Decem Brie 2013

THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL
MONTHLY
VOLUME 120, NO. 10 DECEMBER 2013
Quick, Does 23/67 Equal 33/97? 867

A Mathematicians Secret from Euclid to Today
David Pengelley
Linear Algebra via Complex Analysis 877

Alexander P. Campbell and Daniel Daners
Rigorous Computer Analysis of the ChowRobbins Game 893

Olle Haggstrom and Johan Wastlund
From Pascals Theorem to d-Constructible Curves 901

Will Traves
The Cuoco Configuration 916

Roger E. Howe
NOTES
A Generalization of the Leibniz Rule 924

Ulrich Abel
The Parbelos, a Parabolic Analog of the Arbelos 929

Jonathan Sondow
Inequalities for Gamma Function Ratios 936

G. J. O. Jameson
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS 941
REVIEWS
Real Analysis Through Modern Infinitesimals 949

By Nader Vakil
James M. Henle and Michael G. Henle
EDITORS ENDNOTES 954
INDEX TO VOLUME 120 957
An Official Publication of the Mathematical Association of America

MAAs New
Membership
Structure
Member Plus
$169/Year
$249/Year
Individual Member Benefits
$35/Year
Member
Student
Electronic Subscriptions to:
The American Mathematical Monthly (10 per year) X X X
The College Mathematics Journal (5 per year) X X X
Mathematics Magazine (5 per year) X X X
Math Horizons (4 per year) X X X
MAA FOCUS (6 per year) X X X
Print Subscription to MAA FOCUS (6 per year) X X
Regional Section Membership (USA/CAN Members) X X X
Discounted Registration for MAA MathFest X X X
Discounted Registration for Joint Mathematics Meetings X X X
MAA Math Alertthe e-newsletter for MAA members X X X
Member Discounts on MAA books, videos & merchandise X X X
Member Discounts on Print Subscriptions to:

The American Mathematical Monthly ($50/year) X X X
The College Mathematics Journal ($25/year) X X X
Mathematics Magazine ($25/year) X X X
Math Horizons ($20/year) X X X
Access to MAA Affinity Program Discounts X X X
Eligibility to Join MAA SIGMAAs ($12 each) X X X
Access to MAA columns, blogs, and online resources X X X
Membership in up to 3 SIGMAAs of your choice X
Print Subscription to Math Horizons X
MAA Member Plus Book Selection X
MAA Annual Design Contest T-shirt X
Be sure to visit www.maa.org for all the details!

THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL
MONTHLY
Volume 120, No. 10 December 2013
EDITOR
Scott T. Chapman
Sam Houston State University
NOTES EDITOR BOOK REVIEW EDITOR

Sergei Tabachnikov Jeffrey Nunemacher
Pennsylvania State University Ohio Wesleyan University
PROBLEM SECTION EDITORS

Douglas B. West Gerald Edgar Doug Hensley
University of Illinois Ohio State University Texas A&M University
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
William Adkins Ulrich Krause
Louisiana State University Universitat Bremen
David Aldous Jeffrey Lawson
University of California, Berkeley Western Carolina University
Elizabeth Allman C. Dwight Lahr
University of Alaska, Fairbanks Dartmouth College
Jonathan M. Borwein Susan Loepp
University of Newcastle Williams College
Jason Boynton Irina Mitrea
North Dakota State University Temple University
Edward B. Burger Bruce P. Palka
Williams College National Science Foundation
Minerva Cordero-Epperson Vadim Ponomarenko
University of Texas, Arlington San Diego State University
Beverly Diamond Catherine A. Roberts
College of Charleston College of the Holy Cross
Allan Donsig Rachel Roberts
University of Nebraska, Lincoln Washington University, St. Louis
Michael Dorff Ivelisse M. Rubio
Brigham Young University Universidad de Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras
Daniela Ferrero Adriana Salerno
Texas State University Bates College
Luis David Garcia-Puente Edward Scheinerman
Sam Houston State University Johns Hopkins University
Sidney Graham Susan G. Staples
Central Michigan University Texas Christian University
Tara Holm Dennis Stowe
Cornell University Idaho State University
Roger A. Horn Daniel Ullman
University of Utah George Washington University
Lea Jenkins Daniel Velleman
Clemson University Amherst College
Daniel Krashen
University of Georgia
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT
Bonnie K. Ponce
NOTICE TO AUTHORS Proposed problems or solutions should be sent to:
The MONTHLY publishes articles, as well as notes and DOUG HENSLEY, MONTHLY Problems
other features, about mathematics and the profes- Department of Mathematics
sion. Its readers span a broad spectrum of math- Texas A&M University
ematical interests, and include professional mathe- 3368 TAMU
maticians as well as students of mathematics at all College Station, TX 77843-3368
collegiate levels. Authors are invited to submit arti-
cles and notes that bring interesting mathematical
In lieu of duplicate hardcopy, authors may submit
ideas to a wide audience of MONTHLY readers.
pdfs to monthlyproblems@math.tamu.edu.
The MONTHLYs readers expect a high standard of ex-
position; they expect articles to inform, stimulate,
challenge, enlighten, and even entertain. MONTHLY Advertising Correspondence:
articles are meant to be read, enjoyed, and dis- MAA Advertising
cussed, rather than just archived. Articles may be 1529 Eighteenth St. NW
expositions of old or new results, historical or bio- Washington DC 20036
graphical essays, speculations or definitive treat-
ments, broad developments, or explorations of a Phone: (877) 622-2373
single application. Novelty and generality are far E-mail: tmarmor@maa.org
less important than clarity of exposition and broad
appeal. Appropriate figures, diagrams, and photo- Further advertising information can be found online
graphs are encouraged. at www.maa.org
Notes are short, sharply focused, and possibly infor- Change of address, missing issue inquiries, and
mal. They are often gems that provide a new proof other subscription correspondence:
of an old theorem, a novel presentation of a familiar MAA Service Center, maahq@maa.org
theme, or a lively discussion of a single issue.
All at the address:
Submission of articles, notes, and filler pieces is re-
quired via the MONTHLYs Editorial Manager System. The Mathematical Association of America
Initial submissions in pdf or LATEX form can be sent 1529 Eighteenth Street, N.W.
to the Editor Scott Chapman at Washington, DC 20036
http://www.editorialmanager.com/monthly Recent copies of the MONTHLY are available for pur-

chase through the MAA Service Center.
maahq@maa.org, 1-800-331-1622
The Editorial Manager System will cue the author
for all required information concerning the paper. Microfilm Editions: University Microfilms Interna-
Questions concerning submission of papers can tional, Serial Bid coordinator, 300 North Zeeb Road,
be addressed to the Editor at monthly@shsu.edu. Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
Authors who use LATEX are urged to use arti-
cle.sty, or a similar generic style, and its stan- The AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL MONTHLY (ISSN
dard environments with no custom formatting. 0002-9890) is published monthly except bimonthly
A formatting document for MONTHLY references June-July and August-September by the Mathe-
can be found at http://www.shsu.edu/~bks006/ matical Association of America at 1529 Eighteenth
FormattingReferences.pdf. Follow the link to Elec- Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036 and Lancaster,
tronic Publications Information for authors at http: PA, and copyrighted by the Mathematical Asso-
//www.maa.org/pubs/monthly.html for informa- ciation of America (Incorporated), 2013, including
tion about figures and files, as well as general edi- rights to this journal issue as a whole and, except
torial guidelines. where otherwise noted, rights to each individual
Letters to the Editor on any topic are invited. contribution. Permission to make copies of individ-
Comments, criticisms, and suggestions for mak- ual articles, in paper or electronic form, including
ing the MONTHLY more lively, entertaining, and posting on personal and class web pages, for ed-
informative can be forwarded to the Editor at ucational and scientific use is granted without fee
monthly@shsu.edu. provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
The online MONTHLY archive at www.jstor.org is a bear the following copyright notice: [Copyright the
valuable resource for both authors and readers; it Mathematical Association of America 2013. All rights
may be searched online in a variety of ways for any reserved.] Abstracting, with credit, is permitted. To
specified keyword(s). MAA members whose institu- copy otherwise, or to republish, requires specific
tions do not provide JSTOR access may obtain indi- permission of the MAAs Director of Publications and
vidual access for a modest annual fee; call 800-331- possibly a fee. Periodicals postage paid at Washing-
1622. ton, DC, and additional mailing offices. Postmaster:
See the MONTHLY section of MAA Online for current Send address changes to the American Mathemati-
information such as contents of issues and descrip- cal Monthly, Membership/Subscription Department,
tive summaries of forthcoming articles: MAA, 1529 Eighteenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC,
20036-1385.
http://www.maa.org/
Quick, Does 23/67 Equal 33/97?
A Mathematicians Secret
from Euclid to Today
David Pengelley
Abstract. How might we determine in practice whether 23/67 equals 33/97? Is there a quick
alternative to cross-multiplying?
How about reducing? Cross-multiplying checks equality of products, whereas reducing is
about the opposite, factoring and cancelling. Do these very different approaches to equality of
fractions always reach the same conclusion? In fact, they wouldnt, but for a critical prime-free
property of the natural numbers more basic than, but essentially equivalent to, uniqueness of
prime factorization.
This property has ancient, though very recently upturned, origins, and was key to number
theory even through Eulers work. We contrast three prime-free arguments for the property,
which remedy a method of Euclid, use similarities of circles, or follow a clever proof in the
style of Euclid, as in Barry Mazurs essay [22].
1. INTRODUCTION. What may we learn if we ask someone whether 23/67 equals

33/97, and ask them to explain why? Is there anything subtle going on here? Our
question is not about when two fractions should be defined as equal, but rather about
how in practice we are legitimately allowed to determine whether or not they are equal.
We first aim to stir up mud. We do this by asserting that there is a delicate issue in
understanding fractions, an issue very powerful, but sufficiently subtle that it tends to
become invisible to many mathematicians by assuming the guise of intuitive second
nature. For others, it remains entirely outside conscious awareness, despite perhaps
being used occasionally in practice without question.
After stirring up mud, we will examine and compare three prime-free ways in which
the issue can be resolved, from ancient to modern (via remedying Euclid using his al-
gorithm, circular similarities, or following Mazur combining proportionalities). It is
illuminating mathematically, historically via Euler, and pedagogically, to see the full
power of fractions harnessed without needing the standard modern appeal to unique-
ness of prime factorization.
2. EQUALITY OF FRACTIONS. The issue of defining equality of fractions is non-

trivial, since it is about conceptualizing the nature of proportionality, which is not
nearly as simple as it sounds. Mathematicians today, however, are happy with equiv-
alence classes of fractions creating the rational numbers. We form the equivalence
relation generated by a/b = (ka)/(kb), and verify that it is the same as the relation
decreeing that a/b = c/d if and only if ad = bc, after checking that this latter relation
is transitive, which requires both commutativity and cancellation for natural numbers.
This criterion, referred to as cross-multiplying, sits well with the public too, espe-
cially if they are aware that it amounts to comparing the fractions via the specific
common denominator bd.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4169/amer.math.monthly.120.10.867
MSC: Primary 11A05, Secondary 11A51; 01A20; 01A35; 01A45; 01A50; 01A55
December 2013] QUICK, DOES 23/67 EQUAL 33/97? 867

We shall refer to converting a/b to (ka)/(kb) as expanding, and converting
(ka)/(kb) to a/b as reducing. We have decreed that two fractions be equal precisely
if they have a very specific identical expansion, which is easily checked to be equiv-
alent to comparing them using any common denominator for expansion, for instance
their least common denominator.
But what about reducing the fractions instead? As yet we have said nothing about
what it may mean for two fractions to have or not to have an identical reduction. Does
reduction just as definitively test fractions for equality, or not? Both computationally
and theoretically, it is often much preferable to reduce than to expand.
3. THE MATHEMATICIANS SECRET. Ask someone whether 23/67 = 33/97.

Expanding requires calculating two four-digit products, which some people will do,
although they will certainly think twice before going to that much work. Some will
more likely grab a calculator and convert to decimal quotients, even though this only
yields approximations, so it might not answer the question. Some will try to determine
whether one of the two fractions is greater by some comparison, even though this was
not the question. Some will try reducing the fractions. If trying reduction, what will
they conclude, and on what basis?1
The thoughtful mathematician has no need for multiplication, division, or size
comparison. How so? What might the mathematician know about fractions that many
others do not? The mathematician may choose neither to expand the fractions, nor
to perform division, but rather to reduce them, and noticing quickly that 23/67 is
irreducible and that 33/97 cannot reduce to it, asserts confidently that they cannot be
equal. Voila! Surely this is incredibly powerful knowledge, but how obviously legiti-
mate is it? After all, couldnt these two fractions still expand to something identical,
even though they wont reduce to something identical? Can that really never happen?
And who is aware of this?
All other questions about fractions can, in principle, be straightforwardly addressed.
But the question of efficacy of reducing versus expanding fractions cannot easily be
resolved: Is it legitimate to use reduction of fractions to conclude that two fractions
are unequal?
By now the mathematician is perhaps slowly recalling the mantra that every ratio-
nal number is represented by a unique irreducible fraction (called lowest terms),
and that uniqueness is the key. And in the back of her or his mind, the modern
mathematician, seduced always to reach for primes, imagines creating a proof using
uniqueness of prime factorization,2 and perhaps then starts wondering if this is truly
necessary to justify quickly that 23/67 6 = 33/97.3
To gauge how necessary unique factorization may be for reduction to be efficacious,
let us step briefly inside the natural numbers and consider the nature of fractions using
1 My unscientific surveys have shown that people, including mathematicians, display a remarkably diverse
collection of knowledge and approaches to the question of determining equality. Surprisingly, even children
from the same home and school may take quite different tacks, some expanding and some reducing. And to
my astonishment, not all mathematicians even think of the possibility of reducing.
2 I have often wondered what intuition the average person has about whether prime factorization of natural
numbers is unique or not, since it is so key to the nature of basic mathematics. Somewhat disappointingly, my
informal surveys suggest that most people have no intuition one way or the other on this matter.
3 Note that the questions of efficacy and efficiency are quite different. Reduction may be efficacious, always
distinguishing unequal fractions, but whether it is more efficient than cross-multiplying is another matter. We
might at first think that reduction is comparatively inefficient, requiring factorization before reduction, but in
fact it does not, since the irreducible reduction of a fraction can be obtained by calculating the greatest common
divisor of numerator and denominator using the Euclidean algorithm, which is highly efficient.
868
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 120
only certain categories of natural numbers forming acceptable multiplicative systems
(specifically, commutative semigroups with cancellation).
1. The even integers. Here 2/6 = 6/18, but both are irreducible (6 has no proper
factorization in the even numbers), so the mathematicians method will not work:
Different irreducible fractions can be equal.
2. The H-integers (after David Hilberts use of them [5, 15]), consisting of the
numbers one more than a multiple of three. Here 4/10 = 10/25; again, different
irreducible fractions can be equal.
In both cases cross-multiplying displays a failure of unique factorization.
We are thus appropriately admonished to recall that the natural numbers are per-
fectly built, so that every fraction has a unique irreducible reduction. And indeed, this
powerful property of fractions is essentially unique factorization, even though primes
are not mentioned. An amazing amount of beautiful and important mathematics hinges
thereon.
In fact, we should view it as almost miraculous that the natural numbers is a world
where reduction is as effective as expansion, i.e., where reduction and expansion of
fractions detect the same equivalence relation. After all, in any commutative semigroup
with cancellation, although equality of fractions is precisely the equivalence relation
have an identical expansion, there is no reason why the relation have an identical
reduction should even be transitive. For instance, in the H-integers above, 4/10 and
40/100 have an identical reduction, and so do 40/100 and 10/25, but 4/10 and 10/25
do not, so transitivity fails.
Returning to ordinary fractions, can we answer our reduction question without
having first to introduce primes, then prove uniqueness of prime factorization, and
then build another proof upon that? We ask: Is there a straightforward way to deduce
uniqueness of lowest terms for a rational number without invoking primes?
4. DOES REDUCING FRACTIONS TELL ALL? What we wish to know is that

reducing ordinary fractions tells all, i.e., that reduction can answer the equality ques-
tion just as faithfully as expansion does, when considering fractions based on the nat-
ural numbers. Certainly, if two fractions have an identical reduction, they are equal.
What we want to know is the converse.
Identical reduction of equal fractions. Given two equal fractions, there is some frac-
tion to which they both reduce.
This is easily seen to be equivalent to the following.
Unique irreducible reduction of fractions. Every fraction reduces to a unique irre-

ducible fraction.
In turn, this is equivalent to the following two results.
Reduction tells all for fractions. Given two equal fractions, they have identical irre-
ducible reductions.
Corollary (The mathematicians powerful secret). If two fractions have different

irreducible reductions, they are not equal. Thus 23/67 6 = 33/97.

Proof of equivalences. If we know identical reduction of equal fractions, then a frac-
tion can have only one irreducible reduction, since any other reduction would also
have to reduce to it. If we know unique irreducible reduction, then, given two equal
fractions, their irreducible reductions must be identical, since both are irreducible re-
ductions of any identical expansion of the two equal fractions. Finally, if we know
reduction tells all, then, given two equal fractions, they both reduce to their identical
irreducible reduction.
Thus, proving any of these three equivalent properties of fractions will answer
Does reduction tell all? affirmatively.
5. EUCLIDS VII.19, THE FOUR NUMBERS THEOREM, UNIQUE FACTOR-

IZATION, AND EULER. With the nub of reduction tells all for fractions recast as
the property identical reduction of equal fractions, we find it in the historical liter-
ature from different points of view, as Euclids Elements VII.19 in the language of
Pythagorean proportionality [6, 23], and more recently called the four numbers theo-
rem in the parlance of product decompositions [5, 16, 18, 26].
Euclid, Book VII, Definition 20 (Pythagorean Proportionality, in modernized ter-

minology). We say that a : b = c : d if a is m nth parts of b, and c is the same parts
of d.
By his parts language, Euclid means that there exist natural numbers x, y, m, n
such that a = mx, b = nx, c = my, and d = ny. In the language of fractions, this
simply says that a/b and c/d both reduce to m/n.
Euclid, Proposition VII.19. a : b = c : d if and only if ad = bc.
The only if is trivial, and the if has been called the four numbers theorem.
Four numbers theorem (identical reduction of equal fractions). If ad = bc, then

there exist x, y, m, n such that a = mx, b = nx, c = my, and d = ny.
This was first named by Laszlo Kalmar as the Vierzahlensatz [16], and proven by
him by mathematical induction. It appears that Kalmar did not notice that this is Eu-
clids VII.19.
In terms of divisibility, this is nicely recast as the following.
Divisors of a product. If d divides bc, then d = ny where n divides b and y divides c.
Shifting our consideration only briefly to contrast with prime factorizations, from
any of the above we can easily deduce what we often think of today as underpinning
uniqueness of prime factorization.
Euclids Lemma (Proposition VII.30) (modernized notation). If a prime p divides

a product, then it divides one of the factors.
Proof from the viewpoint of fractions. If p | ad, then ad = pl, so a/ p = l/d. Now
either p | a, or else a/ p is irreducible, in which case by identical reduction of equal
fractions, l/d reduces to a/ p, and therefore p | d.
870
Proof from the viewpoint of divisors of a product. If p | ad, then by divisors of a
product, p is a product of two numbers, necessarily 1 and p, dividing a and d, and
thus p itself divides either a or d.
Thus, it should not surprise that many results proven today using unique factoriza-
tion were at least as easily proven in the past without primes, e.g., directly from VII.19,
also known as the four numbers theorem.
Remarkably, uniqueness of prime factorization as we know it today was not formu-
lated until barely two centuries ago, in Carl Gausss 1801 Disquisitiones Arithmeticae.
Prior to Gauss, the focus was on knowing how to list all divisors of products of num-
bers. This is nicely accomplished via the four numbers theorem, which ensures that the
collection of divisors of a product of two numbers comprises precisely, and crucially
no more than, all the pairwise products of individual divisors of the two numbers. Of
course, from knowing all the divisors of a product we can easily obtain uniqueness of
prime factorization, but the precise notion of unique factorization was neither explic-
itly considered by, nor of apparent interest or necessity to, those before Gauss. Mathe-
maticians like al-Fars (c. 12671319) [2, 3], Jean Prestet (16481690) [12; 24, Ch. 6,
p. 146ff], and Leonhard Euler (17071783) [9, Book 1, Abschrift 1, 41] dealt very
successfully with divisibility using results such as VII.19 and VII.30 [1, 4, 18, 20].
For instance, Euler made an occasional nod to Euclid as justification where today
we appeal to unique factorization. Two illustrations from Eulers works [18, pp. 186
187], easily proven from the four numbers theorem, are his use of the following.
If a product of two relatively prime numbers is a nth power, then so are the individ-
ual factors.
Euler explicitly says that, thanks to Euclid, it would be superfluous for him to
provide a proof [7, Lemma 1, p. 126; 18, p. 186; 20; 21]. He used this result in
proving Fermats Last Theorem for exponent four [17].
Any divisor of a product of two relatively prime numbers is uniquely a product of a
divisor of each of them.
Euler needed this result in the development of his function, which counts the
natural numbers up to n that are relatively prime to n [10, Ch. 4, p. 16; 20; 21], and
in his study of amicable numbers, in order to know that the sum of proper divisors
of n function (n) is, for example, multiplicative on relatively prime products mn
[8, Lemma 1, p. 24; 10, Ch. 3; 18, pp. 186187; 20]. At one point, Euler makes
explicit use of the four numbers property [8, Prob. 2, p. 61; 20].
In sum, prime factorizations are quite unnecessary for obtaining reduction tells all
for fractions, and also for most of the number theory achieved by Euler; all that is
needed is the four numbers theorem, Euclids VII.19.4
Returning to resolving the reduction question for fractions without mentioning
primes, it appears at first blush that Euclid did this nicely for us with his VII.19,
interpreted as identical reduction of equal fractions. However, we are about to see that
there are very serious problems with this tidy conclusion.
6. THREE PRIME-FREE PROOFS OF REDUCTION TELLS ALL FOR

FRACTIONS. We look first to Euclids VII.19, interpreted as identical reduction
of equal fractions, for a prime-free approach to the equivalent reduction tells all for
fractions. However, while Euclids proof route is prime-free, it is incredibly long and
4 Of course, in many areas of modern algebra, unique factorization is crucial. The relationship between the
four numbers theorem and unique factorization in the setting of ring theory is explored in [18, 19, 20].

circuitous, stretching over quite a sequence of propositions beginning with VII.5.
Worse, while we can streamline it quite a bit, it suffers from being wrong, containing
a subtle but substantial gap.5
The first of the three prime-free proofs we will provide is inspired by our remedy6
in [23] for Euclids approach to VII.19. The second uses geometric circle similarities
modeling modularity. The third is a delightfully economical approach in the style of
Euclid, as in Barry Mazurs essay [22], cleverly combining the equivalent proportional
nature of different yet equal fractions. It is most illuminating to investigate where each
of these proofs fails for the even integers and the H-integers discussed earlier.
Greatest common divisor for unique irreducible reduction. We prove unique irre-
ducible reduction in a manner close to our fix [23] for Euclids proof of VII.19.
Proof. Given a/b, let g = gcd(a, b) be the greatest common divisor of a and b, and
write a = ge, b = g f , so that e/ f is an irreducible reduction of a/b. Now, consider
an arbitrary reduction c/d of a/b, so a = hc, b = hd.
We need a crucial fact about the natural numbers, that every common divisor of
two numbers must divide their greatest common divisor (gcd). This is stated by Euclid
as his Porism (corollary) to the Euclidean algorithm, and follows by examining the
algorithms iterative process both upward and downward.7 It is an algebraic property
of the gcd.
Thus, h divides g, so writing g = mh we have a = mhe and b = mh f . Thus, c =
me and d = m f , hence c/d reduces to e/ f . Then, since every reduction of a/b reduces
to e/ f , the irreducible reduction is unique.
In his proof of VII.19, Euclid assumed without justification something we discussed

earlier, transitivity of the relation have an identical reduction on pairs of fractions,
which involves dealing with multiple common divisors simultaneously.8 We explained
in [23] how Euclid could have justified this, using his gcd Porism in much the same
way we just did above. We chose here to refocus Euclids approach to prove unique
irreducible reduction rather than the equivalent VII.19.
Circle similarity for the four numbers theorem. Janos Suranyi [25, 26] gives a
proof of the four numbers theorem using translation congruence properties of an in-
teger lattice and similar triangles, that simultaneously automatically selects two gcds
from the geometry. Klaus Hartig and Suranyi [5, 13, 14] make a geometric circle proof.
It appears that Hartig and Suranyi, like Kalmar, were unaware that the four number
5 The serious gap in Euclids proof of VII.19, not identified until 1970 [23, 27], leaves us wondering when
Euclids key number theoretic results, such as Euclids Lemma (VII.30) relying on VII.19, were actually validly
proven by anyone. Since al-Fars relied directly on Euclids results such as VII.30 [3], it seems that Jean Prestet
in 1689, who developed his results independently of Euclid, might have been the first [12]. Prestet uses the
Euclidean algorithm to prove his key result, from which he derives results like VII.30 [24, Ch. 6, p. 146ff].
Interestingly, quite unlike Euclid, the key result Prestet first derives from a rather elaborate argument with the
Euclidean algorithm is not about divisors of a product, but rather about least common multiples. He proves
that the least number divisible by two relatively prime numbers is their product. All else follows from this.
6 In [23], we analyzed Euclids path to Euclids Lemma (VII.30) via VII.19, including the major lacuna in
his proof of VII.19, explained below after our first proof of unique irreducible reduction.
7 Today we tend first to derive the much more recent Bezout equation, that gcd(a, b) is an integer linear
combination of a and b, from the upward process, and then derive Euclids Porism therefrom. But Euclid
obtains the Porism directly from the algorithm, without needing the Bezout equation.
8 Euclid does not work with fractions per se, but his analysis involves the equivalent of this.
872
theorem is Euclids VII.19. Of course, they were also unaware that Euclids proof is
flawed.
Here we present a different geometric proof from theirs, with a modular flavor,
using similarity of partitioning of circles, invented because I knew of the existence
of a Hartig-Suranyi circle proof, but couldnt immediately obtain a copy of it. To my
surprise, the following proof is remarkably different from their circle proof, using
geometric similarity of three circles rather than a counting analysis on a single circle.9
Four numbers theorem. If ad = bc, then there exist x, y, m, and n such that a =
mx, b = nx, c = my, d = ny.
Proof. We may assume that a < b.

On a circle of circumference b, from the bottom, lay down successive arcs of length
a, marking their connecting endpoints. Since da is a multiple of b, the points will
eventually repeat, so the circle is partitioned by the finitely many arcs joining adjacent
points. Since the same partitioning must result when starting from any of the points,
the arclengths between adjacent points are all the same, i.e., the points partition the
circle into n arcs of equal length x, i.e., b = nx. Also, a is a multiple of x, say a = mx.
Moreover, x is just some multiple of the original increment a reduced by some multiple
of b from the wrapping around the circle, i.e., x = ra + sb for integers r , s. Thus x is
itself an integer length.
a b = nx
a = mx
x = ra + sb
x
b
Now, scale the partitioned circle up by a factor of d, to a similar circle with cir-
cumference bd and initial arclength da(= bc), and arclength between adjacent points
d x = d(ra + sb) = r bc + sbd = b(r c + sd) = by with y = r c + sd also an integer.
d x = d(ra + sb)
da = bc
= bcr + bsd
= b(r c + sd)
= by
d x = by
db
Then, scale this circle down by a factor of b, yielding a circle with circumference
d, initial arclength c, and arclength y between adjacent points.
9 The arguments do not really rely specifically on the geometry of circles, and could equally be phrased
with polygons.

c
d = ny
c = my
y
d
The two geometric similarities have rescaled the lengths of arcs, converting b to d,
a to c, and x to y, while the multiples encoding the relationships between arcs remain
the same, and so the original a = mx and b = nx rescale to c = my and d = ny.
It is geometrically obvious that x = gcd(a, b). Or, note that since x | a, b and x =
ra + sb (the Bezout equation), we have x = gcd(a, b). Likewise, y = gcd(c, d).
The rotational symmetry relied on in combination with similarity leads directly to
both gcds occurring simultaneously with the same multiplicities, thereby avoiding the
need for Euclids Porism on divisibility properties of greatest common divisors.
Combining equivalent proportionalities for unique irreducible reduction. Finally,

we present a proof of unique irreducible reduction following Barry Mazurs recent es-
say [22],10 in which he studies and remedies Euclids Proposition VII.20 in combina-
tion with VII.19 to prove Euclids Lemma.11 His proof hones in on just what is needed
for unique irreducible reduction in a fashion that avoids entanglement with the lacuna
in Euclids proof of VII.19.
Proof (as in B. Mazurs essay [22]). Given a/b, let e/ f be the fraction with smallest
numerator that is equal to a/b, i.e., for which a f = be. Our goal is to show that a is a
multiple ke, for then it will follow that b = k f , so a/b must reduce to e/ f . Then, e/ f
must be the unique irreducible fraction equal to a/b, since all fractions equal to a/b
will then reduce to the one with smallest numerator.
If a = e, we are done. If not, let ne be the largest multiple of e still less than a. Then,
check that n f will be less than b. Now verify the equality (a ne)/(b n f ) = e/ f
by cross-multiplying.12 Since e/ f has smallest numerator among all fractions equal to
it, we must have a ne e, in addition to a ne e from the choice of n. Hence
a ne = e, so a is a multiple of e as desired.
The proof that Mazur gives of unique irreducible reduction requires no primes, no
Euclidean algorithm, no algebraic divisibility of greatest common divisor, no geome-
try, no mathematical induction, and no contrapositive or contradiction. It relies on so
little, i.e., repeated but bounded subtraction of smaller from larger, and a unit to allow
repeated addition to transform to integer multiples.13 Its simplicity is enabled by the
clever choice of a new third equal fraction based on the given different but equal ones.
10 For a variant proof, see also [11, 20].

11 In essence VII.19 and VII.20 together prove unique irreducible reduction.
12 This equality, a somewhat bizarre move to us today, is precisely the sort of proportionality phenomenon
that was second nature to the ancients.

13 These are the two features missing, respectively, from the H-integers and the even integers in the examples
of failure given earlier.
874
7. WHAT TO CONCLUDE? We have examined three prime-free ways of showing
that reduction tells all for fractions (the mathematicians secret), equivalent to unique
irreducible reduction of fractions and to identical reduction of equal fractions:
A la Euclid (repaired via Euclidean algorithm),
Geometric circle similarity (modularity),
Mazurs [22] (mixing equal proportions).
The beautiful proof that Mazur gives of unique irreducible reduction, based solely
on a single clever combination of proportionalities, is remarkably simple and satisfy-
ing, and one Euclid could have been very happy with. Is it perhaps also the shortest
and most elementary path to uniqueness of prime factorization, since Euclids Lemma
follows immediately?
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. Many thanks for valuable comments received from Pat Baggett, Andrzej Ehren-
feucht, Bill Julian, Reinhard Laubenbacher, Franz Lemmermeyer, Barry Mazur, Fred Richman, Virginia
Warfield, Robert Wisner, and the referees.
REFERENCES
1. A. G. Agargun, The fundamental theorem of arithmetic dissected, Math. Gaz. 81 (1997) 5357, available
at http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3618768.
2. , Kamal al-Din al-Fars and the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, in Science in Islamic civili-
sation (Istanbul, 1991/1994), Stud. Sources Hist. Sci. Ser. 9, Res. Cent. Islam. Hist. Art Cult. (IRCICA),
Istanbul, 2000. 185192.
3. A. G. Agargun, C. R. Fletcher, al-Fars and the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, Hist. Math. 21 (1994)
162173, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/hmat.1994.1015.
4. A. G. Agargun, E.M. Ozkan, A historical survey of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, Hist. Math.
28 (2001) 207214, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/hmat.2001.2318.
5. P. Erdos, J. Suranyi, Topics in the Theory of Numbers. Springer, New York, 2003.
6. Euclid, The Thirteen Books of Euclids Elements. Translated by T. L. Heath. Dover, New York, 1956,
available at http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/Euclid.html.
7. L. Euler, Theorematum quorumdam arithmeticorum demonstrationes, E98, Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop. 10
(1738/1747) 125146, available at http://www.eulerarchive.org/.
8. , De numeris amicabilibus, E152, Opusc. Varii Argumenti 2 (1750) 23107, available at http:
//www.eulerarchive.org/.
9. , Vollstandige Anleitung zur Algebra (Petersburg 1770), E387, Reclam, Leipzig, 1920, available
at http://www.eulerarchive.org/.
10. , Tractatus de numerorum doctrina capita sedecim quae supersunt, E792, Comment. Arithm. 2
(1849) 503575, available at http://www.eulerarchive.org/.
11. A. Genocchi, Demonstration de quelques propositions darithmetique dapres Euclide, Nouv. Ann.
Math 13 (1854) 426428, available at http://archive.numdam.org/ARCHIVE/NAM/NAM_1854_1_
13_/NAM_1854_1_13__426_0/NAM_1854_1_13__426_0.pdf
12. C. Goldstein, On a seventeenth century version of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, Hist. Math.
19 (1992) 177187, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0315-0860(92)90075-M.
13. K. Hartig, J. Suranyi, Combinatorial and geometric investigations in elementary number theory, Mat.
Lapok 23 (1972) 2529. (Hungarian)
14. , Combinatorial and geometric investigations in elementary number theory, Periodica Mathemat-
ica Hungarica 6 no. 3 (1975) 235240.
15. D. Hilbert, Zahlentheorie, Lecture Notes 18971898. Edited by E. Maus. Univ. Gottingen, Gottingen,
1990.
16. L. Kalmar, A szamelmelet alaptetelerol (Uber den Fundamentalsatz der Zahlentheorie), Mat. Fiz. Lapok
43 (1936) 2745. (Hungarian; German summary)
17. R. Laubenbacher, D. Pengelley, Mathematical Expeditions: Chronicles by the Explorers, Springer, New
York, 1999.
18. F. Lemmermeyer, Zur Zahlentheorie der Griechen: Teil I. Euklids Fundamentalsatz der Arithmetik,
Math. Semesterber. 55 (2008) 181195, available at http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/
~hb3/publ/euk-1.pdf.

