You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘A1 Leaving Cert Maths’ category.

The videos, here, comprise me going through a full Leaving Cert Higher Level Mathematics Paper, namely 2019, Paper 1.

They’re neither slick, perfect, nor as good as I would like them to be.

The videos are labelled in the descriptions, so if you are looking for, say, Q. 5 you can flick through the videos until you find the question you are looking for (e.g. Q. 5 starts at 17.05 here).

All students are looking for help: but perhaps the student that these videos are best placed to help is a student (eventually) going for a H1 who needs something to be explained in more depth, or to give the thought process behind attacking a more challenging problem.

*The purpose of this post is to briefly discuss parallelism and perpendicularity of lines in both a geometric and algebraic setting.*

## Lines

What is a line? In Euclidean Geometry we usually don’t define a line and instead call it a primitive object (*the properties of lines are then determined by the axioms which refer to them*). If instead points and line *segments* – defined by pairs of points –* * are taken as the primitive objects, the following might define lines:

Geometric Definition CandidateA

line,, is a set of points with the property that for each pair of points in the line, ,.

In terms of a picture this just says that when you have a line, that if you take two points *in *the line (the language *in *comes from set theory), that the line segment is a subset of the line:

### Exercise:

*Why is this *objectively *not a good definition of a line.*

Once we move into Cartesian\Coordinate Geometry we can perhaps do a similar trick. We can use line segments, and their lengths to define slope, (slope = rise over run) and then define a line as follows:

Algebraic Definition CandidateA

line, , is a set of points such that for all pairs ofdistinctpoints , the slope is a constant.

This means that if you take two pairs of distinct points in a line , and then calculate the slopes between them, you get the same answer, and therefore it makes sense to talk about *the *slope of a line, .

This definition, however, has exactly the same problem as the previous. The definition we use isn’t too important but I do want to use a definition that considers the line a *set of points.*

## The Equation of a Line

We can use such a definition to derive the equation of a line ‘formula’ for a line of slope containing a point .

Suppose first of all that we have an axis and a point in the line. What does it take for a second point to be in the line?

“Straight-Line-Graph-Through-The-Origin”

The words of Mr Michael Twomey, physics teacher, in Coláiste an Spioraid Naoimh, I can still hear them.

There were two main reasons to produce this *straight-line-graph-through-the-origin:*

- to measure some quantity (e.g. acceleration due to gravity, speed of sound, etc.)
- to demonstrate some law of nature (e.g. Newton’s Second Law, Ohm’s Law, etc.)

We were correct to draw this *straight-line-graph-through-the origin *for measurement, but not always, perhaps, in my opinion, for the demonstration of laws of nature.

The purpose of this piece is to explore this in detail.

## Direct Proportion

Two variables and are in direct proportion when there is some (real number) constant such that .

Occasionally, it might be useful to do as the title here suggests.

Two examples that spring to mind include:

- solving for (relative velocity example with below)
- maximising
*without*the use of calculus

Note first of all the similarity between:

.

This identity is in the Department of Education formula booklet.

The only problem is that and are not necessarily sines and cosines respectively. Consider them, however, as opposites and adjacents to an angle in a right-angled-triangle as shown:

Using Pythagoras Theorem, the hypotenuse is and so if we multiply our expression by then we have something:

.

Similarly, we have

,

where .

In school, we learn how a line has an equation… and a circle has an equation… what does this mean?

*The short answer is*

points on curve solutions of equation

*however this note explains all of this from first principles, with a particular emphasis on the set-theoretic fundamentals.*

## Set Theory

A *set** *is a collection of objects. The objects of a set are referred to as the *elements* or *members** *and if we can list the elements we include them in curly-brackets. For example, call by the set of whole numbers (strictly) between two and nine. This set is denoted by

.

We indicate that an object is an element of a set by writing , said, *in * or *is an element of *. We use the symbol to indicate non-membership. For example, .

Elements are not duplicated and the order doesn’t matter. For example:

.

