Cooper, Raymond

Gardella SEDC713
Final Exam
Ben-Hur gives Polyas Problem Solving Method as follows(1) Understanding the problem and identifying a target goal;
(2) Translating verbal and other information into mathematical language without changing
the meaning (this includes diagrams);
(3) Planning a solution; (4) Solving the problem (5) Reviewing and evaluating the solution
in the context of the problem (6) Generalizing (this step is added by Ben-Hur)
I think this list of components should be taught to all math students. If a student
repeatedly fails to solve a problem, he/she can relate the problem to the list of components and
consider where he/she might be faltering. Neglecting step 5 is a stumbling block because after
students translate a word into an algebraic expression, they often fail to go back and see if their
answers make sense in the context of the problem. On my first day of linear algebra, the
professor asked a question about how many tons of steel would be needed for a particular
project. When one student finally answered -2, the professor chuckled and said Negative two
tons of steelisnt that something? Ben-Hur emphasizes that at any point in the process, the
students can reexamine data, change the data back and forth across different representations,
shift strategies, correct solutions etc. This student could have executed every step properly and
then simply made an error during calculation. There are many possibilities. Taking step 5
seriously and having a well defined approach allows for the identification of errors and
systematic trouble shooting.

I also like Ben-Hurs addition of step 6, since generalizing from

the particular type of problem can strengthen a persons inventory of technical maneuvers and
conceptual maps. I will make a generalization in my next discussion.

One question which is asked in chapter 4 is What is the area of an equilateral triangle
that is enclosed by a circle with a 2 inch diameter? Here the proper method of translation is
drawing a diagram. So, I inscribed an equilateral triangle into a circle. After a few moments
reflection I was able to see that I could extend a radius from the center of the circle to each
vertex, and I labeled each radius as 1. I labeled each angle as 60 degrees.
Having labeled the obvious, I began the phase called Planning the Solution. Ben-Hur
offers 4 guiding questions here- What is relevant? I thought about what I needed to find the area
of the triangle- Area=(1/2)bh and Area=(1/2)ABsin . Is the information sufficient? I did not
have the base or the height. Since this is an equilateral triangle, both the A and B are equal to the
base, so I didnt have those. It occurred to me that I did have A and B with respect to any of the
three smaller congruent triangles that had been formed within the larger triangle by drawing the
radii. What is missing? All that was missing was sin . How could the missing information be
deduced? I began to wonder how I could deduce

and thus sin . I stared at the diagram and

thought about the arc associated with my smaller triangle. Since the arc subtended an inscribed
angle of 60 it must have been 120 . It followed that the arc subtended a central angle of 120 . I
had found my missing angle. Of course,

is a special angle, and sin

solve the problem. With respect to the small triangle A= (1/2)1.1

area is 3

. I was ready to
=

. So, the total

. In the evaluation phase, I checked and confirmed that the circle had greater

area than my value for the area of the triangle-

. Also, it occurred to me that I could

find the length of a side of the equilateral triangle using the law of cosines. I was able to
calculate that a side of the equilateral triangle was
the area was indeed (1/2)

sin

=3

Therefore, I was able to confirm that

. This enables me to confidently generalize

that the area of an equilateral triangle inscribed in a circle of radius r is [3

Problem: Given that J*B*C and KH is perpendicular to JH, Prove that JK>KI>KH.
Use proposition 4.5: In a triangle ABC, the greater angle lies opposite the greater side and the greater
side lies opposite the greater angle.

The exterior angle theorem guarantees that an exterior angle of a triangle is greater than
either remote interior angle of a triangle. My classmates had used Betweenness axiom 2 to place
a point L on line JI such that J*I*L. By the exterior angle theorem angle KHL> angle KIH. Since
all right angles are congruent (Euclid 4),

. Thus, by transitive property,

KHI>KIH. By proposition 4.5, KI>KH. From here they introduced a lemma dealing with
supplementary, acute and obtuse angles to establish that JK>KI. They asked for my opinion. The
following guiding questions from Ben-Hurs section Solving the Problem will help to illumine
my thought process with respect to this problem. Am I on the right track? My classmates had
actually proved that KI>KH using only the appropriate axioms and a specific proposition they
were instructed to use, so they were on the right track up until that point. Should I move in
another direction? Using a lemma that makes reference to principles that were not included
among the axioms, propositions and theorems we had learned up until that point meant that they
were no longer on the right track. It follows that another direction would be advisable. What
should I do next? In this case, the answer was literally to move in another direction, the opposite
direction. All thinking up to that point had been from right to left. I am not sure why it took me
quite a while to realize that I could apply the exterior angle theorem on the left side. (If I had had
these questions clearly in view I may have been able to solve the problem more quickly): With
respect to angle JIK, angle IHK is an interior angle in triangle IHK. By proposition 4.5, JK>KI.

Ben-Hur asserts that students must be able to model and represent problems in
different ways until the problems make complete sense. This is especially true when
Axiomatic geometry goes beyond 2 dimensions. The following problem was on my axiomatic
final, and it has confused many of my friends:
Is the following interpretation of undefined terms a valid or invalid model of incidence
geometry? Points are lines in Euclidean 3-space, and lines are planes. Incidence is a line lying
in a plane.
This is not a valid model since incidence axiom 1 (any two points define one unique line)
does not hold; not every pair of lines defines a plane. Skew lines, which do not intersect and are
not parallel, do not define a plane. Many 3-d objects define skew lines. A cube for example,
defines some skew lines. One problem is that often when people look at 2-d representation of a
3-d object, they interpret the diagram 2 dimensionally. They do not realize that lines which
appear to intersect in the diagram do not actually intersect in the cube. One method around this
problem is to draw some lines as dotted lines, but the problem of visualization remains in some
respects. For example, one friend was trying to visualize skew lines by imagining a line in a
plane and a point not on that plane. She reasoned that if a line passed through that point, it would
be a skew line since the two lines are not on the same plane. As I discussed the issue with her, I
saw that she did not realize that it depends on the angles of the 2nd line. I explained to her that the
2nd line could define a new plane with the first line. She did not fully realize that planes go in all
directions. I sent her a video, and videos can help, but I also think it is useful to put together
three dimensional models, using rods and joints and so forth, possibly something similar to your
pipe and bungee cord model of a square- a cube of that sort but more rigid, for example. With
more experience in 3-d, students will probably be able to make more sense of the following
statement Any two pairs of points defining a tetrahedron of non-zero volume also define a
pair of skew lines. We should take Ben-Hurs point about complete sense completely seriously.