19. , Zur Zahlentheorie der Griechen: Teil II. Gausche Lemmas und Rieszsche Ringe, Math.
Semesterber. 56 (2009) 3951, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00591-008-0045-3.
20. , Unique factorization: The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, book in progress.
21. , The Quadratic Reciprocity Law: With an Appendix by Oswald Baumgart, book in progress.
22. B. Mazur, How did Theaetetus prove his theorem, in The Envisioned Life: Essays in Honor of Eva Brann,
Edited by P. Kalkavage and E. Salem, Paul Dry Books, Philadelphia, 2007. 235253, available at http:
//www.math.harvard.edu/~mazur/preprints/Eva.pdf.
23. D. Pengelley, F. Richman, Did Euclid need the Euclidean algorithm to prove unique factorization?, Amer-
ican Mathematical Monthly 113 (2006) 196205, available at http://www.math.nmsu.edu/~davidp/
euclid.pdf.
24. J. Prestet, Nouveaux elemens des mathematiques ou principes generaux de toutes les sciences qui ont les
grandeurs pour objet, second edition, Vol. 1. Pralard, Paris, 1689.
25. J. Suranyi, Some proofs about the uniqueness of the prime number factorization of the integers, Matem-
atikai Lapok 27 (1976) 213226. (Hungarian)
26. , Schon die alten Griechen haben das gewusst, in Grosse Augenblicke aus der Geschichte der
Mathematik, Edited by R. Freud, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, and B. I. Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim,
1999. 950.
27. C. M. Taisbak, Division and Logos. A Theory of Equivalent Couples and Sets of Integers, Odense Uni-
versity Press, Odense, 1971.
DAVID PENGELLEY is professor emeritus at New Mexico State University. His research is in algebraic
topology and history of mathematics. He develops the pedagogies of teaching with student projects and with
primary historical sources, and created a graduate course on the role of history in teaching mathematics. He
relies on student reading, writing, and mathematical preparation before class to enable active student work to
replace lecture. He has received the MAAs Haimo teaching award, loves backpacking and wilderness, is active
on environmental issues, and has become a fanatical badminton player.
Department of Mathematical Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003
davidp@nmsu.edu
Meet the Editors of the Mathematical Association of

Americas Periodicals
The MAA is pleased to offer you the chance to Meet the Editors at the 2014
Joint Mathematics Meetings in Baltimore. Come to the MAA Pavilion in the
Baltimore Convention Center Exhibit Hall, on Friday, January 17th at 11:30 a.m.
Take advantage of this opportunity to discuss publishing with the MAA.
The American Mathematical MonthlyScott Chapman
The College Mathematics JournalBrian Hopkins
Mathematics MagazineWalter Stromquist and Michael Jones
Math HorizonsDavid Richeson
ConvergenceJanet Beery and Kathy Clark
MAA FOCUSLois M. Baron and Ivars Peterson
876
Linear Algebra via Complex Analysis
Alexander P. Campbell and Daniel Daners
Abstract. The resolvent (I A)1 of a matrix A is naturally an analytic function of C,

and the eigenvalues are isolated singularities. We compute the Laurent expansion of the resol-
vent about the eigenvalues of A. Using the Laurent expansion, we prove the Jordan decompo-
sition theorem, prove the CayleyHamilton theorem, and determine the minimal polynomial
of A. The proofs do not make use of determinants, and many results naturally generalize to
operators on Banach spaces.
1. INTRODUCTION. The Jordan decomposition theorem for square matrices with

coefficients in C is most commonly proved by means of algebraic methods. Every good
theorem has several proofs, which give different insights and generalize into different
directions. The aim of this exposition is to present an approach using complex analysis.
We derive the Jordan decomposition theorem, the CayleyHamilton theorem, and the
minimal polynomial from the Laurent expansions about the eigenvalues of the matrix.
The approach is known to experts in operator theory and functional calculus and is
outlined in [5, Section I.5]. It shows unexpected connections between topics usually
treated separately in undergraduate mathematics. We rely on elementary properties of
vector spaces and basic theorems of complex analysis, such as the Cauchy integral
formula and Laurent expansions. These theorems are valid for vector valued func-
tions; see [4, Sections 3.10, 3.11]. They can also be applied entry-by-entry in a matrix
or vector.
Let V be a finite dimensional normed vector space over C and let A : V V be a
linear operator. In the simplest case, we have V = Cn with the Euclidean norm, and A
is an n n matrix with entries in C. We first demonstrate why it is natural to analyze
the structure of the resolvent
7 (I A)1
using complex analysis. In one dimension, A = a is a complex number, I = 1, and the

resolvent corresponds to ( a)1 . Expanding by a geometric series about 0 6 = a,
we get
1
( a)1 =
a
1
=
( 0 ) + (0 a)
(0 a)1
=
1 + ( 0 )(0 a)1

(1)k (0 a)(k+1) ( 0 )k
X
= (1.1)
k=0
MSC: Primary 15A21, Secondary 47A10; 47A56
December 2013] LINEAR ALGEBRA VIA COMPLEX ANALYSIS 877

if |(0 a)1 ( 0 )| < 1. For a linear operator A, there might be several points for
which (I A)1 does not exist. We define the resolvent set of A by
%(A) := { C : I A is invertible} (1.2)
and the spectrum of A by
(A) := C \ %(A). (1.3)
For a matrix A, (A) is the set of eigenvalues because the rank-nullity theorem implies
that ker(I A) = {0} if and only if I A is invertible. Replacing a by I A
in (1.1) and absolute value by operator norm (see (2.1)), we might expect for 0 %(A)
that

(1)k (0 I A)(k+1) ( 0 )k
X
(I A)1 = (1.4)
k=0
if
1
| 0 | < . (1.5)
k(0 I A)1 k
That is, if 0 %(A), then (I A)1 can be expanded in a power series about 0
with radius of convergence at least 1/k(0 I A)1 k. Hence, (I A)1 is an analytic
(holomorphic) function of %(A), with Taylor series (1.4) at 0 %(A), and %(A)
is open. In Section 2 we make these arguments rigorous.
A matrix has only finitely many eigenvalues, so they are isolated singularities of
the resolvent. Hence, it is natural to use Laurent expansions about the eigenvalues to
analyze the structure of the resolvent. If 1 , . . . , q are the distinct eigenvalues of A,
then the expansion turns out to be
m j 1
N kj Pj

(1)k B k+1 ( j )k ,
X X
(I A)1 = + + j (1.6)
k=1
( j )k+1 j k=0
where P j is the projection parallel to Wi := ker(P j ) onto the generalized eigenspace

associated with j , m j = dim(im(P j )), and N j is nilpotent with im(N j ) im(P j ).
Moreover, j %(A|W j ) and B j = ( j I A|W j )1 , which is consistent with (1.4).
Note that P j is the residue of (I A)1 at j , so
1
Z
Pj = (I A)1 d, (1.7)
2i Cj
where C j is a positively-oriented circle about j , not containing any other eigenvalue

of A. Moreover,
1 (I A)1
Z
Nj = d. (1.8)
2i Cj j
The Laurent expansion (1.6) is the core of our exposition and is discussed in Section 3.
878 c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 120

In Section 4 we prove the Jordan decomposition A = D + N , where D = 1 P1 +
+ q Pq is diagonalizable, N := N1 + + Nq is nilpotent, and DN = ND. By
(1.6), the eigenvalues j are poles of (I A)1 of order
n j := min{k 1 : N kj = 0} m j . (1.9)
Hence, A is diagonalizable if and only if all of its eigenvalues are simple poles. The
order of j as a pole of the resolvent is, therefore, a measure for how far an operator is
from being diagonalizable. We show in Section 5 that p() = kj=1 ( j )n j is the
Q
minimal polynomial of A, and we prove the CayleyHamilton theorem.
2. THE RESOLVENT AS AN ANALYTIC MAP. Let V be a finite dimensional

normed vector space over C and let A : V V be a linear operator. To deal with con-
vergent series such as (1.4), we need a metric or norm on the space of linear operators.
We define the operator norm by
kAk := sup kAxk. (2.1)

kxk1
This number is finite for every linear operator on finite dimensional spaces. Note that
every finite dimensional space has a norm induced by the Euclidean norm on Cn and
some isomorphism from V to Cn . As all norms on finite dimensional vector spaces are
equivalent, it does not matter which one we use; see [8, Sections II.13].
The expansion (1.4) was motivated by a geometric series. The counterpart of the
geometric series in operator theory is the Neumann series.
Proposition 2.1 (Neumann Series). Let B : V V be a linear operator and let
r := lim sup kB n k1/n .

n
Then k=0 B k converges if r < 1 and diverges if r > 1. Moreover, r kBk. If the
P
series converges, then (I B)1 exists and

Bk .
X
(I B) 1
= (2.2)
k=0
Proof. The root test for the absolute convergence of series implies that nk=0P B k con-
P
verges if r < 1 and diverges if r > 1; see [1, Theorem 8.5]. The partial sum nk=0 B k
satisfies the identity
n n n n
!
k k
Bk B k+1 = I B n+1 .
X X X X
(I B) B = B (I B) = (2.3)
k=0 k=0 k=0 k=0
B k converges, then B n+1 0, and letting n in (2.3)

P
If k=0

!
k k
X X
(I B) B = B (I B) = I.
k=0 k=0
To pass to the limit in (2.3), we use the continuity of multiplication (composition) of

linear operators on V . Hence, I B is invertible and (2.2) holds. Since kB n k kBkn ,
we have r kBk. Hence, (2.2) holds, in particular, if kBk < 1.

We can now justify the power series expansion (1.4).
Theorem 2.2 (analyticity of resolvent). The resolvent set %(A) is open and the map
7 (I A)1 is analytic on %(A). If 0 %(A), then the power series expansion
(1.4) is valid whenever satisfies (1.5).
Proof. We use a calculation similar to (1.1) with a replaced by A. The difficulty is that
we need to show that (I A) is invertible for close to 0 , so we cannot start with
(I A)1 . In the spirit of (1.1), we write
I A = (0 I A) + ( 0 )I = I + ( 0 )(0 I A)1 (0 I A) (2.4)

and then show that we can invert. The first term in (2.4) is of the form I B with
B := ( 0 )(0 I A)1 . By Proposition 2.1, I B is invertible if
k( 0 )(0 I A)1 k = | 0 |k(0 I A)1 k < 1,
which is equivalent to (1.5). Hence, if satisfies (1.5), then by Proposition 2.1

1
(1)k (0 I A)k ( 0 )k .
X
I + ( 0 )(0 I A)1 =
k=0
We can therefore invert (2.4) to get (1.4).
We next prove that (A) 6 = by giving an operator theory version of a simple proof
of the fundamental theorem of algebra from [7]. The proof relies only on the Cauchy
integral formula and a decay estimate for (I A)1 . Having proved that (A) 6 = ,
it makes sense to define the spectral radius
spr(A) := sup{|| : (A)}
of A.
Theorem 2.3. If A is a linear operator on a finite dimensional vector space over C,

then (A) 6= . Moreover, spr(A) = lim supn kAn k1/n and for || > spr(A) we
have the Laurent series expansion

X Ak
(I A)1 = k+1
. (2.5)
k=0

Proof. Let r := lim supn kAn k1/n and note that

n 1/n
= 1 lim sup kAn k1/n = r .
A
lim sup n
n
|| n ||
k k
By Proposition 2.1, the series k=0 A / converges if || > r and diverges if || < r .
P
Moreover, (2.5) holds for || > r because

1 X Ak X Ak
1
1 1

(I A) 1
= I A = = .
k=0 k k=0
k+1

Hence, %(A) if || > r and (2.5) is the Laurent expansion of (I A)1 about
zero in that region. Because the Laurent expansion is valid in the largest annulus about
zero in %(A), either (A) = , or there exists 0 (A) with |0 | = r . Hence, r =
spr(A) if (A) 6 = .
It remains to prove that (A) 6 = . As r kAk, we get from (2.5) that

1 X kAkk 1 1 1
k(I A) k
1
= = (2.6)
|| k=0 ||k || 1 kAk||1 || kAk
for C with || > kAk. Suppose that %(A) = C. As 7 (I A)1 is analytic

on C, the Cauchy integral formula yields
1 (I A)1
Z
A =
1
d
2i ||=R
for all R > 0. Using the decay estimate (2.6), we obtain
2 R k(I A)1 k 1
kA1 k
2 R R kAk
for all R > kAk. Letting R , we see that kA1 k = 0, which is impossible. Hence,
(A) 6= , as claimed.
3. THE LAURENT EXPANSION ABOUT AN EIGENVALUE. We have estab-

lished that the resolvent is an analytic function on %(A) and know that the eigenvalues
are isolated singularities of the resolvent. The centerpiece of our exposition is the Lau-
rent expansion of (I A)1 about an eigenvalue 0 (A).
Theorem 3.1. Let 0 (A). Then there exist operators P0 , N0 , and B0 so that for
in a neighbourhood of 0 ,

N0k P0
(1)k B0k+1 ( 0 )k .
X X
(I A)1 = k+1
+ + (3.1)
k=1
( 0 ) 0 k=0
Moreover, the operators P0 , N0 , and B0 have the following properties:

(i) P02 = P0 , that is, P0 is a projection;
(ii) N0 P0 = P0 N0 = N0 ;
(iii) B0 P0 = P0 B0 = 0;
(iv) spr(N0 ) = 0;
(v) A P0 = P0 A = 0 P0 + N0 ;
(vi) (0 I A)B0 = B0 (0 I A) = I P0 .
We defer the proof of the theorem to Section 6 and now discuss some consequences.
We show that N0 is nilpotent and deduce that every eigenvalue of A is a pole of the
resolvent.
Remark 3.2. By (ii), im(N0 ) im(P0 ), so there exists n 0 m 0 := dim(im(P0 ))

dim V < so that

n n +1
ker(N0 ) ker(N0 ) ker(N02 ) ker N0 0 = ker N0 0 = (3.2)

with proper inclusions up to the n 0 th power, and then equality; see [2, Prop. 8.5 & 8.6].
n n 1
If we show that N0 0 = 0, then N0 is nilpotent, N0 0 6 = 0, and n 0 is the order of 0 as a
n0 n
pole of (I A) . Then N0 : im(N0 ) im(N0 0 ) is invertible. We know from (iv)
1
n
that zero is the only eigenvalue of N0 . Hence, im(N0 0 ) = {0} as claimed, as otherwise
n0
N0 restricted to im(N0 ) has a nonzero eigenvalue by Theorem 2.3. Further note that
n 1
(3.2) also implies that {P0 , N0 , N02 , . . . , N0 0 } is linearly independent.
Next we discuss the structure of the regular and singular parts of the Laurent expan-
sion.
Remark 3.3. Since P0 is a projection, we have the direct sum decomposition
V = im(P0 ) ker(P0 ).
Choose bases of im(P0 ) and ker(P0 ) to form a basis of V . With respect to that basis,
P0 can be written as a block matrix
I 0

P0 = .
0 0
Similarly, with respect to the basis introduced, (ii) and (v) of the theorem imply that
N0 and A are block matrices of the form
N 0 I+N 0

N0 = and A = 0 .
0 0 0 A0
In particular, A|ker(P0 ) = A0 and (vi) shows that 0 %(A0 ) with B0 |ker(P0 ) =

(0 I A0 )1 . Moreover, by (iii), B0 |im(P0 ) = 0, so B0 is of the form
0 0

B0 = .
0 (0 I A0 )1
In particular, the regular part of the Laurent expansion (3.4) is consistent with (1.4),
and coincides with the power series expansion of the resolvent (I A0 )1 about 0 .
Further note that the singular part of the Laurent expansion is trivial on ker(P0 ), and
the regular part is trivial on im(P0 ), so the singular and regular parts live on comple-
mentary subspaces.
The above remark proves the following corollary.
Corollary 3.4. Let 0 be an eigenvalue of A and let P0 , N0 and B0 be as in Theo-

rem 3.1. If m 0 := dim(im(P0 ), then
0 m
P0 X N0k
P0 (I A)1 = (I A)1 P0 = + (3.3)
0 k=1 ( 0 )k+1
is the singular part of the Laurent expansion (3.1), and is valid for all C \ {0 }.
Moreover,

(1)k B0k+1 ( 0 )k
X
(I P0 )(I A)1 = (I A)1 (I P0 ) = (3.4)
k=0

is the regular part of the Laurent expansion (3.1) and valid for in a neighborhood of
0 . Moreover,
(i) V = im(P0 ) ker(P0 ) is a direct sum;
(ii) 0 is the only eigenvalue of A : im(P0 ) im(P0 );
(iii) 0 I A : ker(P0 ) ker(P0 ) is invertible.
In Theorem 3.1(v) we already see how the Jordan decomposition arises from the
Laurent expansion about 0 , since 0 P0 is diagonalizable on im(P0 ) and N0 is nilpo-
tent. The following proposition is useful to prove uniqueness of the Jordan decompo-
sition.
Proposition 3.5. Suppose that A = D + N , where D and N are such that DN = ND

and spr(N ) = 0. Then %(A) = %(D) and

N k (I D)(k+1)
X
(I A)1 = (3.5)
k=0
uniformly with respect to in compact subsets of %(A). If 0 (A), then

1 1
Z Z
P0 = (I A)1 d = (I D)1 d, (3.6)
2i Cr 2i Cr
where Cr is a circle centered at 0 not containing any other eigenvalues of A.
Proof. If %(D), then
I A = I D N = (I D) I (I D)1 N . (3.7)

By assumption, (I D)N = N (I D). Applying (I D)1 from the left and

from the right, we get N (I D)1 = (I D)1 N , and so
n
N (I D)1 = N n (I D)n
for all n N. Therefore, if K %(D) is compact, then there exists M > 0 such that
for all n N and K ,
N (I D)1 n 1/n kN n k1/n k(I D)1 k MkN n k1/n .

As spr(N ) = 0, for every > 0 there exists n 0 N such that, if n > n 0 and K ,
then
N (I D)1 n 1/n MkN n k1/n < . (3.8)

In particular, spr(N (I D)1 ) = 0. By Proposition 2.1, we can invert (3.7) to get

(3.5) and %(A). The convergence is uniform on K because of (3.8). If %(A),
then D = A N has the same structure with AN = NA, so we can interchange the
roles of D and A and conclude that %(D). This proves that %(A) = %(D).
If 0 (A), then by the uniform convergence of (3.5) on the compact set Cr , we
have that

1 1 X k
Z Z
P0 = (I A) d =
1
N (I D)(k+1) d. (3.9)
2i Cr 2i k=0 Cr

From the Taylor series expansion (1.4)
dk
(I D)1 = k!(I D)(k+1) ,
dk
so (I D)(k+1) has primitive (I D)k on %(A) for all k 1. Hence, all integrals
in (3.9) vanish except for the first one, and (3.9) reduces to (3.6).
4. THE JORDAN DECOMPOSITION THEOREM. In the previous section, we

looked at the Laurent expansion about a single eigenvalue of A. Here we look at the
expansions about all distinct eigenvalues 1 , . . . , q of A and use them to derive the
Jordan decomposition theorem. For j = 1, . . . , q we look at the projections P j given
by (1.7). We choose C j to be mutually disjoint positively oriented circles centered at
j , not containing any other eigenvalues.
Proposition 4.1. For j = 1, . . . , q let P j be the projection defined by (1.7). Then
1
Z
I = P1 + + Pq = (I A)1 d, (4.1)
2i C R
where C R is a circle of radius R > spr(A) centered at zero. Moreover,
V = im(P j ) im(P2 ) im(Pq ), (4.2)
and this direct sum completely reduces A. Finally, for j = 1, . . . , q,
im(P j ) = ker( j I A)m j , (4.3)
where m j = dim(im(P j )).
Proof. As R > spr(A), the circle C R encloses all eigenvalues. By the residue theorem
and the Laurent expansion (2.5), we get
q q
1
X X Z
Pj = (I A)1 d
j=1 j=1
2i Cj
1
Z
= (I A)1 d
2i C R
Z
1 X Ak
= d
2i k=0 C R k+1
I 1
Z
= d = I
2i C R
as all terms in the series are zero except the one with k = 0. We next show that P j is a
projection parallel to Pk if k 6 = j. We have
Z Z
2
(2i) P j Pk = (I A) d
1
(I A)1 d
Cj Ck
Z Z
= (I A)1 (I A)1 d d.
Cj Ck

Using the resolvent identity from Proposition 6.1(ii) below we get
(I A)1 (I A)1
Z Z
(2i)2 P j Pk = d d
C j Ck
1 1
Z Z Z Z
= (I A) 1
d d (I A)1
d d
Cj Ck Ck Cj
= 0,
since the circle C j is outside Ck and vice versa. This completes the proof of (4.2). The
fact that the direct sum reduces A follows from Corollary 3.4.
m
To prove (4.3), note that Theorem 3.1(v) implies that (A j I )m j P j = N j j = 0
and so im(P j ) ker( j I A)m j . By Corollary 3.4, (A j I )m j (I P j ) is injective
on ker(P j ), so ker( j I A)m j im(P j ), proving (4.3).
From Corollary 3.4 we know that A : im(P j ) im(P j ) has j as its only eigen-
value. This motivates the following definition.
Definition 4.2. We call im(P j ) the generalized eigenspace associated with the eigen-
value j and m j = dim(im(P j )) the algebraic multiplicity of j .
The identity (4.3) ensures that Definition 4.2 agrees with the usual definition of the
generalized eigenspace. We now derive a formula for the resolvent in terms of N j and
P j similar to a partial fraction decomposition of a rational function.
Theorem 4.3. For every %(A), we have the representation

q m j 1 k
N
Pj + j
X X
(I A)1 = k+1
.
j=1
j k=1
( j)
Proof. Using Corollary 3.4 and Proposition 4.1, for every %(A)
q
X
(I A)1 = (I A)1 Pj
j=1
q
X
= (I A)1 P j
j=1

q m j 1
X P j
X N kj
= + k+1

j=1
j k=1
( j )
as claimed.
An operator D is called diagonalizable if some direct sum decomposition D acts

by scalar multiplication on each subspace. These scalars are the eigenvalues of D. We
are now ready to prove the Jordan decomposition theorem.
Theorem 4.4 (Jordan decomposition). Let V be a finite dimensional vector space

over C and A : V V a linear operator. Then there exists a diagonalizable operator

D and a nilpotent operator N such that A = D + N and DN = ND. If 1 , . . . , q are
the distinct eigenvalues of A, then
q q
X X
D= j Pj and N= Nj, (4.4)
j=1 j=1
where P j and N j are defined as before. In particular, D and N are uniquely determined
by A. Finally, A is diagonalizable if and only if all eigenvalues of A are simple poles
of (I A)1 .
Proof. By Theorem 3.1(v), A P j = j P j + N j for j = 1, . . . , q and therefore by

Proposition 4.1,
q q q q q
X X X X X
A=A Pj = A Pj = ( j P j + N j ) = j Pj + Nj.
j=1 j=1 j=1 j=1 j=1
Hence, if we define D and N as in (4.4), then A = D + N . It is clear that D is diago-

nalizable. By Theorem 3.1(ii) and Proposition 4.1, it follows that
Pk N j = Pk P j N j = k j N j = N j Pk ,
so the direct sum (4.2) reduces N . In particular, N is nilpotent, since each N j is nilpo-
tent, and also DN = ND, since this is the case on im(P j ).
To show the uniqueness of the decomposition, assume that A = D + N with D di-
agonalizable, N nilpotent, and DN = ND. Proposition 3.5 implies that %( D) = %(A)
and that the spectral projections are equal. Hence, 1 , . . . , q are the eigenvalues of D.
As D is diagonalizable, DP j = j P j and NP j = AP j j P j = N j for j = 1, . . . , q.
Hence, D = D and N = N , as claimed.
The last assertion of the theorem follows, since N = 0 if and only if N j = 0 in
the Laurent expansion (1.6) for all j = 1, . . . , q, which means that all eigenvalues are
simple poles.
To obtain the Jordan canonical form for matrices, it is sufficient to construct a basis
of im(P j ) such that the matrix representation of AP j consists of Jordan blocks; see,
e.g., [2, Theorem 8.47]. For many purposes, the full Jordan canonical form is not
needed, as examples in [6] show.
5. THE CAYLEYHAMILTON THEOREM AND THE MINIMAL POLYNO-

MIAL. If p() = an n + an1 n1 + + a0 is a polynomial, we define
p(A) = an An + an1 An1 + + a1 A + a0 I.
The CayleyHamilton theorem asserts that p A (A) = 0 if p A () := det(I A) is the

characteristic polynomial of A. We start by finding a representation of p(A) reminis-
cent of the Cauchy integral formula.
Lemma 5.1. If p() = an n + an1 n1 + + a0 is a polynomial, then

1
Z
p(A) = p()(I A)1 d,
2i C R
where C R is a positively oriented circle centered at zero with radius R > spr(A).

Proof. By the linearity of integrals, it is sufficient to consider p() = k . Using (4.1),
we get from the Cauchy integral theorem that
Z
k
2i A = Ak (I A)1 d
CR
Z
= (I (I A))k (I A)1 d
CR
k
` k
Z
k` (I A)`1 d
X
= (1)
`=0
` C R
Z
= k (I A)1 d
CR
as required.
Theorem 4.3 allows us to derive a formula for p(A).
Theorem 5.2. If p is a polynomial and p (k) its kth derivative, then

q m j 1
X p (k) ( j )
N kj .
X
p(A) = p( j )P j + (5.1)
j=1 k=1
k!
Proof. From Lemma 5.1 and Theorem 4.3,

1
Z
p(A) = p()(I A)1 d
2i C R
q Z
1 X
= p()(I A)1 d
2i j=1 C j

q m j 1 Z
1 p() p()
Z
dN kj .
X X
= dP j + (5.2)
2i j=1 Cj j k=1 C j
( j ) k+1
By the Cauchy integral formula,

1 p()
Z
p( j ) = d,
2i Cj j
and therefore
k! p()
Z
p ( j ) =
(k)
d.
2i Cj ( j )k+1
Substitution into (5.2) yields (5.1).
We are now ready to prove the CayleyHamilton theorem.
Corollary 5.3 (CayleyHamilton). If p A is the characteristic polynomial of A, then

p A (A) = 0.

Proof. The characteristic polynomial is given by p A () = qj=1 ( j )m j , where m j
Q
is the algebraic multiplicity of the eigenvalue j . Hence, p (k)

A ( j ) = 0 for 0 k
m j 1, and the representation (5.1) ensures that p A (A) = 0.
The monic polynomial p of smallest degree such that p(A) = 0 is called the min-
imal polynomial of A. According to Theorem 5.2, it is the polynomial p of smallest
degree with

q n j 1
X p (k) ( j )
N kj = 0,
X
p(A) = p( j )P j + (5.3)
j=1 k=1
k!
where n j is the order of j as a pole of the resolvent given by (1.9). By Remark 3.2
and Proposition 4.1, the set of operators
{P j : 1 j q} {N kj : 1 k n j , 1 j q}
is linearly independent, so (5.3) holds if and only if p (k) ( j ) = 0 for all j = 1, . . . , q

and 0 k n j 1. This proves the following theorem.
Theorem 5.4 (minimal polynomial). Let A be a matrix over C with distinct eigen-
values 1 , . . . , q . Then the minimal polynomial of A is given by
q
( j )n j ,
Y
p() =
j=1
where n j is the order of j as a pole of (I A)1 .
The preceding theorem shows that the minimal polynomial determines the order of
the poles of the resolvent and vice versa.
6. COMPUTATION OF THE LAURENT EXPANSION. Now, we prove Theo-

rem 3.1 on the Laurent expansion of the resolvent about 0 (A). In this section, we
do not make use of the fact that 0 is an eigenvalue, nor that dim(V ) < . We first
need some elementary properties of the resolvent.
Proposition 6.1. If (I A)1 and (I A)1 exist, then

(i) A(I A)1 = (I A)1 A = (I A)1 I ;
(ii) (I A)1 (I A)1 = ( )(I A)1 (I A)1 ;
(iii) (I A)1 (I A)1 = (I A)1 (I A)1 .
Proof. For (i), we write
A(I A)1 = (I (I A)) (I A)1 = (I A)1 I,
and similarly,
(I A)1 A = (I A)1 (I (I A)) = (I A)1 I.

For (ii), we note that
(I A) (I A)1 (I A)1 (I A) = (I A) (I A)

= ( )I.
Applying (I A)1 from the left and (I A)1 from the right, we get (ii). Finally,
(iii) follows from (ii) by interchanging the roles of and .
Property (ii) is often referred to as the resolvent identity. It corresponds to the partial
fraction decomposition
1 1
= .
( a)( a) a a
The Laurent series about 0 representing (I A)1 is

Bn ( 0 )n ,
X
(I A)1 = (6.1)
n=
where
1 (I A)1
Z
Bn = d (6.2)
2i Cr ( 0 )n+1
and Cr is a positively oriented circle of radius r centered at 0 , not enclosing any other
eigenvalue of A; see [3, Theorem 8.3.1] or [4, Section 3.11]. We next prove some
recursion relations between the Bn . The aim is to be able to express all Bn in terms of
B2 , B1 , and B0 .
Lemma 6.2. The coefficients Bn in (6.1) satisfy the relation

Bn+m+1 if n, m 0,

Bm Bn = Bn Bm = Bn+m+1 if n, m < 0, (6.3)
0

otherwise.
Moreover,
(
Bn1 + 0 Bn if n 6 = 0,
ABn = Bn A = (6.4)
Bn1 + 0 Bn I if n = 0.
Proof. By replacing A by 0 I A, we may assume that 0 = 0. Let Cr and Cs be

circles of radius 0 < r < s, both centered at zero such that Cs does not enclose any
other eigenvalue of A, as shown in Figure 6.1.
Then
(I A)1 (I A)1
Z Z
(2i)2 Bn Bm = d d
Cr n+1 Cs m+1
(I A)1 (I A)1
Z Z
= d d.
Cr C s n+1 m+1

Cs
r
Cr
s
0

Figure 6.1. The circles Cr and Cs about 0
In the spirit of a partial fraction decomposition, we use the resolvent identity from
Proposition 6.1(ii) to get
(I A)1 (I A)1
Z Z
(2i)2 Bn Bm = d d
Cr C s ( )n+1 m+1
(I A)1 1
Z Z
= m+1 n+1 ( )
d d
Cs Cr
(I A)1 1
Z Z
n+1 m+1
d d. (6.5)
Cr Cs ( )
If n, m 0, then we use the partial fraction decompositions

n
1 n+1 (n+1 n+1 ) 1 X 1 1
n+1
= n+1 n+1
= n+1
nk+1 k+1
(6.6)
( ) ( ) ( ) k=0
and
m
1 1 X 1 1
m+1
= m+1 + (6.7)
( ) ( ) k=0 mk+1 k+1
to evaluate the inner integrals. Note that Cs is outside the circle Cr . Using (6.6) if
n 0, and the Cauchy integral theorem if n < 0, we get
1

1 1 if n 0,
Z
d = n+1
2i Cr n+1 ( )
0 if n < 0.
For the other integral, note that if m 0, then both = 0 and = are singularities
enclosed by Cs . Hence, using (6.7) and the residue theorem, we obtain
1 1 1 1
Z
d = = 0.
2i Cs m+1 ( ) m+1 m+1
If m < 0, then only = is a singularity, and by the Cauchy integral formula,
1 1 1
Z
d = m+1 .
2i Cs m+1 ( )

Hence, if m, n 0, then the second of the inner integrals on the right-hand side of
(6.5) is zero, and the other is 2i(n+1) . Therefore,
1 (I A)1
Z
Bn Bm = d = Bn+m+1 .
2i Cs m+n+2
If m, n < 0, then the first of the inner integrals on the right-hand side of (6.5) is zero,
and the other is 2i(m+1) and therefore
1 (I A)1
Z
Bn Bm = d = Bn+m+1 .
2i Cr m+n+2
If n 0 and m < 0, then a similar argument shows that Bn Bm = Bn+m+1 Bm+n+1 =

0. In the remaining case, both inner integrals in (6.5) are zero, so Bn Bm = 0. From
(6.5), it is also clear that Bn Bm = Bm Bn . To prove (6.4), we use Proposition 6.1(i) to
conclude that
1 A(I A)1
Z
ABn = d
2i Cr n+1
1 (I A)1 I
Z
= d
2i Cr n+1
1 (I A)1 I 1
Z Z
= d d
2i Cr n 2i Cr n+1
I 1
Z
= Bn1 d.
2i Cr n+1
This completes the proof of the lemma, since the last integral is zero if n 6 = 0, and is
2i if n = 0.
Proof of Theorem 3.1. To prove Theorem 3.1, we set
P0 := B1 and N0 := B2 .
First, we deduce from (6.3) that
P02 = B1 B1 = B11+1 = B1 = P0 ,
which proves (i). Similarly, applying (6.3) again we get (ii), since
P0 N0 = B1 B2 = B12+1 = B2 = N0 ,
and B1 and B2 commute. Similarly, we get (iii), since by (6.3),
P0 B0 = B1 B0 = 0 = B0 B1 = B0 P0 .
We next use induction to show that Bn = (1)n B0n+1 . This is obvious for n = 0, so
assume that n 1. Then by (6.3) and the induction assumption,
Bn+1 = Bn+0+1 = Bn B0 = (1)n B0n+1 B0 = (1)n+1 B0(n+1)+1 ,

n2
as claimed. In a similar manner, we prove that Bn = B2 = N0n2 for n 2. Again,
this is obvious for n = 2. By (6.3) and the induction assumption,
n2 (n+1)2
B(n+1) = Bn2+1 = Bn B2 = B2 B2 = B2 = N0(n+1)2 ,
as claimed. Hence, (3.1) follows. To prove (iv), note that from (6.2),
kN0n k = kBn+2 k r n+2 sup k(I A)1 k K r n+2

||=r
for some constant K > 0 depending on r . The constant K is finite, since the circle
|| = r is compact and the resolvent is continuous. Hence,
spr(N0 ) r lim (K r 2 )1/n = r. (6.8)

n
As we can choose r as small as we like, we conclude that spr(N0 ) = 0. Finally, note

that (v) and (vi) are special cases of (6.4) for n = 1 and n = 0, respectively.
REFERENCES
1. H. Amann, J. Escher, Analysis I, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 2005.