This post follows on from this post where the following principle was presented:

Fundamental Principle of Solving ‘Easy’ Equations

Identify what is difficult or troublesome about the equation and get rid of it. As long as you do the same thing to both numbers (the “Lhs” and the “Rhs”), the equation will be replaced by a simpler equation with thesamesolution.

There are a number of subtleties here: basically sometimes you get extra ‘solutions’ (that are not solutions at all), and sometimes you can lose solutions.

Let us write the squaring function, e.g. , by and the square-rooting function by . It appears that are an inverse pair but not quite exactly. While

and

,

check out O.K. note that

,

does not bring us back to where we started.

This problem can be fixed by restricting the allowable inputs to to positive numbers only but for the moment it is better to just treat this as a subtlety, namely while , … in fact I recommend that we remember that with an there will generally be *two *solutions.

The other thing we look out for as much as possible is that *we cannot divide by zero*.

There are other issues around such as the fact that , so that the equation has no solutions (no, is not a solution! Check.). This equation has *no *solutions.

Often, in context, these subtleties are not problematic. For example, equations with no solutions rarely arise and quantities might be positive so that if we have , only need be considered (for example, might be a length).

Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic.John Ray

These are not letters, they are numbers.

Me, just there

## Introduction: What *is* ??

Consider an equation: a mathematical statement expressing that two objects — e.g. numbers — are equal, equivalent and one and the same. As an example;

.

In mathematics there are a number of uses for this = sign. There is the common;

which merely asserts that the sum of 1 and 2 is the same as 3. Also there is the definition-type :=;

which defines for example, and by extension all these positive integer powers. Finally there is the equation or formula type =, the most famous of which is probably

Energy=(mass) (speed of light) (speed of

light).

An equation of this type is a statement that one object — e.g. a number — is equal to another.

Quadratics are ubiquitous in mathematics. For the purposes of this piece a quadratic is a real-valued function of the form

,

where such that . There is a little bit more to be said — particularly about the differences between a quadratic and a quadratic *function *but for those this piece is addressed to (third level: non-maths; all second level), the distinction is unimportant.

## Geometry

The basic object we study is the square function, , :

All quadratics look similar to . If then the quadratic has this geometry. Otherwise it looks like and has geometry

The geometry dictates that quadratics can have either zero, one or two real roots. A root of a function is an input such that . As the graph of a function is of the form , roots are such that , that is where the graph cuts the -axis. With the geometry of quadratics they can cut the -axis no times, once (like ), or twice.

There are a number of ways of explaining why you cannot divide by zero. Here are my two favourites.

## Any Set of Numbers Collapses to a Single Number

How old are you? Zero years old.

How tall are you? Zero metres old.

How many teeth do you have? Zero.

How many Superbowls has Tom Brady won? Zero

Yep, if you allow division by zero you only end up with one number to measure everything with.

Arguably, the three central concepts in the theory of differential calculus are that of a function, that of a tangent and that of a limit. Here we introduce functions and tangents.

## Functions

When looking at differential calculus, two good ways to think about functions are via algebraic geometry and interdependent variables. Neither give the proper, abstract, definition of a function, but both give a nice way of thinking about them.

### Algebraic Geometry Approach

Let us set up the plane, . We choose a distinguished point called the origin and a distinguished direction which we call ‘positive ‘. Draw a line through the origin in the direction of positive . This is the -axis. Choose a unit distance for the -direction.

Now, perpendicular to the -axis, draw a line through the origin. This is the -axis. By convention positive is anti-clockwise of positive . Choose a unit distance for the -direction.

This is the plane, :

Now points on the plane can be associated with a pair of numbers . For example, the point a distance one along the positive and five along the negative can be denoted by the coordinates (1,-5):

Similarly, I can take a pair of numbers, say (-1,3), and this corresponds to a point on the plane.

This gives a duality:

points on the plane pairs of numbers

Now consider the completely algebraic objects

.

## Recent Comments