Thursday, November 5, 2015

A new proof that the square root of 2 is irrational


it is acknowledged that it is downloaded from the site below http://blog.plover.com/math/sqrt-2-new.html

A new proof that the square root of 2 is irrational
  The proof was discovered by Tom M. Apostol, and was published as "Irrationality of the Square Root of Two - A Geometric Proof" in the American Mathematical Monthly, November 2000, pp. 841–842.
In short, if √2 were rational, we could construct an isosceles right triangle with integer sides. Given one such triangle, it is possible to construct another that is smaller. Repeating the construction, we could construct arbitrarily small integer triangles. But this is impossible since there is a lower limit on how small a triangle can be and still have integer sides. Therefore no such triangle could exist in the first place, and √2 is irrational.In hideous detail: Suppose that √2 is rational. Then by scaling up the isosceles right triangle with sides 1, 1, and √2 appropriately, we obtain the smallest possible isosceles right triangle whose sides are all integers. (If √2 = a/b, where a/b is in lowest terms, then the desired triangle has legs with length b and hypotenuse a.) This is ΔOAB in the diagram below:
By hypothesis, OA, OB, and AB are all integers.
Now construct arc BC, whose center is at A. AC and AB are radii of the same circle, so AC = AB, and thus AC is an integer. Since OC = OA - CA, OC is also an integer. Let CD be the perpendicular to OA at point C. Then ΔOCD is also an isosceles right triangle, so OC = CD, and CD is an integer. CD and BD are tangents to the same arc from the same point D, so CD = BD, and BD is an integer. Since OB and BD are both integers, so is OD.Since OC, CD, and OD are all integers, ΔOCD is another isosceles right triangle with integer sides, which contradicts the assumption that OAB was the smallest such.The thing I find amazing about this proof is not just how simple it is, but how strongly geometric. The Greeks proved that √2 was irrational a long time ago, with an argument that was essentially arithmetical. The Greeks being who they were, their essentially arithmetical argument was phrased in terms of geometry, with all the numbers and arithmetic represented by operations on line segments. The Tom Apostol proof is much more in the style of the Greeks than is the one that the Greeks actually found![ 20070220: There is a short followup to this article. ]

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Tessellations in geometry

 

It has been acknowledged that the following text has downloaded from the http://www.basic-mathematics.com.


Tessellations in geometry


A couple of examples of tessellations in geometry are shown below:


Tessellation with rectangles


Tessellation made with rectangles
Tessellation with equilateral triangles



Tessellation made with triangles
what makes the above tessellations?


1) The rectangles or triangles are repeated to cover a flat surface


2) No gaps, or overlaps between the rectangles or the triangles


A tessellation is also called tiling.Of course tiles in your house form a tessellation


Not all figures will form tessellations in geometry


When a figure can form a tessellation, the figure is said to tessellate


Every triangle tessellates


Every quadrilateral tessellates


Why can we say with confidence that the above 2 statements are true?

Well, since there are no gaps and no overlaps, the sum of the measures of the angles around any vertex must be equal to 360 degrees as seen below with red circles



360 degrees angle in a  tessellation
360 degrees angle in a tesselation
Therefore if the measure of an angle of a figure is not a factor of 360, it will not tessellate



We can use then the formula to find the interior angle of a regular polygon to check if a figure will tessellate



Interior angle of a regular polygon = [180 × (n-2)] / n



Let's say n = 5. This is a pentagon



Interior angle of the pentagon = [180 × (5-2)] / 5



Interior angle of the pentagon = [180 × 3] / 5



Interior angle of the pentagon = 540 / 5



Interior angle of the pentagon = 108 degrees



There is no way to make 360 with 108 since 108 + 108 + 108 = 324 and 108 + 108 + 108 + 108 = 432

Therefore the pentagon will not tessellate as you can see below:



Example of an image that is not a tessellation
The gap is shown with a red arrow!

Tessellations can happen with translations, rotations, and reflections

http://www.basic-mathematics.com

http://www.basic-mathematics.com/graphing.html