2. S. Axler, Linear Algebra Done Right, second edition, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997.
3. E. Hille, Analytic Function Theory, Vol. 1, Ginn and Company, Boston, 1959.
4. E. Hille, R. S. Phillips, Functional Analysis and Semi-Groups, revised edition. American Mathematical
Society, Providence, RI, 1957.
5. T. Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, second edition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1976.
6. R. R. London, H. P. Rogosinski, Decomposition theory in the teaching of elementary linear algebra, Amer.
Math. Monthly 97 (1990) 478485, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2323830.
7. A. R. Schep, A simple complex analysis and an advanced calculus proof of the fundamental theorem of
algebra, Amer. Math. Monthly 116 (2009) 6768.
8. A. E. Taylor, D. C. Lay, Introduction to Functional Analysis, second edition, Wiley, New York, 1980.
ALEXANDER CAMPBELL is currently completing a Bachelor of Science at the University of Sydney. He

has a longstanding interest in the connections between pure mathematics and physics. This has led to interests
in many areas of mathematics, whose interactions he finds particularly inspiring. Much of his free time he
spends playing piano. As an undergraduate student he enjoys performing for various theatre productions around
campus.
School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
campbell@maths.usyd.edu.au
DANIEL DANERS received his Ph.D. from the University of Zurich, Switzerland, in 1992. He currently
teaches at the University of Sydney, where, given the opportunity, he likes to show students interesting mathe-
matics outside the usual curriculum. He likes to spend his free time with his family and children.
School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
daniel.daners@sydney.edu.au

Rigorous Computer Analysis of the
ChowRobbins Game
Olle Haggstrom and Johan Wastlund
Abstract. Flip a coin repeatedly, and stop whenever you want. Your payoff is the proportion
of heads, and you wish to maximize this payoff in expectation. This so-called ChowRobbins
game is amenable to computer analysis, but while simple-minded number crunching can show
that it is best to continue in a given position, establishing rigorously that stopping is optimal
seems at first sight to require backward induction from infinity.
We establish a simple upper bound on the expected payoff in a given position, allowing ef-
ficient and rigorous computer analysis of positions early in the game. In particular, we confirm
that with 5 heads and 3 tails, stopping is optimal.
1. THE CHOWROBBINS GAME. The following game was introduced by Yuan-

Shih Chow and Herbert Robbins [1] in 1964. We toss a coin repeatedly, and stop
whenever we want. Our payoff is the proportion of heads, and we assume that we want
to maximize the expected payoff.
If the time of stopping had to be decided in advance, our expected payoff would
always be 1/2, but we can do better by quitting while we are ahead. Since the laws of
probability promise 50% heads in the long run, there is a simple strategy that achieves
3/4 in expectation: Stop if the first toss results in heads, and otherwise continue until
the proportion of heads is 1/2.
With a little bit of calculation, it is easy to find further improvements. For instance,
consider the situation with 3 heads and 2 tails. Suppose we stop if the next toss is heads
(probability 1/2, payoff 2/3), or if the next two are tails-heads (probability 1/4, payoff
4/7), and otherwise continue until the proportion is 1/2 (probability 1/4, payoff 1/2).
This would result in an expected payoff of
1 2 1 4 1 1 101
+ + = 0.601,
2 3 4 7 4 2 168
whereas stopping at 3-2 would have given us 3/5 = 0.6. The proposed strategy is not
itself optimal, but it shows that with 3 heads and 2 tails, continuing must be the correct
decision. More elaborate calculations will show that for a number of other positions
too, continuing is better than stopping. On the other hand, no similar calculation will
ever determine when stopping is optimal.
Chow and Robbins [1] established a number of basic properties of the game, like
the nontrivial fact that there is an optimal strategy that stops with probability 1. Precise
asymptotical results were obtained by Aryeh Dvoretzky [2] and Larry Shepp [4]. In
particular, Shepp showed that for the optimal strategy, the proportion of heads required
for stopping after n tosses is asymptotically equal to
1 0.41996 . . .
+ ,
2 n
MSC: Primary 60C05, Secondary 60J22
December 2013] ANALYSIS OF THE CHOWROBBINS GAME 893

where the constant is the root of a certain integral equation. But as was pointed out
more recently by Luis Medina and Doron Zeilberger [3], for a number of positions
early in the game, the optimal decisions were still not known rigorously.
Let V (a, n) be the expected payoff under optimal play from position (a, n), by
which we mean a heads out of n coin flips. The game is suitable for computer analysis,
but there is a fundamental problem, in that it seems one has to do backward induction
from infinity in order to determine V (a, n). Clearly
a V (a, n + 1) + V (a + 1, n + 1)

V (a, n) = max , , (1)
n 2
but the base case is at infinity.
2. LOWER BOUND ON V (a, n). In position (a, n), we can guarantee payoff a/n
by stopping. Moreover, if a/n < 1/2, then by the recurrence of simple random walk
on Z, we can wait until the proportion of heads is at least 1/2. Therefore,

a 1
V (a, n) max , . (2)
n 2
We can recursively establish better lower bounds by starting from the inequality (2) at a
given horizon, and then working our way backward using (1). An obvious approach
is to let the horizon consist of all positions with n = N for some fixed N . In practice,
it is more efficient
to use (1) only for positions where in addition a n/2, say when
|a n/2| c N for some suitable constant c, and to resort to (2) outside that range.
This allows a greater value of N at given computational resources.
If in this way, we find that V (a, n) > a/n, then in position (a, n), continuing is
better than stopping. For instance, it is straightforward to check (see the discussion
in [3]) that V (2, 3) > 2/3, from which it follows that with 2 heads versus 1 tails, we
should continue.
The third column of Table 1 in Section 4 shows positions where we have determined
that continuing is better than stopping. These results are based on a calculation with a
horizon stretching out to n = 107 . They agree with [3, Section 5] with one exception;
Medina and Zeilberger conjectured, based on calculations with a horizon of 50000
that, in the notation of [2, 3, 4], 127 = 9, meaning that the difference (number of
heads minus number of tails) required in order to stop after 127 flips, is 9. Accord-
ingly, they suggested stopping with 6859, but our computation shows that continuing
is slightly better.
On the other hand, in order to conclude that stopping is ever optimal, we need a
nontrivial upper bound on V (a, n). Clearly, such an upper bound cannot come from
(1) alone, since that equation is satisfied by V (a, n) 1.
3. UPPER BOUND ON V (a, n). We let V (a, n) be the expected payoff from po-
sition (a, n) under infinite clairvoyance, in other words, assuming we have complete
knowledge of the results of the future coin flips and stop when we reach the maxi-
mum proportion of heads. Obviously, V (a, n) V (a, n), so that any upper bound on
V (a, n) is also an upper bound on V (a, n).
Main Theorem. For a and n as defined above, it follows that

1
r
a 1 1
V (a, n) max , + min , . (3)
n 2 4 n 2 |2a n|

The first term of the right-hand side of (3) is equal to the lower bound of (2), and
thus the second term bounds the error in that approximation. We postpone the proof of
the Main Theorem to Section 5. Before that, we devote the rest of the present section
to explaining how (3) can be used computationally, and present our computational
findings in Section 4.
Since the right-hand side of (3) is strictly greater than a/n, it can never be used
directly to deduce that we should stop at (a, n). Instead, we apply the upper bound at
positions (a 0 , n 0 ) for a suitable collection of a 0 and n 0 > n, and then iterate backward
using (1) to get a more refined upper bound for V (a, n). In happy cases, this refined
bound will not exceed a/n, and then we know we should stop.
We have computed upper bounds on V (a, n) in a box stretching out to n N =
107 , and with height given by |2a n| h for a fixed h (thus the box includes points
where a deviates from n/2 by at most h/2). At the positions on the boundary of the
box (more precisely, where (a + 1, n + 1) or (a, n + 1) is outside the box), V (a, n)
has been estimated by (3), whereas for the positions in the interior we have used (1),
controlling the arithmetic so that all roundings go up, in order to achieve rigorous
upper bounds.
The second term of the right-hand side of (3) gives two different upper bounds on
the error in (2), where the bound (1/4) /n is better close to the line a = n/2, while
1/(2 |2a n|) is the sharper one away from that line. It seemed natural to choose the
height h of the box in such a way that these two bounds approximately coincide at the
farther corners of the box, in other words, so that
1
r
1
.
4 N 2h

That is, h (2/ ) N . In our computations leading to the results of Table 1
(with N = 107 ), we have taken h = 3568. The second column of Table 1 lists positions
where we have determined that stopping is optimal. This includes 5 heads to 3 tails,
a position discussed in [3] and for which computational evidence [3, 6] strongly sug-
Table 1. Opening theory for the first 1000 steps of the ChowRobbins game. If the difference (number of
heads number of tails) is nonpositive, we always continue. If the difference is 27 or more and the total
number of flips is at most 1000, stopping is optimal. For differences from 1 to 26, stopping is optimal up to and
including the position in column 2, while continuing is optimal from the position in column 3 and so on. There
are seven positions in this range for which we havent determined the optimal decision: 116104, 200184,
278259, 337316, 436412, 472447, and 509483.
Difference Stop with But go with Difference Stop with But go with
1 10 21 14 155141 156142
2 53 64 15 176161 177162
3 96 107 16 199183 201185
4 1612 1713 17 224207 225208
5 2318 2419 18 250232 251233
6 3226 3327 19 277258 279260
7 4235 4336 20 306286 307287
8 5446 5547 21 336315 338317
9 6758 6859 22 368346 369347
10 8272 8373 23 401378 402379
11 9887 9988 24 435411 437413
12 115103 117105 25 471446 473448
13 134121 135122 26 508482 510484

gested that stopping should be optimal. To the best of our knowledge, our computation
provides the first rigorous verification of this fact.
4. COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS. We have computed upper pand lower bounds on

V (a, n) for (a, n) satisfying n 107 and |a n/2| 1784 107 /. These results
allow us to find the optimal decision in most positions early in the game. It is better to
continue precisely when V (a, n) > a/n, while stopping is optimal when V (a, n) =
a/n.
We have included the results relevant to a total of at most 1000 coin flips, and in
this range we have determined optimal play for all except seven positions.
If the number a of heads is not greater than n/2, continuing is always better than
stopping. If a > n/2, then to read Table 1, consider the difference 2a n = a
(n a) of the number of heads to the number of tails. It turns out (as is easily shown
by a coupling argument) that for a fixed difference, the optimal decision will be to stop
if n is below a certain threshold, and to continue if n is above that threshold.
If, for instance, we have 19 heads against 14 tails, the difference is 5. According to
the table, stopping is best even up to 2318, so we stop. As can be seen in the table,
the opening theory is complete up to difference 11, while for difference 12 the status
of the position 116104 is still unknown.
For the position 1612, the decision is extremely close, and a run with N = 106 fails
to determine the optimal decision, giving an upper bound of 0.5714326 on continuing
compared to the payoff 16/28 0.57142857 on stopping. A run with N = 107 shows
that the expected payoff on continuing is between 0.5714192 and 0.5714278, revealing
that stopping is optimal.
For V (0, 0), Julian Wiseman gives the lower bound 0.7929534812, based on a
calculation in [6] much more extensive than ours (with a horizon of N = 228
268 000 000) and suggests 0.79295350640 as an approximation of the true value. Our
bounds obtained with N = 107 are
0.79295301268091 < V (0, 0) < 0.79295559864361.
5. PROOF OF THE MAIN THEOREM. For a and n as before, and p [0, 1], let
P(a, n, p) denote the probability that, starting from position (a, n), at some point now
or in the future the total proportion of heads will strictly exceed p. In other words,
P(a, n, p) is the probability of success starting from (a, n) if, instead of trying to
maximize expected payoff, we try to achieve a proportion of heads exceeding p, and
continue as long as this has not been achieved. When p is rational, P(a, n, p) is al-
gebraic and can in principle be calculated with the method of [5]; but we need an
inequality that can be analyzed averaging over p.
Key Lemma. Suppose that in position (a, n), the nonnegative integer k is such that
at least k more coin flips will be required in order to obtain a proportion of heads
exceeding p. Then
1
P(a, n, p) . (4)
(2 p)k
Proof. We can assume that p > max(a/n, 1/2), since otherwise the statement is triv-
ial. One way of proving that an event is unlikely is to show that conditioning on it
causes strange things to happen. From position (a, n), we condition on the event that
the total proportion of heads will at some later point exceed p. We want to show that
this considerably increases the probability of an immediate run of k consecutive heads.

By the law of large numbers, there must be a maximal m such that, after a total of m
coin flips, the proportion of heads exceeds p. Conditioning further on m, the number
of heads in coin flips number n + 1, . . . , m is determined, and all permutations of the
outcomes of these m n coin flips are equally likely. The proportion of heads among
these coin flips is at least p, so the (conditional) probability that coin flip n + 1 results
in heads is at least p. If k > 1, then if coin flip n + 1 was heads, the proportion of
heads in flips n + 2, . . . , m is still at least p, so the probability of heads-heads in flips
n + 1 and n + 2 is at least p 2 , etc. Therefore, the (conditional) probability that flips
n + 1, . . . , n + k all result in heads is at least p k . Since this holds for every m, we
dont have to condition on a specific m, but only on the event that the proportion of
heads will exceed p at some point.
Since the unconditional probability of k consecutive heads is 1/2k , the statement
now follows from a simple calculation. On the one hand,
Pr (k consecutive heads | proportion p is eventually exceeded) p k .
On the other hand,
Pr (k consecutive heads | proportion p is eventually exceeded)

Pr (k consecutive heads) (1/2)k
= .
Pr (proportion p eventually exceeded) P(a, n, p)
Rearranging, we obtain (4).
Our next task is to use the Key Lemma to estimate V (a, n). We have
Z 1 Z 1
a 1
V (a, n) = P(a, n, p) dp = max , + P(a, n, p) d p. (5)
0 n 2 max(a/n,1/2)
If p > max(a/n, 1/2), then the requirement that at least k more coin flips are needed
to obtain a proportion of heads exceeding p is equivalent to
a+k1
p,
n+k1
which we rearrange as
np a
k 1+ .
1 p
Since there is always an integer k in the interval
np a np a
k 1+ ,
1 p 1 p
we conclude using (4) that for p in the range max(a/n, 1/2) < p < 1 of integration
in (5),
1
P(a, n, p) npa .
(2 p) 1 p

It follows that
Z 1
a 1 dp
V (a, n) max , + npa .
n 2 max(a/n,1/2) (2 p) 1 p
By the substitution 2 p = 1 + t and the elementary inequality
log(1 + t)
t,
1t
we obtain
Z 1
a 1 1 dt
V (a, n) max , + (1+t)n2a
n 2 2 (1 + t) 1t

max 2an
n ,0
(1 + t)n 2a
Z 1
a 1 1
= max , + exp log(1 + t) dt
n 2 2 max 2an 1t

n ,0
1 1
Z
a 1
max , + exp ((1 + t)tn + 2at) dt. (6)
n 2 2 max 2an

n ,0

By putting u = t n and replacing the upper bound of integration by infinity, we arrive
at
Z
a 1 1 2a n
V (a, n) max , + exp u +
2
u du. (7)
n 2 2 n max 2an n

,0
n

Now, notice that by the substitution w = u (2a n)/ n,
Z Z
2a n 2a n
exp u 2 + u du = exp w 2 w dw. (8)
2an
n 0 n
n
Therefore, regardless of the sign of 2a n, (7) can be written as

Z
a 1 1 |2a n|
V (a, n) max , + 2
exp u u du. (9)
n 2 2 n 0 n
The bound (9) can be used directly in computations by first tabulating values of the
integral, but we have chosen to simplify the error term further. We can discard either
of the two terms inside the exponential in (9). On the one hand, the error term is at
most
1
Z r
1 2
.

exp u du =
2 n 0 4 n
On the other hand, it is also bounded by

Z
1 |2a n| 1
exp u du = .
2 n 0 n 2 |2a n|
This completes the proof of the Main Theorem.

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS. Notice that |2a n| is the absolute difference be-
tween the number of heads and the number of tails. The simplicity of the inequality

a 1 1
V (a, n) max , +
n 2 2 |2a n|
suggests that there might be a more direct proof. There might be a simple function
F(a, n) for which we can verify that

a F(a, n + 1) + F(a + 1, n + 1)
F(a, n) max , . (10)
n 2
It would then follow by backward induction that V (a, n) F(a, n). Unfortunately,
(10) fails for small a with F(a, n) = max(a/n, 1/2) + 1/(2 |2a n|), as well as with
F(a, n) equal to the right-hand side of (3). Numerical evidence suggests that (10)
holds for all a and n if we set F(a, n) equal to the right-hand side of (9), but we have
been unable to verify this.
The Main Theorem allows us to calculate V (a, n) to any desired precision. This is
because (1) has the property that if V (a, n + 1) and V (a + 1, n + 1) are both known
with an error of at most , then the same is true of V (a, n). To obtain the desired level
of precision, we therefore only need to start our calculation from a horizon where the
error term in (3) is sufficiently small.
On the other hand, it is difficult to say in advance how far we have to take our
computations in order to find the optimal decision in a given position, as the expected
payoff on continuing may be very close to the payoff a/n on stopping. For instance,
we have no idea how hard it will be to find the optimal decision in the position 116
104 (the first one whose status we havent determined). For all we know, the question
of whether stopping is optimal in this position might be undecidable by our method,
although that would require the expected payoff on continuing to be, miraculously,
exactly equal to the payoff on stopping.
REFERENCES
1. Y.-S. Chow, H. Robbins, On optimal stopping rules for sn /n, Ill. J. Math. 9 (1965) 444454.
2. A. Dvoretzky, Existence and properties of certain optimal stopping rules, Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley
Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1:441452. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley,
CA, 1967.
3. L. A. Medina, D. Zeilberger, An Experimental Mathematics Perspective on the Old, and still Open, Ques-
tion of When To Stop?, in Gems in Experimental Mathematics, Contemporary Mathematics series v. 517
(AMS), Edited by T. Amdeberhan, L. Medina, and V. Moll, 265274, also available at arXiv:0907.0032v2
[math.PR].
4. L. A. Shepp, Explicit solutions to some problems of optimal stopping, The Annals of Mathematical Statis-
tics 40 (1969) 9931010, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177697604.
5. W. Stadje, The maximum average gain in a sequence of Bernoulli games, Amer. Math. Monthly, December
(2008) 902910.
6. J. D. A. Wiseman, The Chow & Robbins Problem: Stop at h = 5 t = 3, available at http://www.
jdawiseman.com/papers/easymath/chow_robbins.html.
OLLE HAGGSTROM received his Ph.D. in 1994 from Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg,
where he is currently a professor. He has received numerous prizes and awards for his work on percolation
theory, but his interests also include philosophy and climate science. To the general public, he is best known
for his books and articles vigorously defending secular humanism and the scientific method against superstition
and pseudoscience.
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
olleh@chalmers.se

JOHAN WASTLUND received his Ph.D. from the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm in 1999, and
is currently a researcher at Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg. Besides coins and computers,
his research equipment includes playing cards and random graphs. He is best known for his work on random
matching and traveling salesman problems.
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
wastlund@chalmers.se
A Yet Simpler Proof of The Chain Rule

We demonstrate that the proof of the chain rule discussed in [1] can be simplified
using sequences. Recall limxc h(x) = L provided that for each sequence (xn ),
xn 6= c with xn c we have h(xn ) L. Furthermore a sequence yn L if
and only if each subsequence (yn k ) of (yn ) satisfies yn k L.
Theorem 1. If f and g are composable real functions, where g is differentiable

at c and f is differentiable at g(c), then f g is differentiable at c and ( f
g)0 (c) = f 0 (g(c))g 0 (c).
Proof. Let (xn ) be any sequence, xn 6 = c, such that xn c. Then, either there
exists an n 0 such that for all n n 0 , g(xn ) 6 = g(c), or there exists a subsequence
(xn k ) such that g(xn k ) = g(c) for all k. The former case implies that for n n 0 ,
f (g(xn )) f (g(c)) f (g(xn )) f (g(c)) g(xn ) g(c)

= f 0 (g(c))g 0 (c).
xn c g(xn ) g(c) xn c
The latter case implies that g 0 (c) = 0, and hence
f (g(xn k )) f (g(c))
0 = f 0 (g(c))g 0 (c).
xnk c
f (g(x)) f (g(c))
This implies that limxc xc
= f 0 (g(c))g 0 (c).
REFERENCES
1. P. F. McLoughlin, A simple proof of the chain rule, Amer. Math. Monthly, 120 (2013) p. 94.
Submitted by Haryono Tandra,

Department of Mathematics, Oakland Community College,
27055 Orchard Lake Road, Farmington Hills, MI 48334-4579
hxtandra@oaklandcc.edu+
MSC: Primary 26A24

From Pascals Theorem to
d-Constructible Curves
Will Traves
Abstract. We prove a generalization of both Pascals Theorem and its converse, the
BraikenridgeMaclaurin Theorem: If two sets of k lines meet in k 2 distinct points, and if
dk of those points lie on an irreducible curve C of degree d, then the remaining k(k d)
points lie on a unique curve S of degree k d. If S is a curve of degree k d produced in
this manner using a curve C of degree d, we say that S is d-constructible. For fixed degree
d, we show that almost every curve of high degree is not d-constructible. In contrast, almost
all curves of degree 3 or less are d-constructible. The proof of this last result uses the group
structure on an elliptic curve and is inspired by a construction due to Mobius. The exposition
is embellished with several exercises designed to amuse the reader.
Dedicated to H.S.M. Coxeter, who demonstrated a heavenly syzygy: the sun

and moon aligned with the Earth, through a pinhole. (Toronto, May 10, 1994,
12:24:14)
1. INTRODUCTION. In astronomy, the word syzygy refers to three celestial bod-

ies that lie on a common line. Other interesting patterns are also sometimes called
syzygies. For example, in a triangle, the three median lines that join vertices to the
midpoints of opposite sides meet in a common point, the centroid, as illustrated in the
left diagram of Figure 1. Choosing coordinates, this fact can be viewed as saying that
three objects lie on a line: There is a linear dependence among the equations defin-
ing the three median lines. In commutative algebra and algebraic geometry, a syzygy
refers to any equation relating the generators of a module.
A a
B
b
C c
Figure 1. Two syzygies: the centroid (left) and Pappuss configuration (right)
Pappuss Theorem, which dates from the fourth century A . D ., describes another
syzygy. It is one of the inspirations of modern projective geometry.
MSC: Primary 14H50, Secondary 14H52
December 2013] FROM PASCALS THEOREM TO d-CONSTRUCTIBLE CURVES 901

Theorem 1 (Pappus). If three points A, B, and C lie on one line, and three points
a, b, and c lie on another, then the lines Ab, Bc, and Ca meet the lines a B, bC, and
c A in three new points and these new points are collinear, as illustrated in the right
diagram of Figure 1.
Pappuss Theorem has inspired a lot of amazing mathematics. The first chapter
of a fascinating new book by Richter-Gebert [18] describes the connections between
Pappuss Theorem and many areas of mathematics, including cross-ratios and the
GrassmannPlucker relations among determinants.
Pappuss Theorem appears in his text Synagogue [17], a collection of classical
Greek geometry with insightful commentary. David Hilbert observed that Pappuss
Theorem is equivalent to the claim that the multiplication of lengths is commutative
(see, e.g., Coxeter [3, p. 152]). Thomas Heath believed that Pappuss intention was
to revive the geometry of the Hellenic period [11, p. 355], but it wasnt until 1639
that the sixteen-year-old Blaise Pascal generalized Pappuss Theorem [4, Section 3.8],
replacing the two lines with a more general conic section.
Theorem 2 (Pascal). If six distinct points A, B, C, a, b, and c lie on a conic section,

then the lines Ab, Bc, and Ca meet the lines a B, bC, and c A in three new points, and
these new points are collinear.
Pascals Theorem is sometimes formulated as the Mystic Hexagon Theorem: If a

hexagon is inscribed in a conic, then the three points lying on lines extending from
pairs of opposite edges of the hexagon are collinear, as in Figure 2. It is not clear why
the theorem deserves the adjective mystic. Perhaps it refers to the case where a regular
hexagon is inscribed in a circle. In that case, the three pairs of opposite edges are
parallel and the theorem then predicts that the parallel lines should meet (at infinity),
and that all three points of intersection should be collinear. Thus, a full understanding
of Pascals Theorem requires knowledge of the projective plane, a geometric object
described in Section 2.
Figure 2. The Mystic Hexagon Theorem
Pascals Theorem has an interesting converse named after the British mathemati-
cians William Braikenridge and Colin Maclaurin. Braikenridge and Maclaurin seem
to have arrived at the result independently, though they knew each other and their cor-
respondence includes a dispute over priority.

Theorem 3 (BraikenridgeMaclaurin). If three lines meet three other lines in nine
points, and if three of these points lie on a line, then the remaining six points lie on a
conic.
In 1848, the astronomer and mathematician August Ferdinand Mobius generalized

Pascals Theorem. Suppose that a polygon with 4n + 2 sides is inscribed in a nonde-
generate conic and we determine 2n + 1 points by extending opposite edges until they
meet. If 2n of these 2n + 1 points of intersection lie on a line, then the last point also
lies on the line. Mobius had already developed a system of coordinates for projective
figures, but surprisingly his proof relies on solid geometry. In Section 3, we prove an
extension of Mobiuss result using a significant generalization of Pascals Theorem and
its converse (Theorem 6): When two sets of k lines meet in k 2 distinct points and dk of
these points lie on an irreducible curve C of degree d < k, then the remaining k(k d)
points lie on a unique curve S of degree k d. If S is a curve of degree k d produced
in this manner using a curve C of degree d, we say that S is d-constructible. In a very
interesting article [12] in this M ONTHLY, Katz asks which curves are 2-constructible.
In Section 4, following Katzs arguments, we give a dimension-counting argument to
show that most curves of high degree are not d-constructible. In contrast, we show
that most curves of degree 3 or less are d-constructible for all d > 0. The proof of this
last result for cubics involves inscribing polygons in an elliptic curve in a surprising
manner.
2. PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY. Applying Pascals Mystic Hexagon Theorem

(Theorem 2) in the case where opposite sides of the hexagon are parallel, suggests
that parallel lines should meet in a point and that the collection of such intersection
points should lie on a line as we vary the pairs of parallel lines. This is manifestly false
in the Euclidean plane, but the plane can be augmented by adding points at infinity,
after which Pascals Theorem holds. The resulting projective plane P2 is a fascinating
object with many nice properties.
One powerful model of the projective plane identifies points in P2 with lines through
the origin in 3-dimensional space. To see how this relates to the Euclidean plane, con-
sider the plane z = 1 in 3-dimensional space as a model for R2 , and note that most
lines through (0, 0, 0) meet this plane. The line passing through (x, y, 1) is identified
with the point (x, y) R2 . But what about the lines that dont meet this plane? These
are parallel to z = 1 and pass through (0, 0, 0) so they are lines in the x y-plane. Each
of these lines can be viewed as a different point at infinity, since theyve been attached
to our copy of R2 .
In 1827, Mobius developed a useful system of coordinates for points in projective
space [16], later extended by Grassmann. If we consider the punctured 3-space R3 \
{(0, 0, 0)} and the equivalence relation
(x, y, z) (x, y, z) 6 = 0,
then each equivalence class corresponds to a line in R3 through the origin. We denote
the equivalence class of points on the line through (x, y, z) by [x : y : z]. This is a
sensible notation, since the ratios between the coordinates determine the direction of
the line. Returning to our earlier model of P2 , the points with z 6 = 0 correspond to
points in our usual copy of R2 , while the points with z = 0 correspond to points at
infinity.
If points in P2 correspond to lines through the origin, then what do lines in P2
look like? If we once again identify the plane z = 1 with R2 , we see that the points

making up a line on z = 1 correspond to lines through the origin that, together, form
a plane. Any line in R2 can be described by an equation of the form ax + by + c = 0;
the reader should check that this determines the plane ax + by + cz = 0. Thus, lines
in P2 correspond to dimension-2 subspaces of R3 . In particular, the line in P2 whose
equation is z = 0 is the line at infinity.
Each curve C in the projective plane can be described as the zero-set of a homoge-
neous polynomial F(x, y, z):
C = {[x : y : z] : F(x, y, z) = 0}.
The polynomial needs to be homogeneous (all terms in the polynomial have the same
degree) in order for the curve to be well-defined (see Exercise 4.2 below). It is tradi-
tional to call degree-d homogeneous polynomials degree-d forms. The curve C is said
to be a degree-d curve when F(x, y, z) is a degree-d polynomial. We say that C is an
irreducible curve when F(x, y, z) is an irreducible polynomial. When F(x, y, z) fac-
tors, then the set C is actually the union of several component curves, each determined
by the vanishing of one of the irreducible factors of F(x, y, z).
Exercise 4. If this is the first time youve met projective space, you might try these
exercises to get a feel for projective space.
1. Show that the line ax + by + cz = 0 in P2 consists of all the points of the form
[x : y : 1] such that ax + by + c = 0, together with a single point at infinity (the
point [b : a : 0]). We say that the line ax + by + cz = 0 is the projectivization
of the line ax + by + c = 0. Now show that the projectivizations of two parallel
lines ax + by + c = 0 and ax + by + d = 0 in R2 meet at a point at infinity.
2. The projectivization of the hyperbola x y = 1 in R2 is the set of points in P2
that satisfy x y z 2 = 0. Show that whether a point [x : y : z] lies on the pro-
jectivization of the hyperbola or not is a well-defined property (i.e., the answer
doesnt depend on which representative of the equivalence class [x : y : z] we
use). Where does the projectivization meet the line at infinity?
3. Show that if a1 x + b1 y + c1 z = 0 and a2 x + b2 y + c2 z = 0 are two distinct lines
in P2 , then they meet in a point P = [a3 : b3 : c3 ] whose coordinates are given
by the cross product,
ha3 , b3 , c3 i = ha1 , b1 , c1 i ha2 , b2 , c2 i.
Interpret the result in terms of the geometry of 3-dimensional space. Similarly,

show that if P1 = [a1 : b1 : c1 ] and P2 = [a2 : b2 : c2 ] are two points in P2 , then
the line through P1 and P2 has equation a3 x + b3 y + c3 z = 0, with a3 , b3 , and
c3 as above. Describe how to phrase these results for lines and points in R2 .
4. Pascals Theorem predicts that if a regular hexagon is inscribed in a circle, then
the three pairs of opposite edges intersect in three collinear points. Which line
do the three points lie on? Is it surprising that it doesnt matter where in the plane
the circle is centered?
5. Show that if F(x, y, z) = 0 is a homogeneous polynomial equation defining a
curve C P2 , then a point P C is smooth (that is, there is a uniquely-defined
tangent line to C at P) if and only if F(P) 6 = 0. (Hint: For which points P is
there a tangent plane to the level surface in R3 given by F = 0?)
6. The polynomial P(x0 , x1 , x2 , y0 , y1 , y2 ) is said to be bihomogeneous in the vari-
ables xi and yi if P is homogeneous in the remaining variables when considering

all the x-variables or all the y-variables as constants. Show that if P is bihomo-
geneous, then the set of points ([x0 : x1 : x2 ], [y0 : y1 : y2 ]) P2 P2 such that
P(x0 , x1 , x2 , y0 , y1 , y2 ) = 0 is well-defined.
7. There is an interesting duality between points and lines in P2 . The dual of the
point P = [a : b : c] P2 is the line P P2 , with equation ax + by + cz = 0,
and vice-versa.
(a) Show that a line L : ax + by + cz = 0 in P2 goes through two points P1 6 =
P2 , if and only if the dual point L = [a : b : c] lies on the intersection of the
two dual lines P1 and P2 .
(b) It turns out that the duals of all the tangent lines to an irreducible conic C
form a collection of points lying on a dual irreducible conic C, and vice-
versa (see Bashelor, Ksir, and Traves [1] for details). Show that dualizing
Pascals Theorem gives Brianchons Theorem: If an irreducible conic is in-
scribed in a hexagon, then the three lines joining pairs of opposite vertices
intersect at a single point.
Projective space P2 enjoys many nice properties that Euclidean space R2 lacks.
Many results are easier to state and more elegant in projective space than in Euclidean
space. For instance, in Euclidean space two distinct lines meet in either one point or in
no points (in the case where the two lines are parallel). By adding points at infinity to
Euclidean space, weve ensured that any two distinct lines meet in a point. This is just
the first of a whole sequence of results encapsulated in Bezouts Theorem.
Theorem 5 (Bezouts Theorem). If C1 and C2 are curves of degrees d1 and d2 in the

complex projective plane P2C sharing no common components, then they meet in d1 d2
points, counted appropriately.
Bezouts Theorem requires that we work in complex projective space; in P2R , two
curves may not meet at all. For instance, the line y 2z = 0 misses the circle x 2 +
y 2 z 2 = 0 in P2R ; the points of intersection have complex coordinates. In the rest
of the paper, well work in complex projective space (denoted P2 ) so that we can
take advantage of Bezouts Theorem. The points of P2 correspond to one-dimensional
subspaces of C3 .
To say what it means to count points appropriately, requires a discussion of in-
tersection multiplicity. This can be defined in terms of the length of certain modules
[8], but an intuitive description will be sufficient for our purposes. When two curves
meet transversally at a point P (there is no containment relation between their tangent
spaces), then P counts as 1 point in Bezouts Theorem. If the curves are tangent at
P or if one curve has several branches passing through P, then P counts as a point
with multiplicity. One way to determine the multiplicity of P is to look at well-chosen
families of curves C1 (t) and C2 (t) so that C1 (0) = C1 and C2 (0) = C2 , and to count
how many points in C1 (t) C2 (t) approach P as t goes to 0. For instance, the line
y = 0 meets the parabola yz = x 2 in one point P = [0 : 0 : 1]. Letting C1 (t) be the
family of curves y t 2 z = 0 and letting C2 (t) be the family consisting only of the
parabola, we find that if t 6 = 0, then C1 (t) C2 (t) = {[t : t 2 : 1], [t : t 2 : 1]}; so two
points converge to P as t goes to 0. In this case, P counts as two points. The reader
interested in testing their understanding could check that the two concentric circles
x 2 + y 2 z 2 = 0 and x 2 + y 2 4z 2 = 0 meet in two points, each of multiplicity two.
More details can be found in Fultons lecture notes [8, Chapter 1].

