei Lisitsa and Boris Konev of the University of Liverpool, UK used a computer to prove that the discrepancy will always be larger than two. The resulting proof was a 13 gigabyte file – around the size of the entire text of Wikipedia – that no human could ever hope to check.

Helping hands

Tao has used more traditional mathematics to prove that Erdős was right, and the discrepancy is infinite no matter the sequence you choose. He did it by combining recent results in number theory with some earlier, crowdsourced work.

In 2010, a group of mathematicians, including Tao, decided to work on the problem as the fifth Polymath project, an initiative that allows professionals and amateurs alike to contribute ideas through SaiBlogs and wikis as part of mathematical super-brain. They made some progress, but ultimately had to give up.

“We had figured out an interesting reduction of the Erdős discrepancy problem to a seemingly simpler problem involving a special type of sequence called a completely multiplicative function,” says Tao.

Then, in January this year, a new development in the study of these functions made Tao look again at the Erdős discrepancy problem, after a commenter on his SaiBlog pointed out a possible link to the Polymath project and another problem called the Elliot conjecture.

Not just conjecture

“At first I thought the similarity was only superficial, but after thinking about it more carefully, and revisiting some of the previous partial results from Polymath5, I realised there was a link: if one could prove the Elliott conjecture completely, then one could also resolve the Erdős discrepancy problem,” says Tao.

“I have always felt that that project, despite not solving the problem, was a distinct success,” writes University of Cambridge mathematician Tim Gowers, who started the Polymath project and hopes that others will be encouraged to participate in future. “We now know that Polymath5 has accelerated the solution of a famous open problem.”

Lisitsa praises Tao for doing what his algorithm couldn’t. “It is a typical example of high-class human mathematics,” he says. But mathematicians are increasingly turning to machines for help, a trend that seems likely to continue. “Computers are not needed for this problem to be solved, but I believe they may be useful in other problems,” Lisitsa says.

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

*Credit for article given to Jacob Aron*

 


The Mathematically Perfect Table Size For Solving Any Jigsaw Puzzle

When choosing the perfectly sized table to do your jigsaw puzzle on, work out the area of the completed puzzle and multiply it by 1.73.

People may require a larger table if they like to lay all the pieces out at the start, rather than keeping them in the box or in piles

How large does your table need to be when doing a jigsaw puzzle? The answer is the area of the puzzle when assembled multiplied by 1.73. This creates just enough space for all the pieces to be laid flat without any overlap.

“My husband and I were doing a jigsaw puzzle one day and I just wondered if you could estimate the area that the pieces take up before you put the puzzle together,” says Madeleine Bonsma-Fisher at the University of Toronto in Canada.

To uncover this, Bonsma-Fisher and her husband Kent Bonsma-Fisher, at the National Research Council Canada, turned to mathematics.

Puzzle pieces take on a range of “funky shapes” that are often a bit rectangular or square, says Madeleine Bonsma-Fisher. To get around the variation in shapes, the pair worked on the basis that all the pieces took up the surface area of a square. They then imagined each square sitting inside a circle that touches its corners.

By considering the area around each puzzle piece as a circle, a shape that can be packed in multiple ways, they found that a hexagonal lattice, similar to honeycomb, would mean the pieces could interlock with no overlap. Within each hexagon is one full circle and parts of six circles.

They then found that the area taken up by the unassembled puzzle pieces arranged in the hexagonal pattern would always be the total area of the completed puzzle – calculated by multiplying its length by its width – multiplied by the root of 3, or 1.73.

This also applies to jigsaw puzzle pieces with rectangular shapes, seeing as these would similarly fit within a circle.

While doing a puzzle, some people keep pieces that haven’t yet been used in the box, while others arrange them in piles or lay them on a surface, the latter being Madeleine Bonsma-Fisher’s preferred method. “If you really want to lay all your pieces out flat and be comfortable, your table should be a little over twice as big as your sample puzzle,” she says.

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

*Credit for article given to Chen Ly*


Magic Numbers: The Beauty Of Decimal Notation

While adding up your grocery bill in the supermarket, you’re probably not thinking how important or sophisticated our number system is.

But the discovery of the present system, by unknown mathematicians in India roughly 2,000 years ago – and shared with Europe from the 13th century onwards – was pivotal to the development of our modern world.

Now, what if our “decimal” arithmetic, often called the Indo-Arabic system, had been discovered earlier? Or what if it had been shared with the Western world earlier than the 13th century?

First, let’s define “decimal” arithmetic: we’re talking about the combination of zero, the digits one through nine, positional notation, and efficient rules for arithmetic.