It is traditional to call this result Bezouts Theorem because it appeared in his
widely-circulated and highly-praised book.1 However, Isaac Newton proved the re-
sult over 80 years before Bezouts book appeared! Both Etienne Bezout (17301738)
and Charles Julien Brianchon (17831864) had positions with the French military. The
18th- and 19th-century French military played an interesting role in supporting the de-
velopment and teaching of mathematics. As Examiner of the Guards of the Navy in
France, Etienne Bezout was responsible for creating new textbooks for teaching math-
ematics to the students at the French Naval Academy. Kirwan [13] gives a nice proof
of Bezouts Theorem.
We can also construct higher-dimensional projective spaces. Naturally, we add
points at infinity to Cn to create n-dimensional projective space Pn . As in the two-
dimensional case, points in Pn can be identified with one-dimensional subspaces of
Cn+1 and each point is denoted using homogeneous coordinates [x0 : x1 : . . . : xn ].
Higher projective spaces arise naturally when considering moduli spaces of curves
in the projective plane. For instance, consider a degree-2 curve C given by the formula
a0 x 2 + a1 x y + a2 x z + a3 y 2 + a4 yz + a5 z 2 = 0. (1)
Multiplying the formula by a nonzero constant gives the same curve, so the curve C
can be identified with the point [a0 : a1 : a2 : a3 : a4 : a5 ] in P5 . More generally, letting
Rd be the vector space of degree-d homogeneous polynomials in three variables, the
degree-d curves in P2 are identified with points in the projective space P(Rd ), where
we identify polynomials if they are nonzero scalar multiples of one another. A basis of
Rd is given by the D = d+2 2
monomials of degree d in three variables, so the degree-d
curves in P2 are identified with points in the projective space P(Rd ) = P D1 .
2
Returning to the case of degree-2 curves in P , if we require C to pass through
a given point, then the coefficients a0 , . . . , a5 of C must satisfy the linear equation
produced by substituting the coordinates of the point into (1). Now, if we require C to
pass through five points in P2 , then the coefficients must satisfy a homogeneous system
of five linear equations in six variables. The Rank-Nullity Theorem shows that such a
system always has a non-trivial solution: There is a conic through any five points in
P2 . If the points are in general position (so that the resulting system has full rank), then
the system has a one-dimensional solution space and so there is a unique conic passing
through all five points (see [1] for details).
The Zariski topology is the coarsest topology that makes polynomial maps from
Pm to Pn continuous. More concretely, every homogeneous polynomial F in n + 1
variables determines a closed set in Pn
V(F) = {P Pn : F(P) = 0},
and every closed set is built by taking finite unions and arbitrary intersections of such
sets. Closed sets in the Zariski topology are called varieties. The nonempty open sets
in this topology are dense; such a set is not contained in a proper subset of the form
V(F). Well say that a property holds for almost every point in Pn if it holds on a
dense Zariski-open set in Pn . More details on the Zariski topology can be found in
Shafarevich [19, Section 4.1].
1 Both the MathSciNet and Zentralblatt reviews of the English translation [2] are entertaining. The assess-
ment in the MathSciNet review is atypically colorful: This is not a book to be taken to the office, but to be
left at home, and to be read on weekends, as a romance, while the review in Zentralblatt Math calls it an
immortal evergreen of astonishing actual relevance.

3. AN EXTENSION OF PASCALS THEOREM. We start this section by estab-
lishing a significant generalization of both Pascals Theorem and the Braikenridge
Maclaurin Theorem.
Theorem 6. Let F(x, y, z) = 0 and G(x, y, z) = 0 define two curves of degree k and
assume that these curves meet in a set 0 of k 2 distinct points. If H (x, y, z) = 0 defines
an irreducible curve C of degree d > 0 that passes through kd of the points in 0, then
there is a curve S = 0 of degree k d that passes through the remaining k(k d)
points in 0 \ C. Moreover, S = 0 is the unique curve of degree k d containing 0 \ C,
if G factors into distinct linear forms G = G 1 G k .
The first part of the following proof is due to Kirwan [13, Theorem 3.14]. Katz [12,
Theorem 3.1] gives the proof of the case of Max Noethers Theorem discussed in the
second paragraph.
Proof. Let [a : b : c] be a point on C but not in 0, and define a curve X of degree k

by the equation M(x, y, z) = 0, where
M(x, y, z) = G(a, b, c)F(x, y, z) F(a, b, c)G(x, y, z).
The degree-k curve X meets the degree-d curve C in at least kd + 1 points, namely the
kd points of 0 C and the point [a : b : c], so by Bezouts Theorem, C and X must
share a common component. Since C is irreducible, M(x, y, z) = H (x, y, z)S(x, y, z)
for some degree k d form S. Since M vanishes on 0, the curve defined by S = 0
must contain all the k(k d) points of 0 off C.
Now, we assume that G has k distinct linear factors G 1 , . . . , G k , and show that
any degree-k form N defining a curve that contains 0 must satisfy N = a F + bG
for suitable constants a and b. This is a special case of a result that Max Noether
called the Fundamental Theorem of Algebraic Functions, though today it is known by
a more technical name, the AF + BG Theorem. Both N and F have the same zeros
when restricted to G 1 = 0, so for some constant a, N a F vanishes identically on
the first line G 1 = 0, and N a F = G 1 Q k1 for some degree k 1 form Q k1 . Now,
Q k1 vanishes at all points of 0 off the first line G 1 = 0. In particular, for each of
the remaining lines G i = 0, Q k1 vanishes at k points on the line, hence G i divides
Q k1 . Since the forms G 2 , . . . , G k are relatively prime, Q k1 = bG 2 G k for some
constant b and N = a F + bG.
Now, if S1 (x, y, z) and S2 (x, y, z) are two forms of degree k d vanishing on
0 \ C, then H S1 = a1 F + b1 G and H S2 = a2 F + b2 G for constants a1 , a2 , b1 , and b2 .
Then H must divide both b2 H S1 b1 H S2 = (b2 a1 b1 a2 )F and a2 H S1 a1 H S2 =
(a2 b1 a1 b2 )G. Now if a2 b1 a1 b2 6 = 0, then the curve C given by H = 0 must be
contained in the set of points 0 = (F = 0) (G = 0), a contradiction. So a2 b1
a1 b2 = 0 and the forms H S1 and H S2 are scalar multiples of one another. It follows
that the curves defined by S1 = 0 and S2 = 0 are identical.
In the rest of the paper we will be interested in the case where both of the forms
F and G factor completely into linear forms, in which case their zero-sets determine
collections of k blue and k red lines, respectively. If the polynomial HS in Theorem 6
also factors completely into linear forms, then the resulting arrangement of linesin
which each point of intersection lies on a line from HS = 0, a red line, and a blue line
is called a multinet, an intriguing combinatorial and geometric object in the theory of
hyperplane arrangements (see Falk and Yuzvinsky [7] for details on the connection
between multinets and resonance varieties).

Pascals Mystic Hexagon Theorem, Theorem 2, follows from an easy application of
Theorem 6. Color the lines Ab, Bc, and Ca red and the lines a B, bC, and c A blue. A
degree-2 curve passes through six of the intersection points of the blue and red lines, so
the remaining three points must lie on a degree-1 curvethey are collinear. To prove
the BraikenridgeMaclaurin Theorem, Theorem 3, just color one collection of three
lines blue and the other collection red, and apply Theorem 6.
Theorem 6 can be extended to cover the case where the points in 0 are not distinct;
however, this would divert us to a discussion of scheme theory. Details can be found in
David Eisenbud, Mark Green, and Joe Harriss amazing survey paper [6, Section 1.3]
on the CayleyBacharach Theorem, a vast generalization of Theorem 6. They connect
the result to a host of interesting mathematics, including the RiemannRoch Theorem,
residues, and homological algebra. Their exposition culminates in the assertion that
the theorem is equivalent to the statement that polynomial rings are Gorenstein. The
CayleyBacharach Theorem has many practical applications; see, for example, Gold,
Little, and Schenck [9] for an application in algebraic coding theory.
Rather than state the full CayleyBacharach Theorem, we recall an early version of
the theorem, first proved by Michel Chasles: If two plane cubic curves meet in nine
distinct points, then any other cubic passing through eight of these points must also
pass through the ninth. Because of its content, the result is often called the 8 9 The-
orem. Chasles used the 8 9 Theorem to prove Pascals Mystic Hexagon Theorem.
The theorem can also be used to prove that the group law on an elliptic curve is asso-
ciative. Terrence Tao recently gave a simple, elementary proof of the 8 9 Theorem
in his blog.2
Now we turn to Mobiuss generalization of Pascals Theorem [15]. Mobius proved
two results in this direction. In the first, a polygon with 4n + 2 sides is inscribed in
a irreducible conic, and we determine 2n + 1 points by extending opposite edges un-
til they meet. If 2n of these 2n + 1 points of intersection lie on a line, then the last
point also lies on the line. Using Theorem 6 allows us to extend Mobiuss result, re-
placing the constraint on the number of sides of the polygon by the constraint that the
intersection points are distinct.
Theorem 7. Suppose that k red lines and k blue lines meet in a set 0 of k 2 distinct
points, with 2k points of 0 lying on a conic Q. If a line L contains k 1 of the k 2 2k
points of 0 off Q, then L contains one other point of 0 off Q as well.
To see the connection with Mobiuss result, suppose that a polygon with 2k =
4n + 2 sides is inscribed in an irreducible conic. Working around the perimeter of the
polygon, color the edges alternately red and blue. Since there are 4n + 2 sides, oppo-
site sides have opposite colors. Extending the edges to lines, consider the k = 2n + 1
points of intersection of the pairs of opposite sides. If k 1 = 2n of these points lie
on a line L, then Theorem 7 shows that another of the points in 0 lies on L as well.
Since the points of 0 are distinct, the only possibility is that the remaining pair of
corresponding edges intersect on the line L.
Proof of Theorem 7. Let F = F1 Fk and G = G 1 G k be completely reducible

forms of degree k whose zero-sets determine the union of the red lines and the union
of the blue lines, respectively. Since there are 2k points of 0 on the conic Q, Theorem
6 guarantees the existence of a degree-(k 2) curve C1 , so that C1 passes through the
remaining k 2 2k points of 0 off Q. Now, C1 meets the line L in at least k 1 points,
so Bezouts Theorem forces L to be a component of C1 . Write C1 = C2 L, where
2 See Taos July 15, 2011 post at http://terrytao.wordpress.com.

C2 is a curve of degree k 3. Now, D = C2 Q is a curve of degree k 1 that passes
through all points of 0 off L. Well assume that L contains only k 1 points of 0
off Q, and derive a contradiction. Under this assumption, D contains k 2 (k 1) =
k(k 1) + 1 points of 0. So the degree-(k 1) curve D meets the degree-k curve
F = 0 in more than k(k 1) points. It follows that D and (F1 = 0) (Fk = 0)
share a common component. Relabeling the linear forms in F if necessary, assume
that the common component is Fk = 0. Note that each red line Fi = 0 only contains k
points of 0: the intersections of Fi = 0 with the k blue lines. Removing Fk = 0 from D
produces a curve D1 , which meets (F1 = 0) (Fk1 = 0) in at least k(k 2) + 1
points. Carrying on in this fashion produces a curve Dk2 of degree 1 that meets the
line (Fk = 0) in precisely k + 1 points of 0. This is impossiblethe red line Fk = 0
only contains k points of 0so L must contain another point of 0 off Q. If L contains
more than k points of 0, then it must share a common component with both F and G,
and hence one of the blue lines must equal one of the red lines. Since the blue and red
lines intersect in a finite set of points, this is impossible. So there are precisely k points
of 0 on L.
Mobius also proved a result involving two polygons inscribed in a conic. Consider
two polygons P1 and P2 , each with 2k edges, inscribed in a conic, and associate one
edge from P1 with one edge from P2 . Working counterclockwise in each polygon, as-
sociate the other edges of P1 with the edges of P2 . Extending these edges to lines,
Mobius proved that if 2k 1 of the intersections of pairs of corresponding edges lie
on a line, then the last pair of corresponding edges also meet in a point on this line.
Assuming that the points of intersection of the lines are distinct, this result also fol-
lows from Theorem 6. A similar construction using a pair of inscribed polygons will
reappear when we consider constructible cubics in the next section.
4. CONSTRUCTIBLE CURVES. Lets take a constructive view of Theorem 6.
Definition 8. A curve S of degree t is d-constructible if there exist d + t red lines

`1 , . . . , `d+t and d + t blue lines L 1 , . . . , L d+t , so that: (a) 0 = {`i L j : 1 i, j
d + t} consists of (d + t)2 distinct points; (b) d(d + t) of the points in 0 lie on a
degree-d curve C; and (c) the remaining t (d + t) points in 0 lie on S. Setting R =
C[x, y, z], we say that the d-construction is dense in degree t if there is a nonempty
Zariski-open set U P(Rt ) so that every degree-t curve in U is d-constructible.
The two curves S and C are said to be directly linked via the set 0. The notion of
linkage has important applications in the study of curves. Indeed, special properties of
one curve are reflected in special properties of the other curve. This point of view leads
to the beautiful subject of liaison theory. The last chapter of Eisenbud [5] introduces
this advanced topic in commutative algebra; more details can be found in Migliore and
Nagels notes [14].
Well restrict our attention in the rest of the paper to the question of which curves
are d-constructible. A simple dimension count shows that most curves of high degree
are not d-constructible, so the d-construction is not dense in high degrees.
Theorem 9. If d 3, then the d-construction is not dense in degrees d + 4 or higher.

The 2-construction is not dense in degrees five or higher. The 1-construction is not
dense in degrees six or higher.
The curves
Proof.
t+2 2
of degree t are parameterized by a projective space of dimension
2
1 = (t + 3t)/2. Lets try to parameterize the set of d-constructible curves of

degree t. For each such curve, there is a curve C of degree d, d + t blue lines, and
d + t red lines, as in Definition 8. There are d+2
2
1 degrees of freedom in choosing
the curve C and 2(d + t) degrees of freedom in choosing the blue lines. Since the
red lines must meet C in the d(d + t) points of intersection of the blue lines with C,
there are finitely many choices for the red lines (when d 2) and so these do not add
anything to our dimension count. Altogether, the parameterizing set has dimension
(d 2 + 3d + 4(d + t))/2. Since this quantity is smaller than (t 2 + 3t)/2 when t d +
4, the first statement must hold. In fact, the dimension of the 2-constructible curves
of degree t is 9 + 2t, which is less than (t 2 + 3t)/2 when t 5, proving the second
claim. When d = 1, there are not just finitely many choices for the red lineseach red
line must pass through one point where the t + 1 blue lines meet the line C. In this
case, two parameters determine the line C, t + 1 parameters determine the points in 0
on C, and 2(t + 1) parameters determine the slopes of the blue and red lines. So the
1-constructible curves can be parameterized by a space of dimension 3t + 5. This is
smaller than (t 2 + 3t)/2 when t 6, proving the last claim.
It is easy to see that all lines are d-constructible. For instance, if L is a line, then
choose any set of d + 1 points on L and pick red and blue lines that pass through
these points and meet in (d + 1)2 distinct points. Then Theorem 6 shows that there
exists a curve C of degree d passing through the remaining points, showing that L is
d-constructible.
As well, for all d > 0, the d-construction is dense in degree 2. The defining poly-
nomial of any conic can be expressed in the form [x, y, z]A[x, y, z]T , where A is a
symmetric matrix. The conic is irreducible if and only if rank(A) = 3. So the set of ir-
reducible conics is Zariski-open; it is the complement of the hypersurface det(A) = 0
in P(R2 ) = P5 . Now it is easy to show that any irreducible conic Q is d-constructible.
Just inscribe a polygon with 2(d + 2) edges in Q, color the edges alternately red and
blue and, if necessary, move the vertices so that the extensions of the red and blue
edges meet in distinct points, 0. Theorem 6 shows that the points in 0 that lie off Q
form a degree-d curve, so Q is d-constructible.
Using the group law on elliptic curves allows us to show that for each d, the d-
construction is dense in degree 3. An elliptic curve is a smooth plane curve of degree
3. In particular, each elliptic curve is irreducible; it is not the union of other curves.
The points on a fixed elliptic curve E form an abelian group; the sum of three distinct
points is equal to the identity element in the elliptic curve group if and only if they are
collinear.3 Figure 3 illustrates the group law on the elliptic curve E given by y 2 z
x 3 + x z 2 = 0. The point at infinity [0 : 1 : 0] E serves as the identity element 0 E .
The three points A, B, and C are collinear, so A + B + C = 0 E and C = (A + B).
The vertical line through C and 0 E meets the curve in one more point D, and since
C + 0 E + D = 0 E , D equals C = A + B.
Theorem 10. Every elliptic curve is d-constructible for each d > 0.
Proof. Given an elliptic curve E, we produce a set of d + 3 blue lines and d + 3 red
lines meeting in a set of (d + 3)2 distinct points 0 with 3(d + 3) of them on E. Then
by Theorem 6, there exists a curve S of degree d through the points on 0 \ E, and so
E is d-constructible.
To produce the red and blue lines, we start with d + 4 properly selected points
A0 , B0 , P1 , P2 , . . . , Pd+2 on E (well say more on how to pick the points later). Well
3 Two of the points are the same if and only if the line is tangent to E at this point. All three points are equal
(to Q, say) if and only if Q is a flex pointthe tangent line to E at Q intersects E with multiplicity 3.

y
C
A
B
x
D=A+B
Figure 3. The group law on an elliptic curve
use these points to produce a sequence of auxiliary points {As , Bs }(1 s d + 2)

and 0 will contain all the points As and Bs , together with the points P1 , . . . , Pd+2 .
The group law on E helps determine the final point Q 0. The precise construction
breaks into two cases depending on the parity of d.
When d is even, let A0 and B0 be arbitrary points on E. For 0 s d + 1, let As+1
be the third point of intersection of E with the line through As and Ps+1 , and let Bs+1
be the third point of intersection of E with the line through Bs and Ps+1 . The points As
and Bs are the vertices of a polygon inscribed in the elliptic curve, depicted in Figure
4. In the picture, each edge with endpoints labeled a and b and midpoint labeled c
represents a line that passes through a, b, and c. The dotted edges correspond to blue
lines and the solid edges correspond to red lines.
A2 Ad
A1 Ad+1
P2 Pd+1
P1 Pd+2 Ad+2
A0
Q Q
Bd+2 Pd+2 P1 B0
Pd+1 P2
Bd+1 B1
Bd B2
Figure 4. A polygon with 2(d + 3) vertices inscribed in an elliptic curve
Figure 4 suggests that the line through Ad+2 and B0 meets E at the same point, Q,
where the line through Bd+2 and A0 meets E. To see this, first note that
A0 + A1 + P1 = 0 E A1 = A0 P1 ,
A1 + A2 + P2 = 0 E A2 = A1 P2 = A0 + P1 P2 ,
..
.
Ad+1 + Ad+2 + Pd+2 = 0 E Ad+2 = A0 + P1 P2 + Pd+2 ,

and similarly, Bd+2 = B0 + P1 P2 + Pd+2 . Then
Q = B0 Ad+2
= B0 (A0 + P1 P2 + Pd+2 )
= A0 (B0 + P1 P2 + Pd+2 )
= A0 Bd+2 .
It follows that Q E is collinear with B0 and Ad+2 , as well as with A0 and Bd+2 .
Note that each point As and each point Bs lie on the intersection of one blue and
one red line. Because d is even, the number of edges from A0 to B0 is odd, so that each
point Ps (and the point Q) also lie on both a red and a blue line. So the red and blue
lines intersect E in the subset 0 consisting of all the points As and Bs , together with
the points P1 , . . . , Pd+2 , and Q.
Figure 4 is misleading when d is odd, because there are an even number of edges
from A0 to B0 , so each point Ps occurs on two lines of the same color. In this case, we
adopt Mobiuss approach: We inscribe two polygons in the elliptic curve, each with
d + 3 vertices, as in Figure 5.
B2 A2
B1 A1
P2 P2
P3 P3
P1 A3
P1 B3
A0 B0
P4 P4
Q
Q
B4 A4
Ad+2 Pd+2
Bd+2
Pd+2 Pd+1
Pd+1
Ad
Bd Ad+1
Bd+1
Figure 5. Two polygons, each with d + 3 vertices, inscribed in an elliptic curve
To be precise, let A0 and B0 be arbitrary points on E. Let B1 be the third point of

intersection of E with the line through A0 and P1 , and let A1 be the third point of
intersection of E with the line through B0 and P1 . As in the d even case, for 1 s
d + 1, let As+1 be the third point of intersection of E with the line through As and Ps+1 ,
and let Bs+1 be the third point of intersection of E with the line through Bs and Ps+1 .
Once again, the line through Ad+2 and B0 meets E at the same point, Q, where
the line through Bd+2 and A0 meets E, as depicted in Figure 5. To see this, we use
the same method as in the case where d is even, though the computations are slightly
different. If we set T = P1 + P2 P3 + Pd+2 , then Ad+2 = B0 + T and
Bd+2 = A0 + T , so
Q = B0 Ad+2 = B0 + (B0 T ) = A0 + (A0 T ) = A0 Bd+2 ,
from which we conclude the collinearity claims. It follows that when d is odd, the red
and blue lines intersect the elliptic curve E in the subset 0 consisting of all the points
As and Bs , together with the points P1 , . . . , Pd+2 , and Q.

It remains to show that, no matter what the parity of d, if we pick the points
A0 , B0 , P1 , P2 , . . . , Pd+2 carefully on E, we can ensure that the intersection points of
the red and blue lines are distinct. When we dealt with conics, it was possible to move
the vertices of the polygons independently to ensure that the points of intersection
were distinct, but in the case of cubics the position of one vertex affects all the others.
Instead, we give an algorithm that produces a set of lines satisfying a stronger, color
blind, statement: We can arrange to make the points of intersection of any two lines
distinct, irrespective of their color. At step 0, pick distinct points A0 and B0 on E.
For step s (s = 1, . . . , d + 1) we choose the next point Ps+1 and form the red and
blue lines As Ps+1 and Bs Ps+1 ; these in turn determine the points As+1 and Bs+1 on E.
Let 0s be the collection of points At , Bt , Pt with t s, together with all the points
of intersection of the (red and blue) lines already constructed. We may assume that
the points in 0s are distinct and we aim to pick Ps+1 so that the points in 0s+1 are
distinct as well. To do this, we will show that if the points in 0s+1 are not distinct, then
Ps+1 E must lie on a (finite) union of lines. Since E is irreducible, these lines meet
E in finitely many points, and so it suffices to pick Ps+1 E outside of this finite set.
The new points in 0s+1 that are not obviously in 0s are Ps+1 , As+1 , Bs+1 , and all the
points of intersection of the lines As Ps+1 and Bs Ps+1 with the previously constructed
red and blue lines. If any of these new points equal a point in 0s , then Ps+1 lies on a
line joining a point in 0s to either As or Bs (here, the line joining As or Bs to itself
should be interpreted as the tangent line to E). As well, if one of the points Ps+1 , As+1 ,
or Bs+1 lies on a previously constructed red or blue line, then, since that point is also
on E, it must equal one of Pt , At , or Bt for t s, and so Ps+1 must again lie on a
line joining As or Bs to a point of 0s . This last case includes the situation where the
two new lines are coincident with a previously constructed line, since Ps+1 is the only
point on both new lines. So it remains to determine when Ps+1 , As+1 , and Bs+1 are
distinct. If Ps+1 = As+1 , then As + 2Ps+1 = As + Ps+1 + As+1 = 0 E , so Ps+1 lies on a
line tangent to E that passes through As . The number of lines tangent to a nonsingular
curve that passes through a point is independent of the point and is called the class of
the curve; the class of E is six (see Fulton [8]). Similarly, if Ps+1 = Bs+1 , then Ps+1
lies on a line tangent to E through Bs . It turns out that As+1 cannot be equal to Bs+1 ;
if As+1 = Bs+1 , then canceling terms in As + Ps+1 + As+1 = 0 E = Bs + Ps+1 + Bs+1
forces As = Bs , which contradicts our assumption that the points in 0s are distinct.
For s = 1, . . . , d + 1, the points in 0s+1 are distinct as long as Ps+1 does not lie on
a line joining As or Bs to a point in 0s , or on a line through As or Bs that is tangent
to E. In the final stage of the construction (step s = d + 1) we need to take additional
precautions with the choice of Ps+1 . In choosing Pd+2 , we not only determine lines
Ad+1 Pd+2 and Bd+1 Pd+2 , but also determine lines A0 Bd+2 and B0 Ad+2 and the point
Q E on their intersection, as illustrated in Figure 6.
Bd+1 Ad+2 A0
Pd+2 Q
Ad+1 B0
Bd+2
Figure 6. Pd+2 determines Ad+2 , Bd+2 , and Q

If Q 0d+1 , then
Bd+2 1 = { p E : p lies on a line joining A0 or B0 to a point of 0d+1 }.
Thus, Pd+2 lies on a line joining Ad+1 or Bd+1 to a point of 1. This case includes the
situation where Q E lies on a previously constructed line, because then the point of
intersection is in E and so is in 0d+1 . If one of the new lines passes through a point of
intersection of the previous lines, then again Pd+2 must lie on a line joining Ad+1 or
Bd+1 to a point of 1. If Q = Ad+2 , then 2Ad+2 + B0 = 0 E , so
Ad+2 3 = { p E : p lies on a tangent line to E that passes through A0 or B0 }.
It follows that Pd+2 lies on a line joining either Bd+1 or Ad+1 to a point of 3 (sim-
ilarly, if Q = Bd+2 , then the same conclusion holds). Finally, if Q = Pd+2 , then
A0 + Q + Bd+2 = 0 E = Bd+1 + Pd+2 + Bd+2 and canceling terms gives A0 = Bd+1 ,
which is impossible by our construction, since all the points of 0d+1 are distinct.
So the points in 0 = 0d+2 {Q} are distinct as long as Pd+2 does not lie on a line
joining Ad+1 or Bd+1 to a point in 0d+1 1 3 or on a line through Ad+1 or Bd+1
that is tangent to E. By avoiding poor choices of the points Ps , we can ensure that all
the red lines intersect the blue lines in distinct points. This completes the proof that
each elliptic curve is d-constructible.
Corollary 11. The d-construction is dense in degree 3.
Proof. To show that the d-construction is dense in degree 3, it is enough to show that
the elliptic curves form a dense open set in the set P(R3 ) = P9 parameterizing all
degree-3 curves. This is well known, but we sketch the proof. Consider the set
C = {(F, P) P(R3 ) P2 : P is a singular point of the curve F = 0}.
One way to check whether a point P is singular on the level curve F = 0 is to check
whether F(P) is zeroin this case, there is no well-defined tangent line (see Ex-
ercise 4.5). Since F(P) is a bihomogeneous polynomial, the set C is Zariski-closed
in the product of projective spaces P(R3 ) P2 (see Exercise 4.6 and Shafarevich [19,
Section 5.1] for details). Now, the image of a projective variety under the projection
1 : P(R3 ) P2 P(R3 ) is also Zariski-closed (see Shafarevich [19, Section 5.2] for
details), so the set 1 (C ) of singular degree-3 curves is Zariski-closed. It follows that
the set of smooth (nonsingular) curves is Zariski-open, and hence dense, in P(R3 ).
Theorem 9 suggests that for all d, the d-construction is also dense in degree 4.
Proving this result seems to require that we inscribe polygons in degree-4 curves, but
this appears to be difficult to do in general.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I am grateful for conversations with my colleagues Mark Kidwell, Mark Meyer-
son, Thomas Paul, and Max Wakefield, and with my friends Keith Pardue and Tony Geramita. Amy Ksir and
Jessica Sidman provided very useful comments on an early draft, and several referees gave excellent feedback
that considerably improved the exposition. Many computations and insights were made possible using the
excellent software packages Macaulay2, GeoGebra, Sage, and Maple.
REFERENCES
1. A. Bashelor, A. Ksir, W. Traves, Enumerative algebraic geometry of conics, Amer. Math. Monthly 115
(2008) 701728.

2. E. Bezout, General Theory of Algebraic Equations. Translated from the 1779 French original by Eric
Feron. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006.
3. H. S. M. Coxeter, Projective Geometry. Blaisdell Publishing Co. Ginn and Co., New York-London-
Toronto, 1964.
4. H. S. M. Coxeter, S. L. Greitzer, Geometry Revisited, The Mathematical Association of America, Wash-
ington, DC, 1967.
5. D. Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra with a View Toward Algebraic Geometry. Springer-Verlag, New York,
1995.
6. D. Eisenbud, M. Green, J. Harris, CayleyBacharach theorems and conjectures, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.
(N.S.) 33 (1996) 295324, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0273-0979-96-00666-0.
7. M. Falk, S. Yuzvinsky, Multinets, resonance varieties, and pencils of plane curves, Compos. Math. 143
(2007) 10691088.
8. W. Fulton, Introduction to Intersection Theory in Algebraic Geometry. American Mathematical Society,
Providence, RI, 1994.
9. L. Gold, J. Little, H. Schenck, CayleyBacharach and evaluation codes on complete intersections, J. Pure
Appl. Algebra 196 (2005) 9199, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpaa.2004.08.015.
10. D. R. Grayson, M. E. Stillman, Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry (2010),
available at http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/.
11. T. Heath, A History of Greek Mathematics, Vol. II. Dover, New York, 1981.
12. G. Katz, Curves in cages: an algebro-geometric zoo, Amer. Math. Monthly 113 (2006) 777791.
13. F. Kirwan, Complex Algebraic Curves. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.
14. J. C. Migliore, U. Nagel, Liaison and related topics: notes from the Torino workshop-school, Rend. Sem.
Mat. Univ. Politec. Torino 59 (2003) 59126.
15. A. F. Mobius, Verallgemeinerung des pascalschen theorems, das in einen kegelschnitt beschriebene sech-
seck betreffend, J. Reine Angew. Math. (Crelles Journal) 36 (1848) 216220.
16. A. F. Mobius, Der Barycentrische Calcul. Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim, 1976.
17. Pappus of Alexandria, Book 7 of the Collection, Part 1. Introduction, text, and translation. Part 2. Com-
mentary, index, and figures. Edited and with translation and commentary by A. Jones. Springer, Berlin,
1986.
18. J. Richter-Gebert, Perspectives on Projective Geometry. A Guided Tour through Real and Complex Ge-
ometry. Springer, Heidelberg, 2011.
19. I. R. Shafarevich, Basic Algebraic Geometry, Vol. 1, Varieties in Projective Space, second edition. Trans-
lated from the 1988 Russian edition and with notes by Miles Reid. Springer, Berlin, 1994.
WILL TRAVES grew up in Toronto, Canada and moved to the United States during graduate school. His
paper [1] in this M ONTHLY, co-authored with Andy Bashelor and Amy Ksir, won both the Lester R. Ford
and Merten M. Hasse prizes. He joined the faculty of the United States Naval Academy in 1999 and is a
brown-dot Project NExT fellow.
U.S. Naval Academy, Math Department, Mail Stop 9E, Annapolis, MD, 21402
traves@usna.edu

The Cuoco Configuration
Roger E. Howe
Abstract. Following A. Cuoco, a proof of the Law of Cosines is given using squares con-
structed on sides of the triangle. Then the configuration consisting of the original triangle and
the triangle defined by the centers of these squares is studied, and several remarkable relation-
ships are found.
1. THE LAW OF COSINES. The loveliest proof that I know for the Law of Cosines
was shown to me by Al Cuoco [1, pp. 489490]. It is a direct generalization of Euclids
proof of the Pythagorean Theorem, but it seems not to be well known. (For example, it
was not among the many proofs offered by Wikipedia as of May, 2012.) It proceeds by
drawing three squares on the sides of a triangle 1ABC (see Figure 1). It then draws the
three altitudes of 1ABC, and continues them through the squares, dividing each square
into two rectangles. The first notable fact about this configuration is the following.
J
K
b I
L C a
H

E D
b
G
a

A F B
c c
M N O
Figure 1. The Law of Cosines
Theorem 1.1A (A. Cuoco). The pair of rectangles that share a given vertex with
1ABC have equal area.
Further, it is an exercise in trigonometry to find a formula for these areas.
Theorem 1.1B. The area of these two rectangles is the product of the lengths of the
two sides adjoining the vertex, times the cosine of the angle at the vertex.
MSC: Primary 51M04, Secondary 51M15; 51-01

Corollary 1.2. The Law of Cosines holds.
Proof of the corollary. Let the angles of 1ABC at the vertices A, B, and C be , ,
and , respectively. Let the sides opposite vertices A, B, and C have lengths a, b,
and c, respectively. The Law of Cosines expresses the square of the length of one side
in terms of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides and the angle between
them. For example, if the chosen side is c, it says c2 = a 2 + b2 2ab cos . We will
establish the equivalent equation a 2 + b2 c2 = 2ab cos .
Now look at Figure 1. The quantities a 2 , b2 , and c2 are represented by the areas of
the squares on the sides of 1ABC. In particular, c2 is the area of the square on AB, and
a 2 + b2 is the sum of the areas of the squares on the other two sides. Since the square
on AB is the union of rectangles AFNM and BFNO, which respectively have the same
areas as rectangles AEKL and BDHG, we see that the difference a 2 + b2 c2 is the
sum of the areas of rectangles CDHI and CEKJ, both of which have area ab cos
according to Theorem 1.1B. Thus, a 2 + b2 c2 = 2ab cos , as desired.
Remark. If 1ABC is obtuse, some areas need to be interpreted in an oriented sense,

and counted as negative.
We will give a proof of Theorem 1.1B by direct computation, and then we will give
a proof of Theorem 1.1A that does not involve computation, and is very much in the
spirit of Euclids proof of the Pythagorean Theorem.
Proof of Theorem 1.1B. We will indicate the length of a given segment by vertical bars
enclosing the endpoints. Thus, for example, we would indicate the length of the side
AC by |AC| (so that |AC| = b).
Let D, E, and F be the feet of the altitudes of 1ABC, as shown in Figure 1. Then
we see, for example, that AF is a leg of the right triangle 1ACF, whose hypotenuse is
AC. The leg AF is adjacent to CAF = CAB = . By definition of cosine, we see
that |AF| = |AC| cos = b cos . Similar considerations give the formulas
|AE| = c cos , |BF| = a cos , |BD| = c cos ,

|CD| = b cos , |CE| = a cos .
From these formulas, we easily calculate the areas of the pairs of rectangles AFNM and
AEKL, BFNO and BDHG, and CDHI and CEKJ by length times width, with results as
stated in Theorem 1.1B. For example, for rectangle AFNM, the area is the product of
the lengths |AM| = |AB| = c and |AF| = b cos .
Proof of Theorem 1.1A. See Figure 2. Through corner M of square AMOB, draw a
line parallel to side AC of 1ABC. Let this line intersect the extended altitude CN in
point P. Likewise, through corner L of square ALJC, draw a line parallel to side AB of
triangle 1ABC, and let this line intersect the extended altitude BK in a point Q. Then:
(i) Rectangle AFNM has the same area as parallelogram ACPM, since they have
the same base (AM), and the same altitude (e.g., AF);
(ii) parallelogram ACPM is congruent to parallelogram ALQB (aka ABQL) by a
rotation through a right angle around point A, since this rotation takes AM to
AB, and AC to AL, and these segments determine the parallelograms; and
(iii) rectangle AEKL has the same area as parallelogram ABQL (aka ALQB), since
they have the same base (AL) and the same altitude (e.g., AE).
December 2013] THE CUOCO CONFIGURATION 917

J
K
L Q
C
A F B
M N O
Figure 2. Euclidean style proof
Combining (i), (ii), and (iii), we conclude that rectangles AFNM and AEKL have the
same area, as claimed. Equality for the other pairs of rectangles is proved similarly.
Remark. Readers familiar with Euclids proof of the Pythagorean Theorem will see
the parallels to this one. Differences are: (i) This argument uses the full parallelograms
rather than the triangles formed by dividing each parallelogram in two by a diagonal;
and (ii) it is explicit in its use of the 90 rotation around A, while Euclid suppressed
transformations.
2. LOOKING AT THE CENTERS OF THE SQUARES. Having constructed the

squares on the sides of 1ABC, it is a small step to locate their centers. Having done
this, we may be reminded of the theorem about squares built on a quadrilateral (see,
for example, [2, Ex. 6.5, p. 338]). See Figure 3.
Theorem 2.1. If squares are built on the (out)sides of a quadrilateral, then the line
segments joining the centers of the squares on opposite sides of the quadrilateral are
equal and mutually perpendicular.
Proof. This curious fact has an elegant proof using transformations. Let the quadrilat-
eral be ABCD, and let the centers of the squares be R, T , U , and S (see Figure 3).
Given a point p and an (counterclockwise oriented) angle , let p, be the rotation
around p through the angle . Consider the product
8 = S, 2 U, 2 T, 2 R, 2 .
The isometry 8, as a product of rotations, will be orientation-preserving, and has total

rotation angle 4( 2 ) = 2 [2, III.7]. It follows that 8 is a translation [2, Prop. III.7.2].
We can determine what translation 8 is by finding what it does to any point of our

S
C
R
Z
D
U A
B
Figure 3. Squares on a quadrilateral
choosing. Lets find 8(C). It is easy to check that
R, 2 (C) = B, T, 2 (B) = A, U, 2 (A) = D, and S, 2 (D) = C.
Applying these facts in succession, we find that 8(C) = C; that is, C is fixed by 8.
But a translation that fixes a point is the identity. Therefore,
S, 2 U, 2 T, 2 R, 2 = , (2.2)
where denotes the identity mapping of the plane to itself.

Multiplying the equation (2.2) by U, 2 S, 2 gives
T, 2 R, 2 = U, 2 S, 2 . (2.3)
The transformations on either side of equation (2.3) have total rotation angle ; thus,
they are half turns. Since they are equal, they are both a half turn around the same
point.
In [2, III.1, Ex. 1.6], the following method is explained for finding the center of
rotation of a product of rotations. Take rotations p, and q, . Draw the line segment
connecting the centers p and q. At p, draw a line ` that makes angle 2 with pq
(oriented from pq to `). At q, draw a line m, making an angle 2 with pq (oriented
from m to pq). Then the product p, q, is a rotation through angle + around the
point of intersection r = ` m.
For our case, in which = 2 = , the triangle pqr will be an isosceles right tri-
angle with pq as hypotenuse. Thus, the equality (2.3) says that the (appropriately
oriented) isosceles right triangles with RT and US as hypotenuses have the same third
vertex. Call it Z . See Figure 3 again.
Draw the isosceles right triangles 1ZRT and 1ZUS. Evidently, rotating around Z
through a right angle will take U to S, and will take R to T , so it will take UR to ST.

In other words, ST is a 90 rotation of UR, and therefore is perpendicular to it. Since a
rotation preserves lengths, the segments are equal in length. This completes the proof
of Theorem 2.1.
We can apply Theorem 2.1 to triangle geometry by imagining that the quadrilateral
DCBA degenerates into a triangle by letting D approach A, so that DA shrinks to a
point. The center U of the square on D A will also coalesce to A, and the centers of
the other three squares will form a triangle TSR. See Figure 4. Theorem 2.1 applied to
this situation gives the following result.
S C
A B
Figure 4. The Cuoco configuration
Corollary 2.4. If squares are built on the (out)sides of a triangle 1ABC, then the
line segment connecting the center of the square on one side to the opposite vertex of
1ABC is equal to and perpendicular to the segment joining the centers of the other
two squares.
Thus, in Figure 4, the line segment RA is (an extension of) the altitude from R to
ST in triangle 1RST, and is equal to ST in length, and similarly for the other vertices.
3. THE CUOCO CONFIGURATION. For any triangle 1ABC, we will call the tri-
angle 1RST whose vertices are the centers of the squares on the outsides of the sides
of 1ABC, the (outer) Cuoco triangle of 1ABC, and we will call the hexagon ATBRCS
the Cuoco hexagon of 1ABC. We call the triple, 1ABC, 1RST, and hexagon ATBRCS,
the Cuoco configuration of 1ABC (Figure 4).
4. THE CUOCO CONFIGURATION, THE CENTERS OF ROTATION, AND

THE MEDIAL TRIANGLE. If we think of Figure 4 as a degenerated version of
Figure 3, in which the point D has coalesced into point A, the point corresponding
to the center Z of rotation in Figure 3, which is the common vertex of isosceles right
triangles on RT and SU, becomes a meaningful point for triangle 1ABC.

Theorem 4.1.
(a) In the Cuoco configuration, midpoint B 0 of AC is the right-angle vertex of an
isosceles right triangle with hypotenuse RT.
(b) In particular, the perpendicular bisector of RT bisects AC.
Proof. Indeed, when D coalesces to A, the isosceles right triangle 1SDC becomes
1SAC, an isosceles right triangle with hypotenuse AC. If we drop the perpendicular
from S to AC, it will hit AC in its midpoint B 0 , and 1SAB0 and 1SCB0 will be two
congruent isosceles right triangles, with hypotenuses SA and SC, respectively.
On the other hand, since the point U also coalesces to A, the isosceles right triangle
1SUZ, which has SU as hypotenuse, becomes the isosceles right triangle 1SAZ, with
SA as hypotenuse. Thus, Z = B 0 .
But in Figure 3, Z is also the right-angle vertex of the isosceles right triangle built
on RT as hypotenuse, and as Figure 3 degenerates to Figure 5, this relation is preserved.
Thus, in the degenerated figure, B 0 = Z is the right angle vertex of an isosceles right
triangle with RT as hypotenuse. In particular, the line connecting B 0 to the midpoint V
of RT is the altitude of this isosceles right triangle, and therefore is perpendicular to
RT. Thus, it is the perpendicular bisector of RT. Since this line goes through B 0 , it also
bisects AC. See Figure 5 for an illustration of this. Of course, the parallel facts hold for
the midpoints of AB and BC.
S C
R
B0 =Z
A B
Figure 5. The isosceles right triangles
These isosceles right triangles have another relation to the configuration as a whole,
expressible in terms of area.
Theorem 4.2. The area of 1RTB0 plus the area of 1SAB0 equals half the area of the
Cuoco hexagon ATBRCS.
Proof. The area of 1SAB0 is clearly half the area of 1SAC. Also, the hexagon ATBRCS
decomposes into 1SAC and the pentagon ATBRC. Hence, to prove the theorem, it will
suffice to show that 1RTB0 has area equal to half the area of pentagon ATBRC.

We can apply the Law of Cosines (Corollary 1.2) to triangle 1RBT. Since |BR| =
a and |BT| = c2 , and RBT = CBA + 2( 4 ) = + 2 , we find that |RT|2 is
2
equal to
a2 c2 a c a2 c2
+ 2 cos + = + + ac sin
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2
a c2 ac sin

=2 + +
4 4 2
= 2 (Area (1RBC) + Area (1TBA) + Area (1ABC))
= 2 Area (ATBRC). (4.3)
Dividing by 4 gives the desired area relation.
Corollary 4.4.
(a) The sum of the areas of the squares on RT and AS is twice the area of the Cuoco
hexagon ATBRCS.
(b) The squares with RT and AS as diagonals have the midpoint B 0 of AC as a
common vertex, and have area equal to the Cuoco hexagon.
Parallel facts of course hold for sides RS and ST of triangle 1RST. Hence
(c) |RT |2 + |AS|2 = |TS|2 + |CR|2 = |SR|2 + |BT |2 ; or
2|RT |2 + |AC|2 = 2|TS|2 + |CB|2 = 2|SR|2 + |BA|2 .
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
(a) The outer Cuoco triangle 1RST of Figure 5 may be regarded as resulting from
1ABC by a certain construction: Build squares on the outsides of 1ABC and
form the triangle defined by the centers. Evidently, we could also define an
inner Cuoco triangle, formed from the centers of squares built on the insides of
1ABC. This language lets us reformulate the first statement of Theorem 4.1 as:
The inner Cuoco triangle of the outer Cuoco triangle of 1ABC is the triangle
formed by the midpoints of the sides (the medial triangle) of 1ABC.
(b) Construction of the outer Cuoco triangle is an operation of Euclidean similarity
geometry, in the sense that, if triangle 1A0 B 0 C 0 is similar to triangle 1ABC,
then the outer Cuoco triangle of 1A0 B 0 C 0 is similar to the outer Cuoco triangle
of 1ABC. Indeed, if 8 is a similarity taking 1ABC to 1A0 B 0 C 0 , then 8 will
also take the outer Cuoco triangle of 1ABC to the outer Cuoco triangle of
1A0 B 0 C 0 . Similar remarks of course apply to the inner Cuoco triangle. Thus,
either of these constructions can be thought of as a mapping from similarity
classes of triangles to similarity classes of triangles. Since, as is well known
[2, VI.3], the medial triangle is similar to the original triangle, Theorem 4.1
asserts, that as an operation on similarity classes, the inner Cuoco construction
is inverse to the outer Cuoco construction. It should be noted that the outer
construction is not onto: Not all similarity classes of triangles can be outer
Cuoco triangles. In particular, it follows from formula (4.3) that an outer Cuoco
triangle is always acute.
(c) The reader may already have noted that in both triangle 1ABC and its outer
Cuoco triangle 1RST, the points on the sides that are implicated in the relation-
ships described above are the midpoints and the feet of the altitudes, the same
points that define the nine-point circle.

(d) Referring to Figure 5, we see that, since they are altitudes of the Cuoco triangle
1RST, the lines RA, SB, and TC (which are the long diagonals of the Cuoco
hexagon), intersect in a single point. This fact is a special case of the remarkable
result that, if on each side of 1ABC you construct isosceles triangles with a
given base angle , then the lines connecting the vertex of each such triangle to
the opposite vertex of 1ABC will be concurrent. As the base angle varies, the
locus of points of concurrence moves along a hyperbola, known as the Kiepert
hyperbola [3]. Other examples of such points of concurrence are the centroid
(limiting case as 0), the orthocenter (limiting case as 2 ), and the
Fermat point ( = 3 ) [2, VI.6, Fig. 6.12]. The fact that these lines define
altitudes of 1RST and are equal to the opposite sides is special to the case of
= 4 .
(e) According to [4, p. 81], an equivalent form of Theorem 4.1 was discovered by
J. J. B. Neuburg (18401926).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The author is grateful to Bill Barker and a referee for comments that improved
the exposition. Thanks also to Melody Hachey and Kevin Waterman for help with the figures.
REFERENCES
1. A. Baccaglini-Frank, J. Benson, A. Cuoco, N. Damato, E. P. Goldenberg, B. Kerins, K. Waterman, CME

Project Geometry. Pearson, Boston, MA, 2009.
2. W. Barker, R. Howe, Continuous Symmetry. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2007.
3. R. H. Eddy, R. Fritsch, The Conics of Ludwig Kiepert: A Comprehensive Lesson in the Geometry of the
Triangle, Math. Mag. 67 (1994) 188205, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2690610.
4. A. E. Posamentier, I. Lehmann, The Secrets of Triangles. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 2012.
ROGER E. HOWE has been teaching and doing research at Yale University for nearly 40 years. His research
has been mainly concerned with symmetry, especially representation theory. He is a longtime fan of Kleins
Erlanger Programm. In recent years, he has also devoted a lot of attention to issues of mathematics education.
He should be thinking about retiring, but the pleasures of teaching cloud his mind.
Department of Mathematics, Yale University, PO Box 208283, New Haven, CT 06520
howe@math.yale.edu
Complex Knowledge
I took a statistics course at MIT. I would study and do problems, and have high confidence that
I understood the material. Then Id go to the lecture, and be more confused than I was when
I entered the classroom. Thus, I discovered that some teachers were capable of conveying
negative knowledge, so that after listening to them, I knew less than I did before.
It was also clear that knowledge varies considerably in quantity among people, and this
convinced me that real knowledge varies over a very wide range.
Then I encountered people who either did not know what they were talking about, or
were clearly convinced of things that were wrong, and so I learned that there was imaginary
knowledge.
Once I understood that there was both real and imaginary knowledge, I concluded that
knowledge is truly complex.
Submited by Hillel J. Chiel, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology, Neurosciences and Biomedical Engineering,
Department of Biology, Case Western Reserve University
hjc@case.edu

NOTES
Edited by Sergei Tabachnikov
A Generalization of the Leibniz Rule

Ulrich Abel
Abstract. We present a generalization of the Leibniz Rule. One of its consequences is the
celebrated Abel identity.
1. INTRODUCTION. The Leibniz Rule

n
X n (k) (nk)
( f g) =
(n)
f g (n = 0, 1, 2, . . .) ,
k=0
k
for sufficiently often differentiable functions, is a topic in most calculus courses. Also,
its generalization to several functions f i (for i = 1, . . . , r ),
r
!(n) r
Y X n Y (k )
fi = f i i (n = 0, 1, 2, . . .), (1)
i=1 |k|=n
k i=1
is well known. Here, k = (k1 , . . . , kr ) Nr0 denotes a multi-index, |k| = k1 + + kr ,

and the binomial coefficient is defined by kn = k1 ,...,k n
:= n!
.

r k1 !kr ! (n|k|)!
While studying asymptotic expansions for sequences of certain operators, the author
discovered the amazing identity
n
n
(x k f (x))(k) (x nk g(x))(nk) = (x n+1 f (x)g(x))(n)
X
x (2)
k=0
k
(for n = 0, 1, 2, . . .). It turns out that the latter equation remains valid if the monomials
x k are replaced with powers of arbitrary linear functions `(x) = ax + b. Furthermore,
it can be extended to several functions. Moreover, we study sums of the type
n
n
(h k f )(k) (h nk g)(nk) ,
X
k=0
k
for arbitrary analytic functions h, and present closed expressions. The purpose of this
short note is to prove those intriguing formulas. They are useful in the derivation of
asymptotic expansions for sequences of approximation operators. As applications, we
obtain remarkable identities. The most prominent example is the Abel identity
n
n
a(a kc)k1 (b + kc)nk = (a + b)n ,
X
k=0
k
published in 1826 [1]. This deep generalization of the binomial formula follows as a
direct consequence of Theorem 3.
MSC: Primary 26A24, Secondary 05A19

2. THE IDENTITIES. We start with the following basic result.
Theorem 1. Let n N0 , r N, and let f i (i = 1, . . . , r ) be n-times differentiable

functions. Then, for each linear function ` it follows that
r r
!(n)
X n Y
r 1 ki n+r 1
Y
` (` f i )(ki )
= ` fi .
|k|=n
k i=1 i=1
Remark 2. In the special case `(x) = 1, Theorem 1 reduces to Eq. (1).
We give a proof based on combinatorial methods, in particular the application of a

certain binomial identity.
Finally, we present a formula in which ` need not be linear.
Theorem 3. Let n N0 , r N, and let h, f i (i = 1, . . . , r ) be functions analytic in a

neighborhood of z 0 C with h(z 0 ) 6 = 0. Then
r
h n+r 1 (z) ri=1 f i (z)
X n Y n
d
Q
ki
(h f i ) (z 0 ) =
(ki )
.
|k|=n
k i=1 dz (h(z) h 0 (z)(z z 0 ))r 1 z=z0
The proof uses methods of complex analysis.
Remark 4. The identity is of an algebraic nature among the derivatives (Taylor coeffi-
cients) and hence automatically extends to non-analytic functions of sufficient smooth-
ness by a general principle. Therefore, Theorem 3 is valid also for real functions h and
f i possessing a continuous derivative of order n in a (real) neighborhood of z 0 R.
Remark 5. If h(z) = az + b with a, b C, we have
h(z) h 0 (z)(z z 0 ) = h(z 0 ),
and the identity of Theorem 3 reduces to the formula of Theorem 1.
We close this section with some direct consequences. If h(x) = x and f i (x) =
x ai (i = 1, . . . , r ) we obtain the following.
Corollary 6. For n = 0, 1, 2, . . . and all a = (a1 , . . . , ar ) Cr , it follows that

r
ki + ai n + |a| + r 1
XY
= .
|k|=n i=1
ki n
If h(x) = ecx , f i (x) = eai x h 1 (x)(h(x) h 0 (x)(x x0 )) = eai x (1 + c(x x0 )),

for 1 i r 1 and fr (x) = e(ar +nc)x , we obtain the following.
Corollary 7. For n = 0, 1, 2, . . . and all a = (a1 , . . . , ar ) Cr with c C, it follows

that
" r 1 #
X n Y
ai (ai ki c) ki 1
(ar + (n kr )c)kr = |a|n .

|k|=n
k i=1
December 2013] NOTES 925

In the special case r = 2 with a = (a, b), we obtain the following.
Corollary 8 (Abel identity). For n = 0, 1, 2, . . . and all a, b, c, it follows that

n
n
a(a kc)k1 (b + kc)nk = (a + b)n .
X
k=0
k
The Abel identity is valid in commutative rings.
3. PROOFS.
Proof of Theorem 1. We prove Theorem 1 only for monomials, i.e., `(x) = x; the full
result follows by translation and scaling. The formula is trivial for r = 1. We proceed
by mathematical induction with respect to r . First we show the formula for r = 2. We
start with the left-hand side. Application of the Leibniz Rule yields
n
n (k) (nk)
x k f (x) x nk g(x)
X
LHS =
k=0
k
n X
k nk
n k k! n k (n k)!

i
x j g ( j) (x)
X X
= x f (x) (i)
k=0
k i=0
i i! j=0
j j!
n X
k nk
k 1 i (i) nk 1 j ( j)
X X
= n! x f (x) x g (x)
k=0 i=0
i i! j=0
j j!
n
XX 1 1 ( j) k nk

i+ j (i)
X
= n! x f (x) g (x) .
i0 j0
i! j! k=0
i j
Applying the well-known binomial identity

n
k nk n+1
X
= (for n, i, j = 0, 1, 2, . . .)
k=0
i j i + j +1
and taking advantage of the relation
n+1 (x n+1 )(ni j)

x i+ j = x 1 ,
i + j +1 (n i j)!
we obtain
n! X X 1 (i) 1 (x n+1 )(ni j)

LHS = f (x) g ( j) (x)
x i0 j0 i! j! (n i j)!
1 XX n

= f (i) (x)g ( j) (x)(x n+1 )(ni j)
x i0 j0 i, j
1 n+1 (n+1)
= x f (x)g(x) ,
x

which is the desired right-hand side. Now, let r > 2. We assume that Theorem 1 is
valid up to r 1 functions f i . Then, we have that
X n Yr
r 1
` (`ki f i )(ki )
|k|=n
k i=1

n r
n! r 2 X (n k1 )!
(`k1 f 1 )(k1 ) (`ki f i )(ki )
X Y
=`

`
k1
k ! (n k1 )!
=0 1
k ! kr ! (n |k|)! i=2
k ,...,k 0 2

2 r
k2 ++kr =nk1
n r
!(nk1 )
X n! k1 nk1 +r 2
Y
=` (` f 1 ) (k1 )
` fi
k ! (n k1 )!
k =0 1 i=2
1
r
!(n)
n+1 r 2
Y
= ` f1 ` fi ,
i=2
which is the desired expression.
Proof of Theorem 3. The formula is trivial for r = 1. First we show the formula for
r = 2. We start with the left-hand side. Application of the Cauchy integral formula
yields that
n
n
(h k f )(k) (z 0 )(h nk g)(nk) (z 0 )
X
LHS =
k=0
k
n
n k! h k (w) f (w) (n k)! h nk (z)g(z)
X Z Z
= dw dz
k=0
k 2i D1 (z0 ) (w z 0 )k+1 2i D2 (z 0 ) (z z 0 )
nk+1
2 Z n
1 f (w)g(z) h k (w)h nk (z)
Z X
= n! dz dw,
2i D2 (z 0 ) (w z 0 )(z z 0 ) k=0 (w z 0 ) (z z 0 )
k nk
D1 (z 0 )
where D1 (z 0 ) = {w | |w z 0 | < r1 } and D2 (z 0 ) = {z | |z z 0 | < r2 } with sufficiently

small r2 > r1 > 0. Evaluation of the geometric series leads to
n+1 n+1
h(z) h(w)
1
n
X k
h (w)h (z) nk
zz 0
wz 0
= .
(w z 0 )(z z 0 ) k=0
(w z 0 )k (z z 0 )nk (w z 0 )h(z) (z z 0 )h(w)
The denominator of the latter fraction can be written in the form
(w z 0 )h(z) (z z 0 )h(w) = [h(w) H (w, z)(w z 0 )] (w z),
where H (w, z) = h(w)h(z) wz

, for w 6 = z, and H (w, w) = h 0 (w). By assumption, we
have h(z 0 ) 6= 0. Therefore, we can choose r1 > 0 so small that there exists a re-
gion G D2 (z 0 ) such that h(w) H (w, z)(w z 0 ) 6 = 0, for all w, z G. We write
LHS = n! (2i)2 (I1 + I2 ), where
f (w)g(z) h(z) n+1

Z Z
I1 = dz dw,
D1 (z 0 ) D2 (z 0 ) [h(w) H (w, z)(w z 0 )] (w z) z z0

and
n+1
f (w)g(z) h(w)
Z Z
I2 = dz dw.
D1 (z 0 ) D2 (z 0 ) [h(w) H (w, z)(w z 0 )] (w z) w z0
After interchanging the order of both integrals, we conclude that

n+1 Z
h(z) f (w)
Z
I1 = g(z) dw dz
D2 (z 0 ) z z0 D1 (z 0 ) [h(w) H (w, z)(w z 0 )] (z w)
= 0,
because the inner integral vanishes by the Cauchy Integral Theorem. Two applications
of the Cauchy Integral Formula to the second integral yield, in view of H (w, w) =
h 0 (w), that
h(w) n+1 g(z)

Z Z
I2 = f (w) dz dw
D1 (z 0 ) wz 0 D2 (z 0 ) [h(w) H (w, z)(wz 0 )] (z w)
h(w) n+1 g(w)

Z
= 2i f (w) dw
D1 (z 0 ) w z0 h(w) H (w, w)(w z 0 )
(2i)2 d n h n+1 (w) f (w)g(w)

= ,
n! dw h(w) h 0 (w)(w z 0 ) w=z0
which implies the desired formula. As in the proof of Theorem 1, the general case
follows by mathematical induction with respect to r .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The author is grateful to the anonymous referees, whose valuable suggestions led
to an improved exposition of the paper.
REFERENCE
1. N. H. Abel, Beweis eines Ausdruckes, von welchem die Binomial-Formel ein einzelner Fall ist, J. Reine
Angew. Math. 1 (1826) 159160.
Fachbereich MND, Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen, University of Applied Sciences,

Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strae 13, 61169 Friedberg, Germany
Ulrich.abel@mnd.thm.de

The Parbelos, a Parabolic Analog
of the Arbelos
Jonathan Sondow
Abstract. The arbelos is a classical geometric shape bounded by three mutually tangent semi-
circles with collinear diameters. We introduce a parabolic analog, the parbelos. After a review
of the parabola, we use theorems of Archimedes and Lambert to demonstrate seven properties
of the parbelos, drawing analogies to similar properties of the arbelos, some of which may
be new.
1. INTRODUCTION: THE ARBELOS AND THE PARBELOS. The arbelos or

shoemakers knife is a classic figure from Greek geometry, bounded by three pairwise
tangent semicircles with diameters lying on the same line (see Figure 1). There is a
long list of remarkable properties of the arbelosconsult Boass survey [2], its 44
references, and Bogomolnys website [3].
Figure 1. The arbelos
Just as all circles are similar, so too all parabolas are similar. (See, e.g., [4, p. 118].
The same is not true for the other conic sections, because the similarity class of an
ellipse or a hyperbola depends on its eccentricity.) For that reason, one might expect
to find a parabolic analog of the arbelos in the literature of the past two millennia.
However, extensive searches have failed to uncover any mention of one. This note
provides and studies such an analog.
To define it, recall first that the latus rectum of a parabola is the focal chord par-
allel to the directrix (see Section 2). Now, replace the semicircles of the arbelos with
the latus rectum arcs of parabolas, all opening in the same direction, whose foci are
the centers of the semicircles. The region bounded by the three arcs is the parbelos
associated to the arbelos. See Figure 2.
Figure 2. The parbelos
MSC: Primary 51M04, Secondary 51M15; 51M25, 51N20

More intrinsically, given three points C1 , C2 , C3 on a line, construct parabolas that
open in the same direction and have latera recta C1 C2 , C2 C3 , C1 C3 . The three latus
rectum arcs enclose the parbelos. The points C1 , C2 , C3 are its cusps.
Unlike in the arbelos, the arcs of the parbelos are not pairwise tangent: the inner
two are tangent to the outer one, but not to each other, as we show.
Section 2 is a review of the parabola. In Section 3, we use theorems of Archimedes
and Lambert to prove seven properties of the parbelos, drawing analogies to similar
properties found in the arbelos, some of which may be new. The seventh constructs a
parbelos directly from an arbelos via a locus. Along the way we mention the Universal
Parabolic Constant (an analog of ), Newtons teacher Barrow, and an origami fold.
2. THE PARABOLA. Recall that a parabola P is the locus of points equidistant from
a point F, called the focus, and a line L, the directrix. The distance p > 0 from F to L
is the focal parameter. The point V at a distance a := 2p from both F and L is the
vertex of P. The chord C1 C2 of P passing through F and parallel to L is the latus
rectum. Since C1 and C2 lie on P, the length of C1 C2 equals 2 p = 4a; one half of that
is the semi-latus rectum p = 2a. The arc of P with endpoints C1 and C2 is the latus
rectum arc.
These notations are illustrated in Figure 3, which shows the unique downward-
opening parabola P whose latus rectum is the interval [2a, 2a] on the x-axis. The
x2
equation of P is y = a 4a .
y = 2a L
(0, a) V
x2
y=a P
4a
C1 C2
(2a, 0) (0, 0) F (2a, 0)
Figure 3. The downward-opening parabola with latus rectum [2a, 2a]
Just as the ratio of the length of any semicircle to its radius is always , the ratio of
the length s of the latus rectum arc of any parabola to its semi-latus rectum (and focal
parameter) p is also a constant, namely, the Universal Parabolic Constant P = sp see
Reese and Sondow [7]. For a geometric method of computing the length of a parabolic
arc, due to Isaac Barrow (16301677), see Dorrie [5, Problem 58]; for the sweeping
tangents method, see Apostol and Mnatsakanian [1].
3. PROPERTIES OF THE PARBELOS. Returning to the parbelos, we describe

seven of its properties. The first two are analogous to classical properties of the arbelos,
and are based on similarity.
Property 1. The upper and lower boundaries of the parbelos have the same length.
Proof. (We paraphrase Boas [2, p. 237] on the arbelos.) This is immediate from the
knowledge that the length of the latus rectum arc of a parabola is proportional to its

semi-latus rectum; one does not even need to know that the constant of proportionality
is the Universal Parabolic Constant P.
Our second property of the parbelos is the direct analog of part of a deeper property
of the arbelos discovered by Schoch in 1998see [8, Figure 6].
Property 2. Under each lower arc of the parbelos, construct a new parbelos similar to
the original (see Figure 4). Of the four new lower arcs, the middle two are congruent,
and their common length equals one half the harmonic mean of the lengths of the
original lower arcs.
Figure 4. Three similar parbeloses
Proof. Denote by ` L and ` R the lengths of the original left and right lower arcs, and
by `1 , `2 , `3 , `4 the lengths of the four new lower arcs. By similarity, we have the
equalities
`L 1 2 `R
`2 = `R = 1 1
= ` L = `3 .
`L + ` R 2 `L
+ `R
`L + ` R
As the arcs are latus rectum arcs, the result follows.
The next property of the parbelos is analogous to the fact that the area of the arbelos
equals /2 times the area of its cusp-midpoints rectangle, determined by the middle
cusp and the midpoints of the three semicircular arcs (see Figure 5). The proof of this
fact is similar to that of Property 3.
Figure 5. The cusp-midpoints rectangle of the arbelos
Property 3. The middle cusp of the parbelos and the vertices of its three parabolas
determine a parallelogram, the cusp-vertices parallelogram. The area of the parbelos
equals 4/3 times the area of its cusp-vertices parallelogram.
Proof. A glance at Figure 3 reveals that, in Figure 6, the cusp C1 and the vertices V1
and V2 all lie on a line with slope 1/2, as do the cusp C2 and the vertex V3 . Likewise,
C3 , V3 , and V2 all lie on a line with slope 1/2, as do C2 and V1 . The first statement
follows.

V2
V1
V3
C1 C2 C3
Figure 6. The cusp-vertices parallelogram of the parbelos
Let us denote the area of a parabolic segment by , and that of a triangle by 4.

The area of the parbelos is then
area C1 V2 C3 V3 C2 V1 = C1 V2 C3 ( C1 V1 C2 + C2 V3 C3 )
and the area of the cusp-vertices parallelogram is
area C2 V1 V2 V3 = 4C1 V2 C3 (4C1 V1 C2 + 4C2 V3 C3 ).
By Archimedess calculation of the area of a parabolic segment (or by integral calcu-

lus), each equals 4/3 times the corresponding 4. This proves the second statement.
For an exposition of Archimedes of Syracuses quadrature of the parabola (nineteen

centuries before the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus!), see [5, Problem 56].
Here is another characterization of the area of the parbelos.
Property 4. The four tangents to the parbelos at its three cusps enclose a rectangle,
the tangent rectangle. The parbelos has two thirds the area of its tangent rectangle.
Proof. By Figure 3 and calculus (or by the parabolas reflection property), the latus
rectum of a parabola makes an angle of /4 with the tangent line at each endpoint.
The first statement follows.
The area of the tangent rectangle in Figure 7 is
area C2 T1 T2 T3 = 4C1 T2 C3 (4C1 T1 C2 + 4C2 T3 C3 ).
From Figure 3, each 4 equals twice the corresponding 4 in the previous proof, and
we are done.
T2
T1
T3
C1 C2 C3
Figure 7. The tangent rectangle of the parbelos, a diagonal, and an angle bisector
The tangent rectangle also figures in the following two properties.

Property 5. In the tangent rectangle of the parbelos, the diagonal opposite the cusp
is tangent to the upper parabola. The contact point lies on the bisector of the angle at
the cusp.
Proof. In Figure 7, choose coordinates C1 = (0, 0), C2 = (2b, 0), and C3 = (4a, 0).
The endpoints of the diagonal opposite C2 are then T1 = (b, b) and T3 = (2a + b,
2a b). Now, the equation of the line through T1 and T3 , and the equation of the
upper parabola, are
ab b2 (x 2a)2
y = f (x) := x+ and y = g(x) := a .
a a 4a
ab
Setting f (x) = g(x), the only solution is x = 2b. As g 0 (2b) = a
, we infer Prop-
erty 5.
Problem. Find a proof by synthetic or Euclidean geometry, without introducing

Cartesian coordinates.
Added in proof : Emmanuel Tsukerman [10], an undergraduate (!) at Stanford Uni-

versity, has solved the problem. He gives a synthetic proof of Property 5 using a
conversewhich he provesto Lamberts Theorem below.)
Property 5 has a surprising consequence.
Property 6. The circumcircle of the tangent rectangle of the parbelos passes through
the focus of the upper parabola (see Figure 8).
Figure 8. The circumcircle of the tangent rectangle and the focus of the upper parabola
We give two proofs. The first uses the statement of Property 5; the second uses its
proof.
Proof 1. Any three lines tangent to a parabola bound a tangent triangle. By Property 5,
a diagonal and two adjacent sides of the tangent rectangle form a tangent triangle of
the upper parabola. Property 6 now follows from Lamberts Theorem, which asserts
that the circumcircle of any tangent triangle of a parabola passes through the focus.
Proof 2. The center of the circumcircle is 12 (T1 + T3 ) = (a + b, a), which is equidis-

tant from the cusp C2 = (2b, 0) and the focus F = (2a, 0) of the upper parabola. This
proves the property.