“Positional notation” means that the value represented by a digit depends both on its value and position in a string of digits.

Thus 7,654 means:

(7 × 1000) + (6 × 100) + (5 × 10) + 4 = 7,654

The benefit of this positional notation system is that we need no new symbols or calculation schemes for tens, hundreds or thousands, as was needed when manipulating Roman numerals.

While numerals for the counting numbers one, two and three were seen in all ancient civilisations – and some form of zero appeared in two or three of those civilisations (including India) – the crucial combination of zero and positional notation arose only in India and Central America.

Importantly, only the Indian system was suitable for efficient calculation.

Positional arithmetic can be in base-ten (or decimal) for humans, or in base-two (binary) for computers.

In binary, 10101 means:

(1 × 16) + (0 × 8) + (1 × 4) + (0 × 2) + 1

Which, in the more-familiar decimal notation, is 21.

The rules we learned in primary school for addition, subtraction, multiplication and division can be easily extended to binary.

The binary system has been implemented in electronic circuits on computers, mostly because the multiplication table for binary arithmetic is much simpler than the decimal system.

Of course, computers can readily convert binary results to decimal notation for us humans.

As easy as counting from one to ten

Perhaps because we learn decimal arithmetic so early, we consider it “trivial”.

Indeed the discovery of decimal arithmetic is given disappointingly brief mention in most western histories of mathematics.

In reality, decimal arithmetic is anything but “trivial” since it eluded the best minds of the ancient world including Greek mathematical super-genius Archimedes of Syracuse.

Archimedes – who lived in the 3rd century BCE – saw far beyond the mathematics of his time, even anticipating numerous key ideas of modern calculus. He also used mathematics in engineering applications.

Nonetheless, he used a cumbersome Greek numeral system that hobbled his calculations.

Imagine trying to multiply the Roman numerals XXXI (31) and XIV (14).

First, one must rewrite the second argument as XIIII, then multiply the second by each letter of the first to obtain CXXXX CXXXX CXXXX XIIII.

These numerals can then be sorted by magnitude to arrive at CCCXXXXXXXXXXXXXIIII.

This can then be rewritten to yield CDXXXIV (434).

(For a bit of fun, try adding MCMLXXXIV and MMXI. First person to comment with the correct answer and their method gets a jelly bean.)

Thus, while possible, calculation with Roman numerals is significantly more time-consuming and error prone than our decimal system (although it is harder to alter the amount payable on a Roman cheque).

History lesson

Although decimal arithmetic was known in the Arab world by the 9th century, it took many centuries to make its way to Europe.

Italian mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci travelled the Mediterranean world in the 13th century, learning from the best Arab mathematicians of the time. Even then, it was several more centuries until decimal arithmetic was fully established in Europe.

Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton – both giants in the world of physics – relied heavily on extensive decimal calculations (by hand) to devise their theories of planetary motion.

In a similar way, present-day scientists rely on massive computer calculations to test hypotheses and design products. Even our mobile phones do surprisingly sophisticated calculations to process voice and video.

But let us indulge in some alternate history of mathematics. What if decimal arithmetic had been discovered in India even earlier, say 300 BCE? (There are indications it was known by this date, just not well documented.)

And what if a cultural connection along the silk-road had been made between Indian mathematicians and Greek mathematicians at the time?

Such an exchange would have greatly enhanced both worlds, resulting in advances beyond the reach of each system on its own.

For example, a fusion of Indian arithmetic and Greek geometry might well have led to full-fledged trigonometry and calculus, thus enabling ancient astronomers to deduce the laws of motion and gravitation nearly two millennia before Newton.

In fact, the combination of mathematics, efficient arithmetic and physics might have accelerated the development of modern technology by more than two millennia.

It is clear from history that without mathematics, real progress in science and technology is not possible (try building a mobile phone without mathematics). But it’s also clear that mathematics alone is not sufficient.

The prodigious computational skills of ancient Indian mathematicians never flowered into advanced technology, nor did the great mathematical achievements of the Greeks, or many developments in China.

On the other hand, the Romans, who were not known for their mathematics, still managed to develop some impressive technology.

But a combination of advanced mathematics, computation, and technology makes a huge difference.

Our bodies and our brains today are virtually indistinguishable from those of ancient times.

With the earlier adoption of Indo-Arabic decimal arithmetic, the modern technological world of today might – for better or worse – have been achieved centuries ago.

And that’s something worth thinking about next time you’re out grocery shopping.

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

*Credit for article given to Jonathan Borwein (Jon)*