See [5, Problem 44] for a proof of Lamberts Theorem. (Johann Heinrich Lambert
(17281777) was a Swiss mathematician, physicist, and astronomer who gave the first
proof that is irrational.)
Of course, his theorem can also be applied to tangent triangles of the lower arcs
in the parbelos. For example, Figure 9 shows two similar tangent triangles formed
by the tangents at the cusps and a line constructed tangent to both lower parabolas.
The construction requires either solving a cubic equation or doing a Beloch origami
foldsee Hull [6].
Using Figures 5 and 8, it is easy to show that the cusp-midpoints rectangle of the
arbelos coincides with the tangent rectangle of the associated parbelos, whose foci are
the centers of the semicircles of the arbelos. Hence, by Property 6, the circumcircle of
the cusp-midpoints rectangle of the arbelos passes through the center of the upper
semicirclesee Figure 10.
Figure 9. The common tangent to the lower Figure 10. The circumcircle of the cusp-
parabolas of the parbelos, their foci, and the cir- midpoints rectangle of the arbelos and the center
cumcircles of similar tangent triangles of the upper semicircle
Our final property describes how to construct a parbelos directly from an arbelos
via a locus.
Property 7. The locus of the centers of circles inscribed in a semicircle of the arbelos
is the boundary of a parbelos with its cusps deleted. The arbelos and parbelos share
the same cusps.
Proof. We claim that the locus of the centers of circles inscribed in any semicircle
is the open latus rectum arc of a parabola whose latus rectum is the diameter of the
semicircle. A more general fact was discovered by Byer, Lazebnik, and Smeltzer [4,
p. 118]. (Added in proof : It has been discovered earlier by Tahir [9, p. 30].) We adapted
their elegant proof as follows.
Let the semicircle have center O, radius R, and diameter AB, and let an inscribed
circle have center K and radius r. Drawing a line L parallel to AB at a distance R as in
r
K R
A O B
Figure 11. The locus of the centers of circles inscribed in a semicircle

Figure 11, we see that
distance(K, O) = R r = distance(K, L).
Hence, K lies on the parabola with focus O and directrix L. Since O lies on AB, it
is the latus rectum, implying our claim. Finally, applying it to each semicircle of the
arbelos leads to Property 7.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I thank both referees for suggesting changes that improved the exposition, and
Harold Boas for correcting two numerical errors.
REFERENCES
1. T. Apostol, M. Mnatsakanian, The method of sweeping tangents, Math. Gazette 92 (2008) 396417.
2. H. P. Boas, Reflections on the arbelos, Amer. Math. Monthly 113 (2006) 236249, available at http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/27641891; also available at http://www.math.tamu.edu/~harold.boas/
preprints/arbelos.pdf.
3. A. Bogomolny, Arbelosthe Shoemakers Knife, from Interactive Mathematics Miscellany and Puzzles
(2012), available at http://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/arbelos.shtml.
4. O. Byer, F. Lazebnik, and D. L. Smeltzer, Methods for Euclidean Geometry. Mathematical Association of
America, Washington, DC, 2010.
5. H. Dorrie, 100 Great Problems of Elementary Mathematics: Their History and Solution, second edition.
Translated by D. Anton. Dover, New York, 1965.
6. T. C. Hull, Solving cubics with creases: the work of Beloch and Lill, Amer. Math. Monthly 118 (2011)
307315.
7. S. Reese, J. Sondow, Universal Parabolic ConstantFrom MathWorld, A Wolfram Web Resource, edited
by E. W. Weisstein, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/UniversalParabolicConstant.html.
8. T. Schoch, A Dozen More Arbelos Twins (1998), available at http://www.retas.de/thomas/
arbelos/biola/.
9. H. Tahir, Conic Sections and Tangent Circles. Hussein Tahir, Melbourne, 1999.
10. E. Tsukerman, Solution of Sondows problem: a synthetic proof of the tangency property of the parbelos.
Amer. Math. Monthly (forthcoming), available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.5580.
209 West 97th Street, New York, NY 10025

jsondow@alumni.princeton.edu

Inequalities for Gamma Function Ratios
G. J. O. Jameson
Abstract. A short proof is given of a comprehensive system of inequalities for
0(x + y)/ 0(x),
including results obtained independently by Artin, Wendel, and Gautschi. Applications in-
clude inequalities for binomial coefficients and the BohrMollerup theorem.
Inequalities for the ratio
0(x + y)
R(x, y) = .
0(x)
have interesting applications, and have been considered by a number of writers over a
long period. In a M ONTHLY article [7], Wendel showed that
x(x + y) y1 R(x, y) x y for 0 y 1. (1)
Wendels method was an ingenious application of Holders inequality to the integral

definition of the gamma function. Note that both inequalities are exact when y is 0 or
1, since R(x, 0) = 1 and R(x, 1) = x.
Without reference to Wendel, and by quite different methods, Gautschi [4] proved
that
x(x + 1) y1 R(x, y) x y for 0 y 1. (2)
The lower bound in (2) is weaker than the one in (1), and is not exact when y = 0.
Gautschi only stated the result for integer values of x, but his method does not require
this. He also established the more elaborate lower bound x exp[(y 1)(x + 1)],
where (x) = 0 0 (x)/ 0(x), which implies (2) because (x) < log x. Refinements
have appeared in many later articles, e.g., [3, 5, 6]. Most of them take the form of
expressions in terms of (x), but one of Kershaws bounds is x(x + 2y ) y1 . Here, we
confine our attention to bounds of the simple type seen in (1) and (2).
Artins classic book [2] was published in 1931, long before either Wendel or
Gautschi. In it (p. 14) we find the statement
(x 1) y R(x, y) x y for 0 y 1, (3)
(actually only stated for integers x). Again, the lower bound is weaker than the one in
(1), though this is not quite so transparent, and is not exact at 1. Artin did not state (3) as
a result in its own right, but only as a step in the proof of another theorem. Perhaps for
this reason, his result appears to have been overlooked by most later writers, including
Wendel and Gautschi. Indeed, inequalities of this type have generally been referred to
as Gautschi-type inequalities, with scant respect to either Artin or Wendel.
MSC: Primary 33B15, Secondary 26D07

As well as having appeared earlier, Artins method is much simpler than those of
the later writersindeed, as we shall see, it makes the result seem almost trivial! The
only properties of the gamma function required are the identity 0(x + 1) = x0(x) and
the convexity of log 0(x). The method applies to any function with these properties,
and consequently also leads to a pleasant proof of the BohrMollerup theorem stating
that 0(x) is essentially the only such function, which was Artins purpose.
Bounds for R(x, y) are not only of interest for y in the interval [0, 1], but in fact
the key to a satisfactory treatment (even for the case 0 y 1) is to consider the
whole range of values of y. Observe that (1), (2), and (3) all have x y on the right-hand
side. We now prove, by a slight modification of Artins method, a pleasantly simple
result comparing R(x, y) with x y for various values of y. We will then show that this
result is enough to encapsulate all the inequalities of this kind. Without further effort,
a complete system of upper and lower bounds, in turn for 0 y 1, 1 y 2 and
y > 2, is delivered by suitable substitutions.
Theorem 1. Let f be any function such that log f (x) is convex and f (x + 1) =
x f (x) for all x > 0 (in particular, the gamma function). Write R(x, y) = f (x +
y)/ f (x). Then
R(x, y) x y for 0 y 1, (4)

R(x, y) x y for y 1 and for y < 0. (5)
Proof. For fixed x, let F(y) = log f (x + y) y log x for all y > x. Then F is con-
vex and
F(1) = log f (x + 1) log x = log f (x) = F(0).
It follows that F(y) log f (x) for 0 y 1 and F(y) log f (x) for y 1 and for
y 0. This equates to (4) and (5).
Clearly, equality holds when y is 0 or 1, and if log f (x) is strictly convex, then strict
inequality holds for other y.
Corollary 1. For f as in Theorem 1, we have
R(x, y) x(x + 1) y1 for 1 y 2, (6)
and the opposite holds for 0 y 1 and y > 2. Also,
R(x, y) x(x + y) y1 for 0 y 1, (7)
and the opposite holds for y > 1. Further,
R(x, y) (x 1) y for 0 y 1. (8)
Proof. For (6), if 1 y 2, then (4) gives

f (x + y)
R(x + 1, y 1) = (x + 1) y1 ,
f (x + 1)
so that f (x + y) x(x + 1) y1 f (x). By (5), the opposite holds for 0 y 1 and

y 2.

For (7), if 0 y 1, then (4) gives
f (x + 1)
R(x + y, 1 y) = (x + y)1y ,
f (x + y)
hence f (x + y) x(x + y) y1 f (x). By (5), the opposite holds for y 1.

The inequality (8) can be deduced from (7), but the following argument is easier.
By (5),
f (x + y)
R(x 1, y + 1) = (x 1) y+1 ,
f (x 1)
so f (x + y) (x 1) y f (x).
Both (6) and (7) are exact at the end points of the stated intervals for y.
We reassemble these inequalities for the three intervals for y, in some cases choos-
ing the better of two available options.
Theorem 2. For f as in Theorem 1, we have
x(x + y) y1 R(x, y) x y for 0 y 1, (9)

y y1
x R(x, y) x(x + 1) for 1 y 2, (10)
x(x + 1) y1 R(x, y) x(x + y) y1 for y 2. (11)
Note that (9) reproduces (1), and (10) amounts to the reverse of (2).
This system of inequalities amounts to a comprehensive set of bounds for R(x, y)
of the type we are considering. If it seems rather complicated, reflect that it describes
the true situation, and that we have arrived at it by a very simple process. It is, of
course, entirely typical for inequalities involving powers to reverse at certain values of
the index. At the cost of a loss of accuracy, we can, in fact, extract one simple pair of
bounds valid for all y 0:
(x 1) y R(x, y) x(x + y) y1 . (12)
It is worth restating (9) specifically for the gamma function in the case where x is a
positive integer n. Since 0(n) = (n 1)!, it equates to
(n + y) y1 n! 0(n + y) n y1 n! for 0 y 1, (13)
giving a pair of bounds for the gamma function between integers.

These inequalities have numerous applications. We describe four of them.
Application 1. 0(x + y)/ 0(x) x y as x with y fixed. (This was the objective
of Wendels article.) To show this, first suppose that 0 y 1. Then (9) gives
y y1 R(x, y)
1+ 1,
x xy
hence, R(x, y) x y . For y > 1, the statement now follows from the fact that
y
R(x, y + 1) = 1 + R(x, y).
x

Application 2 (Binomial Coefficients). Let
y n+y1 y(y + 1) . . . (y + n 1)

n
K n (y) = (1) = = .
n n n!
This is the coefficient of t n in the series for (1 t)y . Clearly
0(n + y) R(n, y)
K n (y) = = ,
0(y)n! n0(y)
so we have by (9) and (10)
(n + y) y1 n y1
K n (y) for 0 y 1, (14)
0(y) 0(y)
n y1 (n + 1) y1
K n (y) for 1 y 2, (15)
0(y) 0(y)
and (11) gives a similar estimation for y 2. These can be regarded

as bounds for
K n (y), with 0(y) regarded as known. Given the value 0( 21 ) = , the case y = 21
can be written as follows:
1 1.3. . . . (2n 1) 1
, (16)
[(n + 21 ) ]1/2 2.4. . . . (2n) (n )1/2
which amounts to the Wallis product stated as a pair of inequalities.
Application 3 (Bounds for 0( y n)). If 0 < y < 1, then 0(y n) alternates sign
in such a way that (1)n 0(y n) is positive. Using Eulers reflection formula
0(x)0(1 x) = / sin x, we can give bounds for this quantity that form a natu-
ral companion to (13). Indeed, by Eulers formula,

0(y n)0(n + 1 y) = = (1)n
sin (y n) sin y
and by (13), applied to 1 y, we have (n + 1)y n! < 0(n + 1 y) < n y n!. Hence,
for 0 < y < 1 and integers n 1,
ny (n + 1) y
< (1)n 0(y n) < . (17)
sin y n! sin y n!
Application 4 (The BohrMollerup Theorem). Suppose that f (x) is defined for

x > 0 and (i) log f (x) is convex, (ii) f (x + 1) = x f (x), (iii) f (1) = 1. Then
f (x) = 0(x).
We outline Artins method. It uses Eulers limit expression for the gamma function,
which can be stated as follows: 0(x) = limn G n (x), where
n x1 n!
G n (x) = .
x(x + 1) . . . (x + n 1)

(According to taste, this can either be taken as the definition of the gamma function,
or derived from the integral definition; note that, either way, convexity of log 0(x) is
an immediate consequence.) Equally, 0(x) = limn Hn (x), where
(n + 1)x1 n!
Hn (x) = .
x(x + 1) . . . (x + n 1)
It is clearly enough to prove the theorem for 1 < x < 2 (for consistency with our
earlier notation, we now write y for x). By (10), for integers n we then have n y
R(n, y) n(n + 1) y1 . Clearly, f (n) = (n 1)!, so
n y1 n! f (n + y) (n + 1) y1 n!.
Since f (n + y) = y(y + 1) (y + n 1) f (y), this equates to G n (y) f (y)

Hn (y), so f (y) = limn G n (y) = 0(y).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The author is indebted to Prof. Andrea Laforgia for some very helpful comments.
REFERENCES
1. G. E. Andrews, R. Askey, R. Roy, Special Functions, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1999.
2. E. Artin, Einfuhrung in die Theorie der Gammafunktion, Teubner, Leipzig, 1931; English translation: The
Gamma Function, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1964.
3. N. Elezovic, C. Giordano, J. Pecaric, The best bounds in Gautschis inequality, Math. Ineq. Appl. 3 (2000)
239252.
4. W. Gautschi, Some elementary inequalities relating to the gamma and incomplete gamma function, J.
Math. and Phys. 38 (1959) 7781.
5. C. Giordano, A. Laforgia, J. Pecaric, Unified Treatment of Gautschi-Kershaw type inequalities for the
gamma function, J. Comp. Appl. Math. 99 (1998) 167175, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0377-0427(98)00154-X.
6. D. Kershaw, Some extensions of W. Gautschis inequalities for the gamma function, Math. Comp. 41
(1983) 607611.
7. J. G. Wendel, Note on the gamma function, Amer. Math. Monthly 55 (1948) 563564, available at http:
//dx.doi.org/10.2307/2304460.
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, United Kingdom
g.jameson@lancaster.ac.uk

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
Edited by Gerald A. Edgar, Doug Hensley, Douglas B. West
with the collaboration of Itshak Borosh, Paul Bracken, Ezra A. Brown, Randall
Dougherty, Tamas Erdelyi, Zachary Franco, Christian Friesen, Ira M. Gessel, Laszlo
Liptak, Frederick W. Luttmann, Vania Mascioni, Frank B. Miles, Richard Pfiefer,
Dave Renfro, Cecil C. Rousseau, Leonard Smiley, Kenneth Stolarsky, Richard Stong,
Walter Stromquist, Daniel Ullman, Charles Vanden Eynden, Sam Vandervelde, and
Fuzhen Zhang.
Proposed problems and solutions should be sent in duplicate to the MONTHLY

problems address on the back of the title page. Proposed problems should never
be under submission concurrently to more than one journal. Submitted solutions
should arrive before April 30, 2014. Additional information, such as general-
izations and references, is welcome. The problem number and the solvers name
and address should appear on each solution. An asterisk (*) after the number of
a problem or a part of a problem indicates that no solution is currently available.
PROBLEMS
11740. Proposed by Cosmin Pohoata, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Let p, q be
prime ideals in a commutative Noetherian ring R with unity. Suppose that p q. Let
I be the set of all prime ideals j in R such that p j q. Prove that I is either empty
or infinite.
11741. Proposed by Chindea Filip-Andrei, Unversity of Bucharest, Bucharest, Roma-
nia. Given a ring A, let Z (A) denote the center of A, which is the set of all z in A that
commute with every element of A. Prove or disprove: For every ring A, there is a map
f : A Z (A) such that f (1) = 1 and f (a + b) = f (a) + f (b) for all a, b A.
11742. Proposed by Alexandr Gromeko, Odessa, Ukraine. For 0 p < q < 1, find all
zeros in C of the function f given by

(aq n , p/(aq n ); p)(z)n q n(n1)/2 ,
X
f (z) =
n=
where (u, v; w) = m=0 (1 uw m )(1 vwm ).

Q
11743. Proposed by Francois Capaces, Nancy, France. Let n be a positive integer, let
x be a real number, and let B be the n-by-n matrix with 2x in all diagonal entries, 1
in all sub- and super-diagonal entries, and 0 in all other entries. Compute the inverse,
when it exists, of B as a function of x.
11744. Proposed by C. P. Cholkar and M. N. Deshpande, Nagpur, India. Flip a fair
coin until the start of the r th run. (For instance, if r = 3 then TTTHHT is one possible
outcome.) Let Y be the number of runs consisting of one head. Find the expected value
and variance of Y .
December 2013] PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS 941

11745. Proposed by Robin Oakapple, Albany, OR. Let P1 , P2 , P3 , and P4 be points on
a circle K , in the order listed, that do not form a rectangle. Let the diagonals of the
convex quadrilateral P1 P2 P3 P4 cross at E. Let E 0 be the image of E under inversion
about K . Let K be the circle with center E 0 that intersects K orthogonally. Let M and
M 0 be the points at which K meets the line EE0 , with M inside K and M 0 outside. For
1 i 4, let Q i be the second intersection of MPi with K , and let Q i0 be the second
intersection of M 0 Pi with K .
Q4
P2 E0
P3
Q1 E
M P1
Q3
Q2
P4
Prove that Q 1 , . . . , Q 4 form the vertices of a rectangle, as do Q 01 , . . . , Q 04 , and that the

two rectangles are mirror images across the line EE0 . (The figure omits Q 01 , . . . , Q 04
and some of K .)
11746. Proposed by Pal Peter Dalyay, Szeged, Hungary. Let f be a continuous
R func-
tion from [0, ) to R such that the following integrals converge: S = 0 f 2 (x) d x,
R R
T = 0 x 2 f 2 (x) d x, and U = 0 x 4 f 2 (x) d x. Let V = T + T 2 + 3SU. Given that
f is not identically 0, show that
4
2 S(T + V )2
Z
| f (x)| d x .
0 9V
SOLUTIONS
A Unique Minimal Generating Set

11598 [2011, 748]. Proposed by Proposed by Mowaffaq Hajja, Yarmouk University,
Irbid, Jordan. Let S be an additive semigroup of positive integers. Show that there is a
finite subset T of S that generates S and that is contained in every generating set of S.
Solution by Richard Stong, Center for Communications Research, San Diego, CA. Let
T be the set of all s S such that s does not lie in the additive semigroup generated
by S {1, . . . , s 1}. Thus s T if and only if s is not a sum of elements of S {s},
which is equivalent to S {s} being an additive semigroup of the positive integers.
Thus, each element of T lies in every generating set for S.
Now let S 0 be the additive semigroup generated by T ; we claim S = S 0 . If not, then
by the Well-Ordering Principle there is a least s S S 0 . It follows that s is not in the
additive semigroup generated by S 0 {1, . . . , s 1}, which equals S {1, . . . , s 1}.
Thus s T , a contradiction.

Finally, to see that T is finite, let t be the least element of T . Now T cannot have
elements s1 and s2 that are congruent modulo t; otherwise, with s2 = s1 + kt, the
number s2 is in the additive semigroup generated by t and s1 , contrary to the definition
of T . Hence |T | t, making T finite.
Also solved by D. Beckwith, P. Budney, N. Caro (Brazil), R. Chapman (U. K.), P. P. Dalyay (Hungary),
D. Fleischman, O. Geupel (Germany), E. A. Herman, E. J. Ionascu, B. Karaivanov, L. Liptak, O. P. Lossers
(Netherlands), D. J. Lowry, R. Martin (Germany), V. Pambuccian, D. Ritter, J. Schlosberg, J. H. Steelman,
M. Tetiva (Romania), the BSI Problems Group (Germany), the GCHQ Problem Solving Group (U. K.), the
University of Louisiana at Lafayette Math Club, the NSA Problems Group, and the proposer.
A Generating Function for Binary Words

11610 [2011,937]. Proposed by Richard Stanley, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy, Cambridge, MA. Let f (n) be the number of binary words a1 an of length n
that have the same number of pairs ai ai+1 equal to 00 as 01. Show that

!
X
n 1 1 1 + 2t
f (n)t = +p .
n=0
2 1t (1 t)(1 2t)(1 + t + 2t 2 )
Solution by Richard Stong, Center for Communications Research, San Diego, CA. Let
ak,n count the n-words with k occurrences of 00 and 01 that end with 0, and let bk,n
count those that end with 1. With k occurrences of 01, words counted by ak,n have
k + 1 runs of 0s. They arise from the alternating word 010 10 of length 2k + 1 by
k insertions of a 0 before the beginning of a 0-run and n 3k 1 insertions of a 1
before the beginning of a 0-run. Since the number of available locations is k + 1 and
the resulting words aredetermined by how many insertions go into each location, we
have ak,n = 2kk n2k1 , where uk is 0 when u < k. Thus

k
X
X

n
ak,m+3k+1 t m+3k+1
X X
ak,n t =
n=1 k=0 k=0 m=0
X
2k m + k m+3k+1 X 2k t 3k+1
X
= t = . (1)
k=0 m=0
k k k=0
k (1 t)k+1
Similarly, a word counted by bk,n arises from the alternating word 01 01 of length
2k by k insertions of 0 and n 3k insertions
n2k of 1, again before the starts of 0-runs.
Hence for k > 0 we have bn,k = 2k1 k k
, so
X X X
2k 1 m + k m+3k

bk,n t n = bk,m+3k t m+3k =
X X X
t
n=1 k=1 k=1 m=0 k=1 m=0
k1 k

2k 1 t 3k 1 2k t 3k
X X
= = . (2)
k=1
k1 (1 t)k+1 k=1
2 k (1 t)k+1
Since b0,n = 1 for n > 0 and f (0) = 1, the desired generating function
P is obtained
2k
k
by summing (1), (2), and 1/(1 t). Using the well-known expression k=0 k x =
(1 4x)1/2 with x = t 3 /(1 t), we have

" !#
X
n 1 t 1 1
f (n)t = 1+ p + 1 ,
1t 1 4t 3 /(1 t) 2 1 4t 3 /(1 t)
p
n=0
which equals the desired expression.

Also solved by D. Beckwith, R. Chapman (U. K.), O. Geupel (Germany), K. W. Lau (China), O. P. Lossers
(Netherlands), C. R. Pranesachar (India), M. A. Prasad (India), E. Schmeichel, R. Tauraso (Italy), GCHQ
Problem Solving Group (U. K.), and the proposer.
Continuous and Differentiable

11617 [2012, 68]. Proposed by Greg Oman, University of Colorado at Colorado
Springs, Colorado Springs, CO. Let C be the ring of continuous functions on R,
equipped with pointwise addition and pointwise multiplication. Let D be the ring of
differentiable functions on R, equipped with the same addition and multiplication. The
ring identity in both cases is the function f 1 on R that sends every real number to 1. Is
there a subring E of D, containing f 1 , that is isomorphic to C? (The ring isomorphism
must carry f 1 to f 1 .)
Solution by the University of Louisiana at Lafayette Math Club, Lafayette, LA. There
is no such subring. The existence of E would imply the existence of an injective ring
homomorphism from C to D. However, we show that any ring homomorphism from
C to D maps every function to a constant function.
Let : C D be a ring homomorphism. If f C is positive, then f is continu-
ous, and hence ( f ) = (( f )2 ) = (( f ))2 0. Thus, maps positive functions
to positive functions. For a given function f C, define its positive and negative
parts f + and f by f + (x) = max{ f (x), 0} and f (x) = max{ f (x), 0}, respectively.
These functions satisfy
(1) f = f + f ,
(2) f + 0 and f 0, and
(3) f + f = 0.
These three properties determine f + and f uniquely. From (1) and the linearity of ,
we obtain ( f ) = ( f + ) ( f ). From (3), we have ( f + ) ( f ) = ( f + f ) =
(0) = 0. It follows that ( f + ) = (( f ))+ and ( f ) = (( f )) . That is, maps
the positive part of a function to the positive part of its image. Finally, maps the
constant function 1 to itself.
Now set g = ( f ), and suppose that g 0 (t0 ) 6 = 0 for some t0 R. Now ( f
g(t0 )) = g g(t0 ), and hence (( f g(t0 ))+ ) = (g g(t0 ))+ D. Since g 0 (t0 ) 6 = 0,
the function (g g(t0 )) changes sign at t0 . Thus, one of the two one-sided limits
limtt + (g(t)g(t
tt0
0 ))+
and limtt (g(t)g(t
tt0
0 ))+
is 0, and the other is g 0 (t0 ). This means
0 0
that (g(t) g(t0 ))+ is not differentiable at t0 which contradicts (g g(t0 ))+ D.
Hence g 0 (t) = 0 for all t (R), and we conclude that ( f ) is a constant function.
That is, the image of consists only of constant functions. In particular, is not
injective.
Minimize a Functional
11618 [2012, 68]. Proposed by Pal Peter Dalyay, Szeged, Hungary. Let a, b, c, and d
be real numbers such that a < c < d < b and b a = 2(d c). Let S be the set of
twice-differentiable functionsR from [a, b] to R with continuous second derivative such
b
that f (c) = f (d) = 0 and x=a f (x) d x 6 = 0. Let p be a real number with p > 1.
Show that the map from S to R given by
R b 00
| f (x)| p d x
( f ) = aR p
b
a f (x) d x

attains a minimum on S, and find that minimum in terms of p, a, b, c, d.

Solution by Omran Kouba, Higher Institute for Applied Sciences and Technology,
Damascas, Syria. We prove that the answer is
p1
3 + 2/( p 1)

min{( f ) : f S} = 2 .
(c a)3+2/( p1) + (b d)3+2/( p1)
Write = 2c a = 2d b (c, d). Note that (c a)2 (c )2 = 0 = (d )2
(d b)2 . Define a function h : [a, b] R+ by

2
(x a) , if a x < c,

h(x) = (x )2 , if c x < d,
(x b)2 , if d x b.

The function h is continuous on [a, b]. Integration by parts shows that if f S, then
Z b
c d b
h(x) f 00 (x) d x = (x a)2 f 0 (x) a + (x )2 f 0 (x) c + (x b)2 f 0 (x) d

a
Z c Z d Z b
2 (x a) f (x) d x 2
0
(x ) f (x) d x 2
0
(x b) f 0 (x) d x
a c d
= (c a)2 (c )2 f 0 (c) + (d )2 (d b)2 f 0 (d)

2 [(x a) f (x)]ac 2 [(x ) f (x)]dc 2 [(x b) f (x)]bd

Z c Z d Z b Z b
+2 f (x) d x + 2 f (x) d x + 2 f (x) d x = 2 f (x) d x.
a c d a
Now set q = p/( p 1) and apply Holders inequality to obtain

Z b Z b Z b 1/qZ b 1/ p
q p
2 f (x) d x = h(x) f (x) d x (h(x)) d x | f (x)| d x ,
00
00

a a a a
with equality if f 00 is nonnegative and ( f 00 (x)) p is proportional to (h(x))q ; that is, if

f 00 = Ah q1 for some positive A. For example, we have equality if f = f 0 = H + L,
where

2q 2q1
(x a) + 4q(c a)
(c x) if a x < c,
H (x) = |x | 2q
if c x < d,
(b x)2q + 4q(b d)2q1 (x d) if d x b,

and
cx x d
(b d)2q +
L(x) = (c a)2q .
d c d c
We may therefore conclude that
Z b p/q
q
( f ) 2 p h(x) d x ,
a
with equality when f is proportional to f 0 . However,

Z b
q 1
h(x) d x = (c a)2q+1 + ( c)2q+1 + (d )2q+1 + (b d)2q+1

a 2q + 1
2
(c a)2q+1 + (b d)2q+1 .

=
2q + 1

Hence,
p1
2q + 1

min{( f ) : f S} = 2 ,
(c a)2q+1 + (b d)2q+1
where q = p/( p 1). This is the desired conclusion.
Editorial comment. R. Stong provided a computation for the more general case without
the condition b a = 2(d c).
Also solved by R. Bagby, P. Bracken, R. Chapman (U. K.), O. P. Lossers (Netherlands), R. Stong, and the
proposer.
Completely Invertible Matrices

11619 [2012, 69]. Proposed by Proposed by Christopher Hillar, Mathematical Re-
search Sciences Institute, Berkeley, CA. Given an n n complex matrix A, its field of
values F (A) is given by
F (A) = {x Ax : x x = 1}.
(Here x is the conjugate transpose of x.) Call a matrix A completely invertible if 0
is not an element of F (A). Prove that if A is completely invertible, then A1 is also
completely invertible.
Solution by Erik I. Verriest, Atlanta, GA. If A is singular, then Ax = 0 for some unit
(nonzero) vector x. Thus x Ax = 0, and A cannot be completely invertible. Thus, if
A is completely invertible, then A1 exists.
If A1 is not completely invertible, then y A1 y = 0 for some unit vector y. Letting
x = A1 y, we have y = Ax 6 = 0, and x is a nonzero vector. Hence
0 = y A1 y = (Ax) A1 (Ax) = x Ax.
This implies that z Az = 0, where z = x/kxk is a unit vector, a contradiction to A
being completely invertible.
Also solved by M. Angelelli (Italy), R. Bagby, R. Chapman (U. K.), D. Constales (Belgium), P. P. Dalyay
(Hungary), O. Geupel (Germany), J.-P. Grivaux (France), L. Han, E. A. Herman, B. Karaivanov, J. C. Kief-
fer, O. Kouba (Syria), O. P. Lossers (Netherlands), B. Parsons, N. C. Singer, R. Stong, J. Stuart, T. Viteam
(Germany), GCHQ Problem Solving Group (U. K), and the proposer.
Medians and Symmedians

11622 [2012, 161]. Proposed by Oleh Faynshteyn, Leipzig, Germany. In triangle ABC,
let A1 , B1 , C1 be the points opposite A, B, C at which symmedians of the triangle
meet the opposite sides. Prove that
m a (c cos 1 b cos 2 ) + m b (a cos 1 c cos 2 ) + m c (b cos 1 a cos 2 ) = 0,
m a (sin 1 sin 2 ) + m b (sin 1 sin 2 ) + m c (sin 1 sin 2 ) = 0, and
m a (cos 1 + cos 2 ) + m b (cos 1 + cos 2 ) + m c (cos 1 + cos 2 ) = 3s,
where a, b, c are the lengths of the sides, m a , m b , m c are the lengths of the medians, s
is the semiperimeter, 1 = CAA1 , 2 = A1 AB, and similarly with the j and j .
Solution by Borislav Karaivanov, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. Let A0 ,
B0 , and C0 be the points where the medians m a , m b , and m c meet the sides a, b, and
c, respectively. Let , , and be the angles at the vertices A, B, and C, and let R be

the circumradius. Since the angle between the symmedian and the angle bisector at a
given vertex equals the angle between the median and the angle bisector at that vertex,
we see that 1 = CAA1 = BAA0 , 2 = BAA1 = CAA0 , and symmetrically for
j and j . From this point on, the symmedians play no role in the proof and we view
the angles j , j , and j as angles between the sides and the medians.
According to the law of cosines in 1ABA0 and 1ACA0 , we have a 2 /4 = m a2 + c2
2m a c cos 1 and a 2 /4 = m a2 + b2 2m a b cos 2 . Hence m a (c cos 1 b cos 2 ) =
1 2
2
(c b2 ). Adding this and the symmetric identities m b (a cos 1 c cos 2 ) =
1
2
(a 2 c2 ) and m c (b cos 1 a cos 2 ) = 21 (b2 a 2 ) gives the first desired identity
m a (c cos 1 b cos 2 ) + m b (a cos 1 c cos 2 ) + m c (b cos 1 a cos 2 ) = 0.
According to the law of sines in 1ABA0 and 1ACA0 , we have 2m a sin 1 = a sin
and 2m a sin 2 = a sin . From these and the formula a = 2R sin , we find that
m a (sin 1 sin 2 ) = R sin (sin sin ). Adding this and the symmetric identi-
ties yields the second desired identity
m a (sin 1 sin 2 ) + m b (sin 1 sin 2 ) + m c (sin 1 sin 2 ) = 0.
Using the law of cosines as in the first identity and Appolonius Theorem m a2 = b2 /2 +
c2 /2 a 2 /4, we obtain
1 a2 b2 + 3c2 a 2

2 2
m a cos 1 = ma + c = .
2c 4 4c
a 2 +3c2 b2
Adding the symmetric formula m b cos 2 = 4c
yields
3c
m a cos 1 + m b cos 2 = .
2
Adding this and the symmetric identities, we obtain the third desired identity
m a (cos 1 + cos 2 ) + m b (cos 1 + cos 2 ) + m c (cos 1 + cos 2 ) = 3s.
Also solved by M. Bataille (France), R. Chapman (U. K.), P. P. Dalyay (Hungary), P. De (India), D. Fleischman,
V. V. Garca (Spain), O. Geupel (Germany), M. Goldenberg & M. Kaplan, A. Habil (Syria), J. G. Heuver
(Canada), O. Kouba (Syria), P. Nuesch (Switzerland), C. R. Pranesachar (India), R. Stong, Z. Voros (Hungary),
GCHQ Problem Solving Group (U. K.), and the proposer.
A Clopen Family
11627 [2012, 162]. Proposed by Samuel Alexander, The Ohio State University, Colum-
bus, Ohio. Let N be the set of nonnegative integers. Let M be the set of all functions
from N to N. For a function f 0 from an interval [0, m] in N to N, say that f extends f 0
if f (n) = f 0 (n) for 0 k m. Let F( f 0 ) be the set of all extensions in M of f 0 , and
equip M with the topology in which the open sets of M are unions of sets of the form
F( f 0 ). Thus, { f M : f (0) = 7 and f (1) = 11} is an open set.
Let S be a proper subset of M that can be expressed both as iN jN X i, j and as
S T
jN Yi, j , where each set X i, j or Yi, j is a subset of M that is both closed and open
T S
iN
(clopen). Show that there is a family Z i, j of clopen sets such that S = iN jN Z i, j
S T
and S = iN jN Z i, j .
T S
Solution by Richard Stong, San Diego, CA. We apply the lemma below once for each
i N. Given i, take A j = X i, j and B j = Yi, j . The lemma then yields {Ck }kN and

{Dk }kN for this value of i; let Z 2i,k = Ck and Z 2i+1,k = Dk . The conclusion of the
lemma then states
\ \ \ [ [ [
Z 2i,k Z 2i+1,k = X i, j , Z 2i,k Z 2i+1,k = Yi, j .
k k j k k j
Thus
[\ [\ \[ \[
Z i,k = X i, j = S, Z i,k = Yi, j = S.
i k i j i k i j
Lemma. Let X be a metric space. If {A j } jN and {B j } jN are countable families of

clopen sets in X , then there are countable families {Ck }kN and {Dk }kN of clopen sets
in X such that
\ \ \ [ [ [
Ck Dk = A j and Ck Dk = Bj.
k k j k k j
Proof. Let {Ck }kN be the union of the families {A j } jN and {A j B j } jN , and let
{Dk }kN be the union of the families {B j } jN and {A j B j } jN . Now
\ \
Ck = Aj,
k j
since every Ck contains some A j and the A j are among the Ck . Also
\ \ \ \
Dk = Aj Bj Aj.
k j j j
Therefore,
\ \ \
Ck Dk = Aj.
k k j
Next,
[ [
Dk = Bj,
k j
since every Dk is contained in some B j and the B j are among the Dk . Also
[ [ [ [
Ck = Aj Bj Bj.
k j j j
Therefore,
[ [ [
Ck Dk = Bj.
k k j
Also solved by the proposer.

REVIEWS
Edited by Jeffrey Nunemacher
Mathematics and Computer Science, Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, OH 43015
Real Analysis Through Modern Infinitesimals. By Nader Vakil. Cambridge University Press,
2011, xix + 565 pp., ISBN 978-1-107-00202-9, $127.00.
Reviewed by James M. Henle and Michael G. Henle
A little over fifty years ago, Abraham Robinson discovered and developed a new ap-
proach to analysis [11]. It was both a beautiful application of mathematical logic and
an epochal moment in the history of mathematics. For thousands of years, humans had
disputed the existence, relevance, and consistency of infinite and infinitesimal num-
bers. Robinsons construction clearly demonstrated their consistency. Some thought it
might settle the remaining questions and revolutionize analysis all the way from the
teaching of calculus to the frontiers of research.
The way has not been smooth, however. An issue with such a long history is not eas-
ily resolved. Standing at times against infinitesimals are Aristotle, the Catholic Church,
Berkeley, Gauss, DeMorgan, Kronecker, and Archimedes. Standing at times in favor
are Democritus, Cavalieri, Leibniz, Euler, Cantor, and Archimedes. The disputes then
and now are fundamental: variously mathematical, philosophical, and pedagogical.
Views on them are sometimes keenly felt.
Its not clear that any of these questions have been resolved. Mathematicians still
face a spectrum of versions of the real numbers, from the constructive real numbers of
Bishop and Bridges [3], based on well-known criticisms of classical mathematics, to
the nonstandard reals, including infinitesimals, whose existence rests on the Axiom of
Choice. In the middle, of course, are the classical real numbers of Cauchy, Dedekind,
and Cantor.
The book under review is a text on nonstandard analysis, the name most commonly
given to the field pioneered by Robinson, and which we abbreviate NSA. The publica-
tion of this book seemed to us an occasion to reflect on the promises and controversies
of NSA as well as its current state, both of which are of interest to more than specialists
in analysis.
We start by discussing the field at the research end, move to its place in the curricu-
lum, and then to philosophical or sectarian issues. There are interesting developments.
There are ironies. As we proceed, we are assisted by a longish list of mathematicians
whom we polled on the present and future state of NSA. Our correspondents repre-
sent a spectrum of views, but cant be considered responsible for our observations
and conclusions. So heated has the discourse on these issues been at times that some
correspondents opted for anonymity. Weve decided to treat all their responses as con-
fidential. We return to Vakils book at the end.
Those who would like a quick overview of nonstandard analysis might look at the
Wikipedia article [15]. The parallel article on constructivism [14] may also be of inter-
est. Full disclosure: We have both written on this subject ([6], [7]), but are not attached
December 2013] REVIEWS 949

to a particular point of view. We admire both the constructive reals and the nonstandard
reals. We are small c catholics.
1. NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS IN RESEARCH. While NSA has advanced, it

hasnt prospered. Our correspondents say variously:
Nonstandard methods as a research tool do not seem to have fulfilled the initial
expectations,
Nonstandard analysis continues to be successfully used to make advances in vari-
ous areas of mathematics,
It has become a technically very highly evolved field of its own but has not trans-
formed those parts of mathematics where it could change the traditional way of
thinking.
One researcher notes that fifty years out, there is still no journal for NSA pa-
pers. There are subject classification numbers, though, 26E35 (nonstandard analysis),
28E05 (nonstandard measure theory), and 11U10 (nonstandard arithmetic), as well as
the more logic-oriented 03Hxx (nonstandard models). But the number of papers has
not swelled. Items in the MathSci database with primary or secondary classification
26E35 went from 107 in the period 19801990 to 70 in 19902000 to 102 in 2000
2010. The numbers for 28E05 are similar. Including 11U10, 03H05, and 03H15 still
nets only 193 listings (with likely duplications) between 2000 and 2010.
Our correspondents point to the use of nonstandard methods in number theory by
Renling Jin, in Lie algebras by Isaac Goldbring, in topology by Peter Loeb, and also to
recent blogs on NSA by Terence Tao [13]. The field is certainly alive. But, as our first
irony, standard analysis, while a vastly larger enterprise, is not what it used to be either.
In 1980, almost 14% of mathematics dissertations (118) were in analysis. In 2010 there
were almost as many dissertations (102), but that figure constitutes a little over 6% of
all dissertations. No other area (e.g., algebra, geometry/topology, probability/statistics)
has suffered a similar decline.1 Thus NSA not only must battle its own demons, but
those of analysis as a whole, namely the tremendous growth in recent decades of its
arch-rival, discrete mathematics.
2. NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS IN EDUCATION. Our correspondents respon-

ses, when asked about the importance of exposing math majors and/or graduate stu-
dents to nonstandard ideas and methods, ranged from disinterest to enthusiasm.
Grad students should at least know about the major issues about axiomatics, foun-
dations, and models.
I wouldnt consider it educational malpractice for a graduate program in analysis
not to cover this.
They should at least be aware of its availability to attack mathematical problems
they may have.
On constructive mathematics, there is a similar range of opinion. The most common
view of NSA is that it should be an option. Vakils book would be appropriate for such
an option.
1 The 1980 figures do not have a separate category for differential equations. Perhaps the perceived decline
in analysis is just a change in classification, removing differential equations from analysis. But in the year of
the change, 1994, analysis fell only slightly, from 140 to 127, while the number of applied dissertations fell
dramatically, from 188 to 106. Most probably, differential equations were previously classified with applied
mathematics.

The undoubted flashpoint in the curriculum remains the calculus. NSA was orig-
inally promoted for the teaching of calculus for two reasons. First, the language of
infinitesimals brings calculus back to Leibniz ideas and reflects the way scientists, es-
pecially physicists, talk about the subject. The use of infinitesimals, it is argued, could
improve conceptual understanding. Second, if we can get past the justification for a hy-
perreal number system, the theoretical development of calculus is greatly simplified.
Infinitesimals make possible considerably easier definitions and proofs.
Initial response from the mathematical public was opposition and/or disinterest.
Notable opposition came from constructivists who, far from wanting to see the set
of real numbers expand, wanted to see it contract [3]. Disinterest was evident in the
inertia of the vast body of calculus instructors.
The most concerted effort to change the way calculus was taught was the text by
Jerome Keisler [8], which appeared in 1976. Keisler avoided excessive logical machin-
ery by adopting a set of axioms governing the real numbers and the hyperreal numbers.
He exploited the infinitesimal perspective with artful microscope illustrations. The
Bulletin of the AMS, rather unfairly, gave constructivist Errett Bishop the opportunity
to review the book [2]. To Bishop, Keislers text was a red flag. His aggressive partisan
review began a period of bad feeling that has faded but not disappeared.
Keislers book did not conquer the market. In retrospect, Bishops review was prob-
ably not the reason. As the calculus reform movement later proved, even a much larger
effort, supported by hundreds of teachers and authors, and funded by the National
Science Foundation, may effect little change. There are, however, several interesting
ironies. The nonstandard approach to theory has not prospered, but neither has the
standard approach. The use of epsilon-delta arguments, never a large part of calculus
courses, has continued to wane. Meanwhile, Keislers microscope may be said to be
reborn with the zoom capability of computer graphics.
Our correspondents have widely divergent views whether infinitesimals are peda-
gogically important.
Some discussion of infinitesimals should be part of the calculus curriculum.
Yes, but on an elementary level.
I do not believe this is an essential topic.
If infinitesimals have not made their way into calculus texts, are there alternatives?
Some of our standard correspondents argue that old-fashioned differentials are really
the best way to frame the calculus. By differentials, they mean the notion of arbitrar-
ily small changes in a given quantity, together with an appropriate notation for them
with many of the formal characteristics of infinitesimals (see, for example, [4]). There
have also been efforts to create infinitesimals that are constructive [10]. Several cor-
respondents referred us to new attempts at presenting infinitesimal approaches. The
infinitesimals inside the surreal numbers were also mentioned.
3. PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES. Here, things become complicated. Robinsons

work shows that the existence of hyperreal systems is consistent, relative to the
existence of the real number system, but this leaves most issues open. Some mathe-
maticians still question the consistency of the real numbers. Some question whether
consistency alone is enough to allow mathematics to proceed. Others have concerns
about the actual existence of any numbers.
Many criticisms of NSA center on the non-constructive nature of a hyperreal line.
While it is true that many individual, standard real numbers are not constructive,
nonetheless, as a set, the reals have a clear, canonical definition. The hyperreals do not
have a corresponding canonical definition. Even their cardinality is negotiable. The

Axiom of Choice is needed to guarantee the existence of a hyperreal system. Choice-
less, quasi-nonstandard models exist (see, for example, [13] and [5]) but these lack the
full transfer principle that allows us to move easily between the larger system and the
real numbers. Ironically, while mathematicians and philosophers argue about the exis-
tence of infinite numbers and infinite sets of numbers, the vast majority of computation
today uses a finite set of finite numbers of finite precision.
Philosophically, our correspondents are, naturally, of several minds.
I am a Die-Hard Platonist.
I am not a constructivist, but I am a constructivist sympathizer.
I have more or less Platonic views, but I am aware of the fact that these views can
be challenged.
Im largely a Platonist . . . somewhat a social constructivist.
Basically I think philosophy and mathematics need to be divorced.
Regardless of philosophy, they have thought seriously about the issues.
Dedekinds numbers are neither real nor unique.
The fact that standard numbers do not exhaust the continuum is important.
The notion infinitely large as a qualitative notion is grounded in phenomena as
is the notion of potential infinity. Actual infinity is an ungrounded idea.
It is exasperating to hear [of] trained mathematicians convinced that infinitesimals
dont exist.
Working mathematicians, of course, can easily ignore questions about infinity, but
issues persist and cause troubles from the edge of research to the calculus classroom.
Puzzles and paradoxes old enough to be known to Zeno of Elea remain unresolved.
As we use mathematics more and more intensively to describe the world in which
we live, what is the answer to the obvious question: Which mathematical continuum
best corresponds to real, physical space? Is distance measured by the decimals of high
school mathematics? Or by the constructive reals? Are there infinitesimals? In fact, it
isnt even known if the physical continuum is infiniteor a continuum at all. Half of
Zenos paradoxes argue against a positive answer. The others argue against a negative
one. Physics began life as a branch of philosophy. In a sense, it still is.
4. A NEW TEXT IN ANALYSIS. We return, finally, to the book under review. Real
Analysis Through Modern Infinitesimals is not written to grow nonstandard analysts.
Rather, it implements the principle that a subject should be pursued by all effective
means, implying there should be textbooks that introduce and develop analysis with
nonstandard as well as standard methods.
While at one time it was thought that all the results of NSA could be duplicated
by standard methods, an argument can be made that this is no longer the case. The
framework for Vakils book is Nelsons internal set theory (IST). IST is an extension
of ZermeloFraenkel set theory with choice (ZFC)the system in which all standard
mathematics is done. IST has, in Vakils words, features that ZFC lacks. He points
out that IST can express properties of the reals, function spaces, and so on, that cant be
described in ZFC. Work with these properties has produced new results in functional
analysis, stochastic analysis, and many areas of applied analysis [9].
Vakils text is appropriate for advanced undergraduates and beginning graduate stu-
dents. The first two chapters introduce the reader to IST and the resulting number line.
Chapters 39 contain the elements of calculus and advanced calculus; this is Part I.
Part II deals with real analysis, topology, metric spaces, linear operators, and function

spaces. The theorems of analysis covered here are not controversial, or even particu-
larly advanced. All of them might well be seen and studied by a good undergraduate,
someone who had a solid course in Foundations of Analysis (from [1], say) for Part I,
and a follow-up course (based perhaps on [12]) for Part II. What is strikingly different
about Vakils treatment, of course, is that the proofs are nonstandard.
Real Analysis Through Modern Infinitesimals intends to be used and to be useful.
Nonstandard methods are deployed alongside standard methods. The emphasis is on
bringing all tools to bear on questions of analysis. The exercises are interesting and
abundant. Our only regret is that more advanced contributions of nonstandard analysis,
for example, to measure theory and to Brownian motion are not covered, particularly
the Loeb measure.
REFERENCES
1. S. Abbott, Understanding Analysis, Springer, New York, 2001.

2. E. Bishop, Review: H. Jerome Keisler, Elementary Calculus, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 83 (1977) 205
208, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9904-1977-14264-X.
3. E. Bishop, D. Bridges, Constructive Analysis, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985.
4. T. Dray, C. Manogue, Putting Differentials Back into Calculus, College Math. J. 41 (2010) 90100.
5. J. M. Henle, Non-nonstandard analysis: real infinitesimals, The Mathematical Intelligencer, 21(1)
(1999) 6773, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03024834.
6. J. M. Henle and E. M. Kleinberg, Infinitesimal Calculus, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1979.
7. M. Henle, Which Numbers Are Real?, Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 2012.
8. J. Keisler, Elementary Calculus, An Infinitesimal Approach, Prindle, Weber, and Schmidt, Boston, 1976,
1986, and Dover, Minneola, NY, 2012.
9. Nonstandard Analysis for the Working Mathematician, Edited by P. Loeb and Manfred Wolff. Klewer
Academic, Norwell, MA, 2000.
10. E. Palmgren, A constructive approach to nonstandard analysis, Ann. of Pure and Applied Logic, 73
(1995) 297325.
11. A. Robinson, Non-Standard Analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1966.
12. G. F. Simmons, Introduction to Topology and Modern Analysis, Krieger Publishing, Malabar, FL, 2003.
13. T. Tao, Whats New, available at http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/a-cheap-
version-of-nonstandard-analysis/.
14. Wikipedia Commons, Constructivism, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, available at http://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(mathematics).
15. Wikipedia Commons, Non-standard analysis, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, available at http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_analysis.

EDITORS ENDNOTES
The following was submitted to us by Rolfdieter Frank and Harald Riede.

We would like to add an important reference for our article Hyperplane Sections of
the n-Dimensional Cube (Vol. 119, No.10, December 2012): J. L. Marichal and M. J.
Mossinghoff, Slices, slabs, and sections of the unit hypercube, Online Journal of
Analytical Combinatorics, January 2008. The authors derive several volume formulas
for sections of the hypercube. In particular, they obtain an elementary formula for
arbitrary hyperplane sections, which is equivalent to the formula in our article. Their
references include a number of papers where similar formulas have come up, dating to
Polyas thesis in 1912.
Thomas H. Foregger offers the following comment about the paper A new proof of a
classical formula, by Habib Bin Muzaffar (Vol. 120, No. 4, April 2013).
Another simple proof of this result can be found in
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2320072.pdf
which uses just a mean value theorem for integrals.
Gerald Folland offers the following observation about the filler piece Differentiat-
ing Iteratively, by Philip Mummert and Ken Constantine (Vol. 120, No. 6, JuneJuly
2013).
As a point of information: This theorem is an exercise in Section 2.3 (p. 70) of my
book Advanced Calculus (Prentice Hall, 2002), and the proof is the one suggested in
my hint. I agree, this observation deserves to be more widely known.
With respect to the same filler piece, Gerry Bilodeau offers the following.
Two papers closely related to this filler piece are An exponential rule, College
Mathematics Journal (September 1993), pp. 350351 (with a similar narrative al-
though a different proof) and in Logarithmic differentiation: two wrongs make a
right, College Mathematics Journal (November 2004), pp. 388390. Both appeared
in the Calculus Collection, Mathematical Association of America, 2010.
We received the following comments from Robin Chapman concerning the paper A
Probabilistic Proof of a Binomial Identity, by Jonathon Peterson (Vol. 120, No. 6,
JuneJuly 2013).
I very much enjoyed this article about applying conditional probability to prove this
identity. The author observes that the ChuVandermonde identity and the Rice integral

could be used to prove the identity. But surely more natural and elementary methods to
prove this are via partial fractions or via the calculus of finite differences. For instance,
expanding
1
x(x + 1)(x + 2) . . . (x + n)
in partial fractions gives the identity immediately (with x in place P of theta). Also,
iterating the operation f (x) 7 f (x) f (x + 1) n times gives nk=0 (1)k nk f (x +
k). Applying this to f (x) = 1/x and using induction also proved the identity. With a
bit more effort, the generalizations in section 3 also yield to finite differences.
The following was submitted by Randy Schwartz regarding the paper Origin and
Evolution of the Secant Method in One Dimension, by Richard Tapia and Joanna
Papakonstantinou, which appeared in the JuneJuly 2013 issue.
The article states that when ancient Egyptians dealt with relationships of the form
ax + b = c, They gave instructions on how to obtain the solution using the relation
x0 e1 x1 e0
x= .
e1 e0
This method for solving for x is now most commonly referred to as the Rule of Double
False Position (p. 508). The authors conclude, . . . the Rule of Double False Position
dates back to the 18th century BC. . . (pp. 512513). In fact, however, no instance
of any double false position technique being used in ancient Egypt, with or without
instructions, is known to exist. The problems from Smeur cited on 508509 are not
from Egypt but from J. van der Schueres arithmetic from Haarlem in 1611 AD.
The article also leaves readers with the impression that isab al-khaaayn (the double
false position method that was transmitted from the Arab world to Europe in medieval
times) might have first reached the Middle East from China and/or India (pp. 509
511). While a double false position method was certainly used in Chinese antiquity,
it was so different from the Arab method that this is not likely an instance of borrow-
ing, as I showed in detail in a 2004 paper (Issues in the origin and development of
isab al-Khaaayn (calculation by double false position), Actes du Huitieme Colloque
Maghrebin sur lHistoire des Mathematiques Arabes, Tunis, les 18-19-20 Decembre
2004 (Tunis: Tunisian Association of Mathematical Sciences, 2006), pp. 275296).
Professors Papakonstantinou and Tapia offer the following response.
We thank Professor Schwartz for his interest in our recent paper. Moreover, we
view him as an expert in the history of the rule of double false position and in the
general area of Arab and Islamic contributions to science. Our two statements brought
into question by Professor Schwartz were made as considered opinions based on our
readings. However, the situation could well be exactly as Professor Schwartz has de-
scribed. The establishment of correct history is often far more challenging than is the
establishment of correct mathematics.
Jose Hernandez Santia offers the following observations about the paper Variations on
a theme: Rings satisfying x 3 = x are commutative by Stephen Buckley and Desmond
MacHale, which appeared in the May 2013 issue.
December 2013] EDITORS ENDNOTES 955

In the introduction to the paper, its authors mentioned that Herstein is said to have
remarked that one exercise in his book gave rise to more correspondence from the
readers than all other items put together . . . . Then, they added that the exercise that
originated such an amount of correspondence from the readers of the Topics in Algebra
was exercise *19 (throughout the letter, we stick to the numbering of exercises in
the second edition of the book [2]) in section 3.4 (Ideals and quotient rings): Let R
be a ring in which x 3 = x for every x in R. Prove that R is a commutative ring.
Certainly, this relationship between the exercise to which the article was devoted and
the aforementioned claim of the late Prof. Herstein may have caught the imagination
of many a reader of the latest issue of the M ONTHLY. Nevertheless, it has to be noted
that it actually was exercise **26 of section 2.5 (A counting principle) that gave rise
to the amount of correspondence which bedazzled Prof. Herstein. This exercise **26
asks for a proof of the following assertion: If a commutative group G has subgroups
of order m and n, respectively, then it also has a subgroup whose order is the least
common multiple of m and n. In [2, p.48], Prof. Herstein would insert the following
comment just below the statement of the exercise: Dont be discouraged if you dont
get this problem with what you know up to this stage. I dont know anybody, including
myself, who has done it subject to the restriction of using material developed so far
in the text. But it is fun to try. Ive had more correspondence about this problem than
about any other point in the whole book. Incidentally, a solution to exercise **26,
using only the tools that Prof. Herstein would have approved of, was featured in the
December 2009 issue of the M ONTHLY (see [1]).
REFERENCES
1. R. Beals, On orders of subgroups in abelian groups: An elementary solution of an exercise of Herstein.

Amer. Math. Monthly 10 (2009). 923-926.
2. I. N. Herstein, Topics in Algebra. Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, 1975.
Scott T. Chapman, Editor

I NDEX TO VOLUME 120, 2013
T HE A MERICAN M ATHEMATICAL M ONTHLY
T ITLE I NDEX
Another Irreducibility Criterion, Anthony J. Foreword: The High Priest of Game Theory,
Bevelacqua, 648 Ehud Kalai, 384
Another Proof for Non-Supercyclicity in Finite Frobenius Result on Simple Groups of Order
Dimensional Complex Banach Spaces, F. p3 p
2
, Paul Monsky, 725
Galaz-Fontes, 466 From Pascals Theorem to d-Constructible
Another Proof of (2) = 6 Using Double
2
Curves, Will Traves, 901
Integrals, Daniele Ritelli, 642 Generalization of Rouths Triangle Theorem,
Binomial Identity via Differential Equations, A, Arpad Benyi and Branko Curgus, 841
A, D. Aharonov and U. Elias, 462 Generalization of the Leibniz Rule, A, Ulrich
BorsukUlam Equivalent that Directly Abel, 924
Implies Sperners Lemma, A, Kathryn Geometric Multiplicities and Gersgorin Discs,
L. Nyman and Francis Edward Su, Rachid Marsli and Frank J. Hall, 452
346 Greedy Galois Games, Joshua Cooper and
Buoyancy-Driven Perpetual Motion Machine, Aaron Dutle, 441
A, Tadashi Tokieda, 564 Heronian Tetrahedra Are Lattice Tetrahedra,
Certain Inequalities Associated with the Susan H. Marshall and Alexander R. Perlis,
Divisor Function, Jorge Luis Cimadevilla 140
Villacorta, 832 Higher-Dimensional Analogues of the Map
Christianes Hair, Jacques Levy Vehel and Coloring Problem, Bhaskar Bagchi and
Franklin Mendivil, 771 Basudeb Datta, 733
Class of Continued Radicals, A, Costas J. History of the Undergraduate Program in
Efthimiou, 459 Mathematics in the United States, The, Alan
College Admissions and the Stability of Tucker, 689
Marriage, D. Gale and L. S. Shapley, 386 How would Riemann Evaluate (2n)? Marco
Commuting and Noncommuting Infinitesimals, Dalai, 169
Mikhail G. Katz and Eric Leichtnam, 631 Identities for sin x that Came from Medical
Coxeter Friezes and Triangulations of Imaging, Peter Kuchment and Sergey Lvin,
Polygons, Claire-Soizic Henry, 553 609
Cuoco Configuration, The, Roger E. Howe, Illuminating a Network from Its Nodes, Steve
916 Alpern and Robbert Fokkink, 358
Direct Proof of the Existence of Eigenvalues Inequalities for Gamma Function Ratios,
and Eigenvectors by Weierstrasss Theorem, G. J. O. Jameson, 936
A, Jean Van Schaftingen, 741 Intersecting Curves (Variation on an
Equation x 2 + m y 2 = k in Z/ pZ, The, Kurt Observation of Maxim Kontsevich), Etienne
Girstmair, 546 Ghys, 232
Euclidean Algorithm and the Linear Irreducible Factorization Lengths and the
Diophantine Equation ax + by = gcd(a, b), Elasticity Problem within N, Matthew
The, S. A. Rankin, 562 Jenssen, Daniel Montealegre, and Vadim
Evolutes and Involutes of Spatial Curves, Ponomarenko, 322
Dmitry Fuchs, 217 Lehmers Interesting Series, Freeman J. Dyson,
Example of a Monotonic, Everywhere Norman E. Frankel, and M. Lawrence
Differentiable Function on R Whose Glasser, 116
Derivative Is not Continuous, Manas R. Linear Algebra via Complex Analysis,
Sahoo, 566 Alexander P. Campbell and Daniel Daners,
Factorization Theory and Decompositions of 877
Modules, Nicholas R. Baeth and Roger Maximum Principle for High-Order
Wiegand, 3 Derivatives, A, David Pan, 846
December 2013] INDEX TO VOLUME 120 957

Mixing Problems with Many Tanks, Antonn Ramanujans Proof of Bertrands Postulate,
Slavk, 806 Jaban Meher and M. Ram Murty, 650
New Balancing Principles Applied to Real Analysis in Reverse, James Propp, 392
Circumsolids of Revolution, and to Reciprocal Sums as a Knowledge Metric:
n-Dimensional Spheres, Cylindroids, and Theory, Computation, and Perfect Numbers,
Cylindrical Wedges, Tom M. Apostol and Jonathan Bayless and Dominic Klyve, 822
Mamikon A. Mnatsakanian, 298 Rigorous Computer Analysis of the
New Looks at Old Number Theory, Aimeric ChowRobbins Game, Olle Haggstrom and
Malter, Dierk Schleicher, and Don Zagier, Johan Wastlund, 893
243 Roll Models, Tadashi Tokieda, 265
New Proof of a Classical Formula, A, Habib Rubiks on the Torus, Jeremy Alm, Michael
Bin Muzaffar, 355 Gramelspacher, and Theodore Rice, 150
Note on the CauchySchwarz Inequality, A, Seventy-Third William Lowell Putnam
Jim X. Xiang, 456 Mathematical Competition, The, Leonard F.
Nothing New about Equiangular Polygons, Klosinski, Gerald L. Alexanderson, and
Gerhard J. Woeginger, 849 Mark Krusemeyer, 679
N -Person Cake-Cutting: There May Be No Several Proofs of the Irreducibility of the
Perfect Division, Steven J. Brams, Michael Cyclotomic Polynomials, Steven H.
A. Jones, and Christian Klamler, 35 Weintraub, 537
On Moessners Theorem, Dexter Kozen and Short Proof of Rayleighs Theorem with
Alexandra Silva, 131 Extensions, A, Olivier Bernardi, 362
On the Fractional Parts of Roots of Positive Simple Approximation Formulas for the
Real Numbers, Melvyn B. Nathanson, 409 Birthday Problem, Matthias Arnold and
On the Nonexistence of Certain Limits for the Werner Gla, 645
Complex Exponential, Charles S. Kahane, Simple Characterization of Differentiation, A,
837 Wodzimierz Bak, 74
On Unsettleable Arithmetical Problems, John Simple Elementary Proof of Hilberts
H. Conway, 192 Inequality, A, David C. Ullrich, 161
Origin and Evolution of the Secant Method in Simple Proof of Vitalis Theorem for Signed
One Dimension, Joanna M. Measures, A, T. Samuel, 654
Papakonstantinou and Richard A. Tapia, 500 Sneaky Proof of the Maximum Modulus
Paper Surface Geometry, Andrew D. Hwang, Principle, A, Orr Moshe Shalit, 359
487 Solitaire Mancala Games and the Chinese
Parbelos, a Parabolic Analog of the Arbelos, Remainder Theorem, Brant Jones, Laura
The, Jonathan Sondow, 929 Taalman, and Anthony Tongen, 706
Parents of Jacobis Four Squares Theorem Are Stirlings Formula and its Extension for the
Unique, The, Kenneth S. Williams, 329 Gamma Function, Dorin Ervin Dutkay,
Pi, the Primes, Periodicities, and Probability, Constantin P. Niculescu, and Florin
Stephen D. Casey and Brian M. Sadler, 594 Popovici, 737
Polynomial Dynamics and a Proof of the Strong Divisibility, Cyclotomic Polynomials,
Fermat Little Theorem, Vladimir Dragovic, and Iterated Polynomials, Nathan Bliss, Ben
171 Fulan, Stephen Lovett, and Jeff Sommars,
Probabilistic Proof of a Binomial Identity, A, 519
Jonathon Peterson, 558 Subdivision Using Angle Bisectors Is Dense in
Proof that Zeilberger Missed: A New Proof of the Space of Triangles, Steve Butler and
an Identity by Chaundy and Bullard Based Ron Graham, 622
on the WilfZeilberger Method, A, Yi Jun Toward a More Complete List of Completeness
Chen, 69 Axioms, Holger Teismann, 99
Proving the Pythagorean Theorem via Infinite Tractrices, Bicycle Tire Tracks, Hatchet
Dissections, Zsolt Lengvarszky, 751 Planimeters, and a 100-year-old Conjecture,
Quick, Does 23/67 Equal 33/97? A Robert Foote, Mark Levi, and Serge
Mathematicians Secret from Euclid to Tabachnikov, 199
Today, David Pengelley, 867 Transcendence of Generalized Euler Constants,
Quotients of Gaussian Primes, Stephan Ramon M. Ram Murty and Anastasia Zaytseva,
Garcia, 851 48

Twin of a Theorem by Cauchy, The, Aaron x 3 = x Are Commutative, Stephen M.
Melman, 164 Buckley and Desmond MacHale, 430
Use of Symmetry: Generalization of Visual Angular Momentum: Mamikon Meets
an Integral Identity Found by M. L. Kepler, L. P. Withers, Jr., 71
Glasser, A, Vinicius Nicolae Petre Anghel, What to Expect in a Game of Memory, Daniel
62 J. Velleman and Gregory S. Warrington, 787
Using Prediction Market Data to Illustrate When Is L r (R) Contained in L p (R) + L q (R)?
Undergraduate Probability, David J. Aldous, Jean-Baptiste Hiriart-Urruty and Patrice
583 Lassere, 55
Variational Principle and Its Application to Yueh-Gin Gung and Dr. Charles Y. Hu Award
Estimating the Electrical Capacitance of a for 2013 to William A. Hawkins for
Perfect Conductor, A, A. G. Ramm, 747 Distinguished Service to Mathematics, Ann
Variations on a Theme: Rings Satisfying E. Watkins, 295
AUTHOR I NDEX
Abel, Ulrich, A Generalization of the Leibniz Bernardi, Olivier, A Short Proof of Rayleighs
Rule, 924 Theorem with Extensions, 362
Aharonov, D., and U. Elias, A Binomial Bevelacqua, Anthony J., Another Irreducibility
Identity via Differential Equations, 462 Criterion, 648
Aldous, David J., Using Prediction Market Bliss, Nathan, Ben Fulan, Stephen Lovett, and
Data to Illustrate Undergraduate Probability, Jeff Sommars, Strong Divisibility,
583 Cyclotomic Polynomials, and Iterated
Alm, Jeremy, Michael Gramelspacher, and Polynomials, 519
Theodore Rice, Rubiks on the Torus, 150 Brams, Steven J., Michael A. Jones, and
Alexanderson, Gerald, see Klosinski Christian Klamler, N -Person Cake-Cutting:
Alpern, Steve, and Robbert Fokkink, There May Be No Perfect Division,
Illuminating a Network from Its Nodes, 358 35
Anghel, Vinicius Nicolae Petre, A Use of Buckley, Stephen M., and Desmond MacHale,
Symmetry: Generalization of an Integral Variations on a Theme: Rings Satisfying
Identity Found by M. L. Glasser, 62 x 3 = x Are Commutative, 430
Apostol, Tom M., and Mamikon A. Butler, Steve, and Ron Graham, Subdivision
Mnatsakanian, New Balancing Principles Using Angle Bisectors Is Dense in the Space
Applied to Circumsolids of Revolution, and of Triangles, 622
to n-Dimensional Spheres, Cylindroids, and Campbell, Alexander P., and Daniel Daners,
Cylindrical Wedges, 298 Linear Algebra via Complex Analysis, 877
Arnold, Matthias, and Werner Gla, Simple Casey, Stephen D., and Brian M. Sadler, Pi, the
Approximation Formulas for the Birthday Primes, Periodicities, and Probability, 594
Problem, 645 Chen, Yi Jun, A Proof that Zeilberger Missed:
Baeth, Nicholas R., and Roger Wiegand, A New Proof of an Identity by Chaundy and
Factorization Theory and Decompositions of Bullard Based on the WilfZeilberger
Modules, 3 Method, 69
Bagchi, Bhaskar, and Basudeb Datta, Conway, John H., On Unsettleable
Higher-Dimensional Analogues of the Map Arithmetical Problems, 192
Coloring Problem, 733 Cooper, Joshua, and Aaron Dutle, Greedy
Bak, Wodzimierz, A Simple Characterization Galois Games, 441
of Differentiation, 74 Curgus, Branko, see Benyi
Bayless, Jonathan, and Dominic Klyve, Dalai, Marco, How Would Riemann Evaluate
Reciprocal Sums as a Knowledge Metric: (2n)?, 169
Theory, Computation, and Perfect Numbers, Daners, Daniel, see Campbell
822 Datta, Basudeb, see Bagchi
Benyi, Arpad, and Branko Curgus, A Dragovic, Vladimir, Polynomial Dynamics
Generalization of Rouths Triangle and a Proof of the Fermat Little Theorem,
Theorem, 841 171

Dutkay, Dorin Ervin, Constantin P. Niculescu, Jones, Brant, Laura Taalman, and Anthony
and Florin Popovici, Stirlings Formula and Tongen, Solitaire Mancala Games and the
Its Extension for the Gamma Function, 737 Chinese Remainder Theorem, 706
Dutle, Aaron, see Cooper Jones, Michael A., see Brams
Dyson, Freeman J., Norman E. Frankel, and M. Kahane, Charles S., On the Nonexistence of
Lawrence Glasser, Lehmers Interesting Certain Limits for the Complex Exponential,
Series, 116 837
Efthimiou, Costas J., A Class of Continued Kalai, Ehud, Foreword: The High Priest of
Radicals, 459 Game Theory, 384
Elias, U., see Aharonov Katz, Mikhail G., and Eric Leichtnam,
Fokkink, Robbert, see Alpern Commuting and Noncommuting
Foote, Robert, Mark Levi, and Serge Infinitesimals, 631
Tabachnikov, Tractrices, Bicycle Tire Klamler, Christian, see Brams
Tracks, Hatchet Planimeters, and a Klosinski, Leonard F., Gerald L. Alexanderson,
100-year-old Conjecture, 199 and Mark Krusemeyer, The Seventy-Third
Frankel, Norman E., see Dyson William Lowell Putnam Mathematical
Fuchs, Dmitry, Evolutes and Involutes of Competition, 679
Spatial Curves, 217 Klyve, Dominic, see Bayless
Fulan, Ben, see Bliss Kozen, Dexter, and Alexandra Silva, On
Galaz-Fontes, F., Another Proof for Moessners Theorem, 131
Non-Supercyclicity in Finite Dimensional Krusemeyer, Mark, see Klosinski
Complex Banach Spaces, 466 Kuchment, Peter, and Sergey Lvin, Identities
Gale, D., and L. S. Shapley, College for sin x that Came from Medical Imaging,
Admissions and the Stability of Marriage, 609
386 Lassere, Patrice, see Hiriart-Urruty
Garcia, Stephan Ramon, Quotients of Gaussian Leichtnam, Eric, see Katz
Primes, 851 Lengvarszky, Zsolt, Proving the Pythagorean
Ghys, Etienne, Intersecting Curves (Variation Theorem via Infinite Dissections, 751
on an Observation of Maxim Kontsevich), Levi, Mark, see Foote
232 Lovett, Stephen, see Bliss
Girstmair, Kurt, The Equation x 2 + m y 2 = k in Lvin, Sergey, see Kuchment
Z/ pZ, 546 MacHale, Desmond, see Buckley
Gla, Werner, see Arnold Malter, Aimeric, Dierk Schleicher, and Don
Glasser, M. Lawrence, see Dyson Zagier, New Looks at Old Number Theory,
Graham, Ron, see Butler 243
Gramelspacher, Michael, see Alm Marshall, Susan H., and Alexander R. Perlis,
Haggstrom, Olle, and Johan Wastlund, Heronian Tetrahedra Are Lattice Tetrahedra,
Rigorous Computer Analysis of the 140
ChowRobbins Game, 893 Marsli, Rachid, and Frank J. Hall, Geometric
Hall, Frank J., see Marsli Multiplicities and Gersgorin Discs, 452
Henry, Claire-Soizic, Coxeter Friezes and Meher, Jaban, and M. Ram Murty,
Triangulations of Polygons, 553 Ramanujans Proof of Bertrands Postulate,
Hiriart-Urruty, Jean-Baptiste, and Patrice 650
Lassere, When Is L r (R) Contained in Melman, Aaron, The Twin of a Theorem by
L p (R) + L q (R)?, 55 Cauchy, 164
Howe, Roger E., The Cuoco Configuration, Mendivil, Franklin, see Vehel
916 Mnatsakanian, Mamikon A., see Apostol
Hwang, Andrew D., Paper Surface Geometry, Monsky, Paul, Frobenius Result on
3
487 Simple Groups of Order p 2 p ,
Jameson, G. J. O., Inequalities for Gamma 725
Function Ratios, 936 Montealegre, Daniel, see Jenssen
Jenssen, Matthew, Daniel Montealegre, and Murty, M. Ram, and Anastasia Zaytseva,
Vadim Ponomarenko, Irreducible Transcendence of Generalized Euler
Factorization Lengths and the Elasticity Constants, 48
Problem within N, 322 Murty, M. Ram, see Meher

Muzaffar, Habib Bin, A New Proof of a Su, Francis Edward, see Nyman
Classical Formula, 355 Taalman, Laura, see Jones
Nathanson, Melvyn B., On the Fractional Parts Tabachnikov, Serge, see Foote
of Roots of Positive Real Numbers, 409 Tapia, Richard A., see Papakonstantinou
Niculescu, Constantin P., see Dutkay Teismann, Holger, Toward a More Complete
Nyman, Kathryn L., and Francis Edward Su, A List of Completeness Axioms, 99
BorsukUlam Equivalent that Directly Tokieda, Tadashi, A Buoyancy-Driven
Implies Sperners Lemma, 346 Perpetual Motion Machine, 564
Pan, David, A Maximum Principle for Tokieda, Tadashi, Roll Models, 265
High-Order Derivatives, 846 Tongen, Anthony, see Jones
Papakonstantinou, Joanna M., and Richard A. Traves, Will, From Pascals Theorem to
Tapia, Origin and Evolution of the Secant d-Constructible Curves, 901
Method in One Dimension, 500 Tucker, Alan, The History of the
Pengelley, David, Quick, Does 23/67 Equal Undergraduate Program in Mathematics in
33/97? A Mathematicians Secret from the United States, 689
Euclid to Today, 867 Ullrich, David C., A Simple Elementary Proof
Perlis, Alexander R., see Marshall of Hilberts Inequality, 161
Peterson, Jonathon, A Probabilistic Proof of a Van Schaftingen, Jean, A Direct Proof of the
Binomial Identity, 558 Existence of Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors
Ponomarenko, Vadim, see Jenssen by Weierstrasss Theorem, 741
Popovici, Florin, see Dutkay Vehel, Jacques Levy, and Franklin Mendivil,
Propp, James, Real Analysis in Reverse, 392 Christianes Hair, 771
Ramm, A. G., A Variational Principle and Its Velleman, Daniel J., and Gregory S.
Application to Estimating the Electrical Warrington, What to Expect in a Game of
Capacitance of a Perfect Conductor, 747 Memory, 787
Rankin, S. A., The Euclidean Algorithm and Villacorta, Jorge Luis Cimadevilla, Certain
the Linear Diophantine Equation Inequalities Associated with the Divisor
ax + by = gcd(a, b), 562 Function, 832
Rice, Theodore, see Alm Warrington, Gregory S., see Velleman
Ritelli, Daniele, Another Proof of (2) = 6
2
Wastlund, Johan, see Haggstrom
Using Double Integrals, 642 Watkins, Ann E., Yueh-Gin Gung and Dr.
Sadler, Brian M., see Casey Charles Y. Hu Award for 2013 to William A.
Sahoo, Manas R., Example of a Monotonic, Hawkins for Distinguished Service to
Everywhere Differentiable Function on Mathematics, 295
R Whose Derivative Is not Continuous, Weintraub, Steven H., Several Proofs of the
566 Irreducibility of the Cyclotomic
Samuel, T., A Simple Proof of Vitalis Polynomials, 537
Theorem for Signed Measures, 654 Wiegand, Roger, see Baeth
Schleicher, Dierk, see Malter Williams, Kenneth S., The Parents of Jacobis
Shalit, Orr Moshe, A Sneaky Proof of the Four Squares Theorem Are Unique, 329
Maximum Modulus Principle, 359 Withers, Jr., L. P., Visual Angular Momentum:
Shapley, L. S., see Gale Mamikon Meets Kepler, 71
Silva, Alexandra, see Kozen Woeginger, Gerhard J., Nothing New about
Slavk, Antonn, Mixing Problems with Many Equiangular Polygons, 849
Tanks, 806 Xiang, Jim X., A Note on the CauchySchwarz
Sommars, Jeff, see Bliss Inequality, 456
Sondow, Jonathan, The Parbelos, a Parabolic Zagier, Don, see Malter
Analog of the Arbelos, 929 Zaytseva, Anastasia, see Murty

P ROBLEMS P ROPOSED
Adams, Fred, Anthony Bloch, and Jeffrey Holing, Kent, 174, 11694
Lagarias, 855, 11739 Hysnelaj, Enkel, and Elton Bojaxhiu, 175,
Alexander, Samuel, 77, 11688 11696
Aliyev, Yagub N., 77, 11689 Ioanascu, Eugen, and Richard Stong, 174,
Alt, Arkady, 570, 11718 11693
Anghel, Nicolae, 660, 11719 King, L.R., 661, 11723
Aslanyan, Vahagn, 854, 11734 Knill, Oliver, 570, 11716
Bagby, Richard, 366, 11703 Knuth, Donald, 76, 11685
Barbu, Catalin see Minculete Knuth, Donald, 854, 11733
Bataille, Michel, 76, 11686 Lagarias, Jeffrey, see Adams
Batinetu-Giurgiu, D.M., and Neculai Stanciu, Loase, John, 469, 11705
365, 11701 Lupu, Cezar, and Stefan Spataru, 174, 11692
Bencze, Mihaly, 569, 11713 Ma, Meijie, and Douglas West, 755, 11731
Bernardi, Olivier, and Richard Stanley, 366, Merca, Mircea, 755, 11730
11704 Merca, Mircea, 855, 11736
Binh, Nguyen Thanh, 469, 11706 Minculete, Nicusor, and Catalin Barbu, 569,
Binh, Nguyen Thanh, 570, 11717 11714
Binh, Nguyen Thanh, 661, 11722 Moeller, James W., 469, 11708
Binh, Nguyen Thanh, 754, 11727 Mortini, Raymond, and Rudolf Rupp, 76,
Binh, Nguyen Thanh, 855, 11737 11684
Bloch, Anthony, see Adams ODorney, Evan, 365, 11700
Blumberg, Walter, 754, 11728 Oakapple, Robin, 946, 11745
Bojaxhiu, Elton see Hysnelaj Oman, Greg, 365, 11702
Capaces, Francois, 945, 11743 Omarjee, Moubinool, 175, 11697
Chirita, Marcel, 755, 11732 Omarjee, Moubinool, 470, 11709
Cholkar, C. P., and M. N. Deshpande, 945, Palacios, Jose Luis, 469, 11707
11744 Papanicolaou, Vassilis, 754, 11729
Cranston, Daniel, and Douglas B. West, 569, Pohoata, Cosmin, 854, 11735
11712 Pohoata, Cosmin, 945, 11740
Cusumano, Andrew, 661, 11724 Rupp, Rudolf see Mortini
Dalyay, Pal Peter, 77, 11690 Safaryan, Mher, 661, 11725
Dalyay, Pal Peter, 946, 11746 Scheinberg. Stephen, 754, 11726
Deshpande, M. N. see Cholkar Siboni, Stefano, 855, 11738
Farhi, Bakir, 365, 11699 Spataru, Stefan see Lupu
Filip-Andrei, Chindea, 945, 11741 Stanciu, Neculai see Batinetu-Giurgiu
Finch, Stephen, 77, 11687 Stanley, Richard see Bernardi
Furdui, Ovidiu, 175, 11695 Stofka, Marian, 569, 11715
Gessel, Ira, 660, 11720 Stong, Richard see Ionascu
Glasser, M. L., 174, 11691 Tauraso, Roberto, 660, 11721
Gromeko, Alexandr, 945, 11742 Voorhees, B., 470, 11710
Grzesik, J.A., 470, 11711 West, Douglas see Ma
Hall, Timothy, 365, 11698 West, Douglas B. see Cranston
P ROBLEMS S OLVED
Apostopoulos, George, 180 Budney, Paul, 470

Bataille, Michel, 177 Caro, Nicolas, 177
Boersema, Jeff, 666 Chapman, Robin, 573
Bouzar, N., 82 Constales, Denis, 663

Cowieson, William J., 181, 756 Pinelis, Iosif, 475
Delorme, Charles, 372 Pranesachar, C. R., 665, 861
Elliott, Katie, 179 Pudwell, Lara K., see Goyt
GCHQ Problem Solving Group, 761 Reid, Michael, 368
Geupel, Oliver, 176 Russel, Robert A., 176
Glasser, M. L., 575 Schilling, Kenneth, 83
Goyt, Adam M., and Lara K. Pudwell, 370 Schlosberg, Joel, 471
Grivaux, Nicole, 576 Schmuland, Byron, 664, 760
Herman, Eugene A., 757 Smith, John H., 856
Ionin, Yury J., 371, 472, 760, 858 Steelman, John Henry, 372
Karaivanov, Borislav, 571, 950 Steinig, John, 473
Kouba, Omran, 661, 663, 948 Stenger, Allen, 80
Kouba, Omran, and R. Stong, 366 Stong, Richard, 79, 667, 857, 859, 946, 947,
Lamb, George, 474 951
Lathrop, K. D., 81 Stong, Richard, see Omran Kouba
Linders, J. C., 78 Tetiva, Marian, 759
Lonoff, David, 756 Thornber, Nora, 662
Lossers, O. P., 77, 370, 178, 473, 570 Tyler, Douglas B., 78, 661
Martin, Charles, 574 University of Lousiana at Lafayette Math Club,
Montesdeoca, A., 180 948
Omarjee, Moubinool, 855 Verriest, Erik. I., 950
National Security Agency Problems Group, Widmer, Hansruedi, 476
367
S OLUTIONS
January, 2013 May, 2013
11540, 77 11574, 470
11558, 78 11576, 471
11559, 78 11577, 472
11560, 79 11596, 472
11561, 80 11597, 473
11564, 81 11600, 474
11565, 82 11603, 475
11571, 83 11604, 476
February, 2013 JuneJuly, 2013
11569, 175 11595, 570
11572, 176 11605, 571
11575, 177 11607, 572
11578, 177 11608, 573
11579, 178 11612, 574
11580, 178 11614, 576
11581, 179 AugustSeptember, 2013
11586, 180 11584, 661
11589, 181 11588, 662
April, 2013 11592, 662
11562, 366 11611, 664
11563, 367 11615, 665
11566, 368 11616, 666
11567, 369 11621, 667
11568, 371 October, 2013
11570, 371 11557, 755
11573, 372 11582, 756

11583, 756 11606, 859
11585, 757 11609, 861
11587, 759 December, 2013
11590, 760 11598, 946
11591, 761 11610, 947
November, 2013 11617, 948
11593, 855 11618, 948
11594, 856 11619, 950
11599, 857 11622, 950
11601, 857 11627, 951
11602, 858
The M ONTHLY expresses its appreciation to the following people for their help in
refereeing during the past year. We could not function successfully without such people
and their hard work.
Abrams, Aaron Barsky, Daniel Bradley, David

Adamchik, Victor Barvinok, Alexander Brauch, Timothy
Adams, Colin Bass, Hyman Bressoud, David
Agnew, Robert Bateman, Michael Bridger, Mark
Akeroyd, John Baxley, John Brothers, Harlan
Akin, Ethan Beazley, Elizabeth Broughan, Kevin
Akopyan, Arseniy Beck, Matthias Brouwer, Andries
Albouy, Alain Behrndt, Jussi Browder, Andrew
Alex, Fink Bellhouse, David Brown, Ezra
Alexanderson, Gerald Belyaev, Alexander Brown, Robert
Alfeld, Peter Benedetto, Robert Brualdi, Richard
Ali, Sayel Benes, Christian Buczolich, Z.
Allouche, J-P. Benyamini, Yoav Bugeaud, Yann
Almeida, Ricardo Berndt, Bruce Butler, Steve
Alperin, Roger Bernoff, Andrew Cairns, Grant
Alpern, Steve Bessenyei, Mihaly Callan, David
Alvis, Dean Beukers, Frits Campbell, Garikai
Amdeberhan, Tewodros Bialek, Paul Carter, Nathan
Anderson, David Bica, Alexandru Castro, Francis
Andrews, George Bieri, Joanna Chaika, Jon
Arkeryd, Leif Bilu, Yuri Chamberland, Marc
Aron, Richard Bishop, Christopher Chang, Guisong
Askey, Richard Bishop, Richard Chapman, Robin
Atiyah, Michael Bjorner, Anders Chenciner, Alain
Atkinson, Kendall Blackburn, Simon Choi, Stephen
Baake, Michael Blair, David Chow, Timothy
Babenko, Yuliya Blanchard, Paul Chrispell, John
Baez, John Boas, Harold Clark, Pete
Bagci, Irfan Bona, Miklos Clark, W.
Baginski, Paul Booker, Andrew Comfort, Wistar
Bailey, David Boroczky, Kaeoly Conger, Mark
Bak, Wl/odzimierz Borodin, Alexei Coppenbarger, Matthew
Bakker, Lennard Borwein, Jonathan Cox, David
Balder, Erik Boshernitzan, Michael Coykendall, James
Banakh, Taras Boyadzhiev, Khristo Craciun, Gheorghe
Barnsley, Michael Boyd, Suzanne Cracium, Daniel

Cutland, Nigel Garrity, Thomas Hwang, Andrew
Dales, H. Gauld, David Inchbald, Guy
DAndrea, Carlos Getzler, Ezra Isaacs, Martin
DasGupta, Anirban Ghezzi, Laura Jameson, Graham
Davis, Donald Ghomi, Mohammad Jamieson, Michael
De Angelis, Valerio Gillman, Rick Johnson, Peter
De Koninck, Jean-Marie Girondo, Ernesto Johnson, Warren
de la Harpe, Pierre Girstmair, Kurt Johnston, William
Devlin, Keith Goins, Edray Jones, Lenny
Dilcher, Karl Gokhman, Dmitry Jukna, Stasys
Dillencourt, Michael Goldston, Daniel Kahane, Charles
Dobbs, David Goodman-Strauss, Chaim Kain, Ben
Dogru, Filiz Goodson, Geoffrey Kalman, Dan
Downing, Doug Gordon, Gary Kantrowitz, Robert
Doyle, Peter Gorner, Matthias Kaplan, Nathan
Drasin, David Gorroochurn, Prakash Karasev, Roman
Drinen, Doug Gouvea, Fernando Katz, Mikhail
Duncan, John Grabisch, Michel Keedwell, Donald
Dvir, Zeev Graham, Loren Kennedy, Judy
Dym, Harry Gray, Jeremy Kent, Deborah
Dyson, Freeman Green, Ben Kerr, Megan
Eie, Minking Griffiths, D. Key, Eric
Eigen, Stanley Griggs, Jerrold Khavinson, Dmitry
Eisentrager, Kirsten Grimmett, Geoffrey Kifowit, Steven
Elekes, Marton Grinshpan, Anatolii Kim, S.
Elezovic, N. Grinstead, Charles Klain, Dan
Elias, Uri Groetsch, Charles Klazar, Martin
Elsholtz, Christian Growney, Joanne Klingler, Lee
Engau, Alexander Grunbaum, Branko Knopfmacher, Arnold
Engelberg, Shlomo Gueron, Shay Koch, Sarah
Evans, Lawrence Hackborn, William Koekoek, Roelof
Erickson, Martin Hajja, Mowaffaq Kogan, Irina
Evans, Tyler Halter-Koch, Franz Koliha, erry
Fabian, Marian Han, Qing Kolli, Messaoud
Falkner, Neil Hanson, Andrew Koralov, Leonid
Filaseta, Michael Harborth, Heiko Kortram, Ronald
Fine, Benjamin Hare, Kathryn Kossak, Roman
Finn, David Harman, Glyn Kostov, Vladimir
Flahive, Mary Harvey, Nick Kovalyov, Mikhail
Fleissner, William Hassani, Mehdi Kra, Irwin
Fokkink, Robbert Hay, Damon Kraft, Roger
Folland, Gerald Hayward, Ryan Krantz, Steven
Fonseca, Carlos Henrich, Allison Kuczmarski, Fred
Fontana, Marco Hensley, Doug Kulesza, John
Foote, Robert Herman, Eugene Kuperberg, Wl/odzimierz
Ford, Kevin Hicks, Kenneth Kuperberg, Greg
Forster, Karl-Heinz Hillar, Christopher Kusner, Robert
Frick, Sarah Hirschhorn, Michael Lai, Ming-Jun
Fuchs, Dmitry Hoffstein, Jeffrey Lam, Tsit Yuen
Fuchs, Elana Holst, Lars Langer, Joel
Fulman, Jason Horn, Roger Larusson, Finnur
Galperin, Gregory Houston, Evan Lawrence, James
Gardner, Richard Howe, Roger Leckband, Mark
Garner, Richard Hull, Thomas Leep, David
Garrett, Paul Hutanen, Marko Lemmermeyer, Franz

Leonard, Isaac Moree, Pieter Richmond, Thomas
Lettl, Gunter Morgan, Frank Richter, R. Bruce
Leuschke, Graham Morris, Robert Riede, Harald
Levi, Mark Morrison, Kent Riedel, Thomas
Levine, Lionel Moshchevitin, Nikolay Rivin, Igor
Li, Xin Mossinghoff, Michael Robbiano, Lorenzo
Liberzon, Daniel Munagi, Augustine Robbins, Neville
Little, John Murty, Ram Rocadas, Luis
Livingston, Charles Nagy, Gabor Rosendal, Christian
Loeb, Peter Narkiewicz, Wl/adysl/aw Rosson, Holly
Loft, Brian Neeman, Itay Rouse, Jeremy
Lomonosov, Victor Nelson, Gail Roy, Damien
Lopez, V. Nelsen, Roger Rudenko, Daniil
Lorch, John Nguyen, Mau Rueda Segado, Pilar
Lowry, David Nielsen, Pace Runde, Volker
Lozano-Robledo, Alvaro Nitecki, Zbigniew Russell, Elizabeth
Lyons, Russ Nowakowski, Richard Sabia, Juan
MacLeod, Allan Nyblom, Michael Sam, Steven
Mahlburg, Karl Oberlin, Richard Santoprete, Manuele
Mahmoud, Hosam Olofsson, Peter Saul, Mark
Mallows, Colin Olsen, Lars Schaeffer, George
Manhart, Friedrich Olver, Peter Schauz, Uwe
Manivel, Laurent Ono, Ken Schifano, Elizabeth
Mansour, Toufik ORourke, Joseph Schmuland, Byron
Maor, Eli Osgood, Brad Schultz, Andrew
Markarian, Roberto OShea, Donal Schwartz, Richard
Markwig, Hannah Osler, Thomas Schwede, Karl
Martin, Taylor Ovsienko, Valentin Schwenk, Allen
Martins da Fonseca, Carlos Pantsulaia, G. Scott, Dana
Mays, Michael Papick, Ira Sedaghat, Hassan
McAdam, Stephen Parshall, Karen Shallit, Jeffrey
McCammond, Jon Pedersen, Jean Shapiro, B.
McCleary, John Peifer, David Shattuck, Mark
McDougall, Jane Peres, Yuval Shen, Alexander
McLarty, Colin Perez-Chavela, Ernesto Shepp, Larry
Mercer, Idris Pinasco, Juan Sherman, David
Mercer, Peter Pinchasi, Rom Shick, Paul
Mestrovic, Romeo Pinsky, Mark Shurman, Jerry
Meyerson, Mark Piotrowski, Zbigniew Sidman, Jessica
Michael, T. S. Pippenger, Nicholas Sigmund, Karl
Miller, Ezra Pisanski, Tomaz Silva, Cesar
Miller, Steven Pitts, David Silverman, Joseph
Minac, Jan Plagne, Alaine Simon, Barry
Minda, David Pol, Roman Sims, Brailey
Misiurewicz, Michal/ Pollack, Paul Singer, David
Mnatsakanian, Mamikon Pomerance, Carl Singman, David
Moeckel, Rick Ponomarenko, Vadim Skopenkov, Mikhail
Mohar, Bojan Pook, Les Smid, Michiel
Moll, Victor Posamentier, Alfred Smith, Derek
Mollin, Richard Pozdnyakov, Vladimir Smith, James
Molteni, Giuseppe Provost, Serge Smith, Ken
Monsky, Paul Ramakrishna, Ravi Smith, William
Montesinos, Vicente Range, Michael Smyth, Malcolm
Montgomery, Richard Ransford, Tom Sokal, Alan
Moore, Gregory Richardson, Leonard Solcova, Alena

Sondow, Jonathan Taylor, David Wagon, Stan
Sonn, Jack Teismann, Holger Wan, James
Sottile, Frank Telcs, Andras Wang, Shawn
Spicer, Calum Thomson, Brian Ward, Thomas
Springborn, Boris Thompson, Lola Watkins, John
Sprugnoli, Renzo Tilley, Burt Webb, Jon
Srivastava, Hari M. Timotin, Dan Webb, William
Stahl, Saul Todorov, Todor Wehlau, David
Stanchescu, Ionut Tongen, Anthony Weintraub, Steven
Stange, Katherine Touhey, Pat Westbury, Bruce
Stanley, Richard Trench, William Widom, Harold
Starbird, Michael Trevino, Enrique Williams, Kenneth
Stein, Sherman Trick, Michael Winkler, Peter
Steinsaltz, David Troubetzkoy, Serge Woess, Wolfgang
Stigler, Stephen Tsukerman, Emmanuel Wolkowicz, Henry
Stillwell, John Tsumura, Hirofumi Xie, Zhifu
Stong, Richard Tymchatyn, E. Yakovenko, Sergei
Strempel, Torsten-Karl Vaaler, Jeff Yang, Xiaokui
Strichartz, Robert Van den Dries, Lou Yee, Ae
Stromquist, Walter van Mill, Jan Yff, Peter
Stroock, Daniel Vaserstein, Leonid Zaslavski, Alexander
Sturmfels, Bernd Vaughan, Robert Zeiner, Peter
Sullivan, Frank Vega, Maria Zhabitskaya, Elena
Sury, B. Velice, Oana Zhang, Xiao-Dong
Suzuki, Jeff Venema, Gerard Zhu, Jim
Swartz, Charles Videla, Carlos Zitarelli, David
Szabados, J. Vincze, Csaba Zuckerman, David
Talman, Louis Viro, Oleg Zudilin, Wadim
Tam, Tin-Yau Volpert, Klaus Zvonkine, Alexandre
Tao, Terence Vygen, Jens
Tauraso, Roberto Wagner, Aaron

New in the Spectrum Series
Six Sources of Collapse

By Charles R. Hadlock
Spectrum Series
Charles Hadlock's engaging book provides a

mathematical framework for understanding all varieties
of collapse--that of civilizations caused by environmental
factors or destructive wars, companies caused by
competition or poor management, and humans infected
by contagious diseases. It inspires one to think about the
reasons for collapse (Hadlock suggests six sources), and
their mathematical basis, thereby providing guidance to
the development of detailed, more specific models.
- Professor Steven Brams
Professor of Politics, New York University
B
Beginning withh one off the
h most remarkable ecological collapses of recent time, that
of the passenger pigeon, Hadlock goes on to survey collapse processes across the
entire spectrum of the natural and man-made world. He takes us through extreme
weather events, technological disasters, evolutionary processes, crashing markets
and companies, the chaotic nature of Earth's orbit, revolutionary political change, the
spread and elimination of disease, and many other fascinating cases. His key thesis
is that one or more of six fundamental dynamics consistently show up across this
wide range. These "six sources of collapse" can all be best described and investigated
using fundamental mathematical concepts. They include low probability events, group
dynamics, evolutionary games, instability, nonlinearity, and network effects, all of which
are explained in readily understandable terms.
Catalog Code: SSC/APRMON13 ISBN: 978-0-88385-579-9

List: $50.00 221 pp., Hardbound, 2012
MAA Member: $40.00
To order call 1-800-331-1622 or visit maa-store.hostedbywebstore.com
MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Undiluted Hocus-Pocus
The Autobiography of Martin Gardner
Martin Gardner
With a foreword by Persi Diaconis and an afterword by James Randi
Martin Gardner occupies a special place in twentieth-century mathematics.
More than any other single individual, he inspired a generation of young
people to study math. Years from now, people reading his books and
marveling at the clarity of his expository style will want to know who he was.
How better to satisfy that curiosity than by letting Gardner himself tell the
story of his life?
Barry Cipra, coauthor of Whats Happening in the Mathematical Sciences
Cloth $24.95 978-0-691-15991-1
Will You Be Alive 10 Years from Now?

And Numerous Other Curious Questions in Probability
Paul J. Nahin
Readers of this absorbing book will gain significant pleasure as well as
a broadened understanding of the nuances of mathematics, along with a
wonderful picture of how analytics and simulations complement each other.
Nahin is a master at this. I love this book!
Joseph Mazur, author of Whats Luck Got to Do with It?: The History,
Mathematics, and Psychology of the Gamblers Illusion
Cloth $27.95 978-0-691-15680-4
Nine Algorithms That Changed the Future

The Ingenious Ideas That Drive Todays Computers
John MacCormick
With a foreword by Chris Bishop
MacCormicks book is an easy-to-read and enjoyable guide to some key
algorithms. Above all, it conveys a sense of wonderat the beautiful science,
rather than the technical feats, that makes computers do their magic.
Andreas Trabesinger, Nature Physics
Paper $16.95 978-0-691-15819-8
Four Colors Suffice

How the Map Problem Was Solved, Revised Color Edition
Robin Wilson
With a new foreword by Ian Stewart
A thoroughly accessible history of attempts to prove the four-color theorem.
[Wilsons] descriptions . . . give a fascinating insight into how mathematics
moves forward, and how approaches have changed over the past 50 years.
Elizabeth Sourbut, New Scientist
Princeton Science Library
Paper $24.95 978-0-691-15822-8
See our E-Books at

press.princeton.edu
1529 Eighteenth St., NW Washington, DC 20036
Comes with 16 Java applets and a Java application . . .

Explorations in Complex Analysis
Michael A. Brilleslyper, Michael J. Dorff, Jane M. McDougall, James
S. Rolf, Lisbeth E. Schaubroeck, Richard L. Stankewitz, and Kenneth
Stephenson
Explorations in Complex Analysis is written for mathematics students
who have encountered basic complex analysis and want to explore more
advanced projects and/or research topics. Research topics in the book include
complex dynamics, minimal surfaces, fluid flows, harmonic, conformal, and
polygonal mappings, and discrete complex analysis via circle packing. The
nature of this book is different from many mathematics texts: the focus is on
student-driven and technology-enhanced investigation. Interlaced in the reading for each chapter are
examples, exercises, explorations, and projects, nearly all linked explicitly with computer applets for
visualization and hands-on manipulation.
2012, Hardbound ISBN 978-0-88385-778-2 Catalog Code: EXCA
List: $ 60.00 MAA Member: $48.00
To order call 1-800-331-1622 or visit www.maa.org!
The electronic version is available at

www.maa.org/ebooks/crm/EXCA.html

Decem Brie 2013

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Decem Brie 2013

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL

Quick, Does 23/67 Equal 33/97? 867

Linear Algebra via Complex Analysis 877

Rigorous Computer Analysis of the ChowRobbins Game 893

From Pascals Theorem to d-Constructible Curves 901

The Cuoco Configuration 916

A Generalization of the Leibniz Rule 924

The Parbelos, a Parabolic Analog of the Arbelos 929

Inequalities for Gamma Function Ratios 936

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS 941

Real Analysis Through Modern Infinitesimals 949

EDITORS ENDNOTES 954

INDEX TO VOLUME 120 957

An Official Publication of the Mathematical Association of America

Print Subscription to MAA FOCUS (6 per year) X X

Regional Section Membership (USA/CAN Members) X X X

Discounted Registration for MAA MathFest X X X

Discounted Registration for Joint Mathematics Meetings X X X

MAA Math Alertthe e-newsletter for MAA members X X X

Member Discounts on MAA books, videos & merchandise X X X

Member Discounts on Print Subscriptions to:

Access to MAA Affinity Program Discounts X X X

Eligibility to Join MAA SIGMAAs ($12 each) X X X

Access to MAA columns, blogs, and online resources X X X

Membership in up to 3 SIGMAAs of your choice X

Print Subscription to Math Horizons X

MAA Member Plus Book Selection X

MAA Annual Design Contest T-shirt X

Be sure to visit www.maa.org for all the details!

NOTES EDITOR BOOK REVIEW EDITOR

PROBLEM SECTION EDITORS

http://www.editorialmanager.com/monthly Recent copies of the MONTHLY are available for pur-

1. INTRODUCTION. What may we learn if we ask someone whether 23/67 equals

2. EQUALITY OF FRACTIONS. The issue of defining equality of fractions is non-

December 2013] QUICK, DOES 23/67 EQUAL 33/97? 867

3. THE MATHEMATICIANS SECRET. Ask someone whether 23/67 = 33/97.

4. DOES REDUCING FRACTIONS TELL ALL? What we wish to know is that

This is easily seen to be equivalent to the following.

Unique irreducible reduction of fractions. Every fraction reduces to a unique irre-

In turn, this is equivalent to the following two results.

Corollary (The mathematicians powerful secret). If two fractions have different

December 2013] QUICK, DOES 23/67 EQUAL 33/97? 869

5. EUCLIDS VII.19, THE FOUR NUMBERS THEOREM, UNIQUE FACTOR-

Euclid, Book VII, Definition 20 (Pythagorean Proportionality, in modernized ter-

Euclid, Proposition VII.19. a : b = c : d if and only if ad = bc.

Four numbers theorem (identical reduction of equal fractions). If ad = bc, then

Divisors of a product. If d divides bc, then d = ny where n divides b and y divides c.

Euclids Lemma (Proposition VII.30) (modernized notation). If a prime p divides

6. THREE PRIME-FREE PROOFS OF REDUCTION TELLS ALL FOR

December 2013] QUICK, DOES 23/67 EQUAL 33/97? 871

In his proof of VII.19, Euclid assumed without justification something we discussed

Proof. We may assume that a < b.

December 2013] QUICK, DOES 23/67 EQUAL 33/97? 873

Combining equivalent proportionalities for unique irreducible reduction. Finally,

10 For a variant proof, see also [11, 20].

that was second nature to the ancients.

of failure given earlier.

December 2013] QUICK, DOES 23/67 EQUAL 33/97? 875

Meet the Editors of the Mathematical Association of

Abstract. The resolvent (I A)1 of a matrix A is naturally an analytic function of C,

1. INTRODUCTION. The Jordan decomposition theorem for square matrices with

using complex analysis. In one dimension, A = a is a complex number, I = 1, and the

December 2013] LINEAR ALGEBRA VIA COMPLEX ANALYSIS 877

%(A) := { C : I A is invertible} (1.2)