Master of my Domain

      3 Comments on Master of my Domain

Here’s another section for the mathematics textbook I’m not writing, Tropic of Calculus.

One of the concepts pre-Calc students seem to wrestle with is Domain and Range. Here are some key points to make sure you understand.

First, let’s make sure you have a good, casual understanding of what domain and range are. For some function, y = f(x), the “domain” is the span of all possible X values for that function, while “range” is the span of all allowable Y values for the function.

One way to think about it is to look at a graph of the function. You look at the X axis as if it was a number line and you ask yourself, “Self, as I traverse across this number line, does the function exist somewhere (above or below the axis) no matter where I am on the number line?” When you’re looking at the X axis, the answer you get is the domain of that function, and when you’re looking at the Y axis, that’s the range. This is a good first step for helping you wrap your head around domain and range.

And here’s another way to think about it. Let’s imagine you had infinite time, and you made a list of every possible coordinate point the graph of the function passed through. Yeah, that’s an infinite list, but still, let’s pretend. When you were done, you could summarize the results by looking at every single X coordinate you listed. Does that list cover every possible X value? Or does it skip some numbers? That’s the Domain of the function. And then let’s do the same for the list of all possible Y coordinates. Does the list cover every possible Y value, or does it miss a few numbers? That’s the Range of the function.

But eventually you want to start thinking about domain and range simply by looking at the equation itself.

For domain, ask yourself “Is there any X value I am _not_ allowed to plug into this equation? Can I plug in stupidly small negative values, like negative one million? Can I plug in zero? Can I plug in stupidly large positive values, like positive one million?” Equations tend to be fairly flexible about inputs, and mostly the answer is “Oh sure, I can plug in any X I want. So my domain is “all real numbers”.”

At this stage of pre-Calc, there are two big “gotchas” about domain to make sure you look for.

Domain Gotcha #1: Even roots
Let’s say you have a function like:
y = (x – 7)^(½)
(That’s y = square root (x – 7))
The “gotcha” is that you cannot take the square root of a negative number. So you have to make sure the entire expression under the square root is never negative. Said another way:
x – 7 ≥ 0
And you can simplify that:
x ≥ 7
And so there’s your domain for this function. You can plug in any X, as long as it is greater than or equal to 7.
It should be pointed out that this “gotcha” is for any even root. (Square root, fourth root, sixth root, etc.) It’s totally possible to take the odd root of a negative number.

Domain Gotcha #2: Rational functions
If you have a function that is a rational function (it looks like a big nasty fraction, with variables in the denominator), that also presents a possible red flag.
Let’s say your function looks like:
y = 1 / (x + 5)
The “gotcha” is that you cannot divide by zero. So the entire denominator of your big nasty fraction cannot be zero.
x + 5 ≠ 0
And simplified:
x ≠ -5
And there’s your domain: all real numbers, except x = – 5.

Later in pre-Calc, there are other gotchas you might add to the list. For instance, not being able to take the log of a negative number, but for now, these two areas are the big ones to make sure to cover. You can’t take the even root of a negative number, and you can’t divide by zero.

And now the bad news. There’s not a similar well-defined set of “gotchas” for Range. You have to look at the equation and puzzle it out. For instance, let’s look at our previous two functions:
y = (x – 7)^(½)

After pondering for a while, you might realize that when you take the square root of something, you’ll never get back a negative result. And there’s your range: y ≥ 0.

For this function:
y = 1 / (x + 5)

A rational function will equal zero only when the numerator of the fraction equals zero. Since the numerator of this fraction is a constant 1, Y will never equal 0. And there’s your range, all real numbers, except y = 0.

But you really have to spend some time puzzling these out. When in doubt, look back at the graph of the function to double-check your beliefs about the range of the function.

Tropic of Calculus

      No Comments on Tropic of Calculus

Here’s a chapter section from the “math in the vernacular” textbook that I’m not writing, “Tropic of Calculus”.

(Ed note: The previous section would have covered the definition of functions and the use of the Vertical Line Test)

5.1 Function Notation

If you were raised in the United States, you probably have a first name, middle name, and last name. But unless you’re in trouble and your mother is lecturing you, people probably don’t call you by your full name very often. Instead of being called “James Tiberius Kirk”, your friends probably call you “James”, “Jim”, or even “Captain”. It’s just more convenient to refer to people with a nickname or a shortened version of their name, rather than using their full name every time you want to talk about them.

The same is true of functions. (Remember those? In the previous section we talked about the specific type of mathematical equation we call “functions”.)
You might have a function with a rather lengthy “full name”. For instance:

y = 404 x^7 + 1690 x^5 + 43 x^4 + 15 x^3 + 2020 x^2 + 5133 x + 19

If you had to repeat that entire thing every single time you wanted to talk about that function, you’d be exhausted before your class was even half over. So mathematicians have developed a “nickname” for specific functions, a shorthand for referring to functions.

Using the function from above, the “nickname” looks like this:

f(x) = 404 x^7 + 1690 x^5 + 43 x^4 + 15 x^3 + 2020 x^2 + 5133 x + 19

f(x)? What? Okay, let’s break it down.

This does not mean “f times x”. I know it looks like it does. It’s confusing that way. On behalf of mathematicians everywhere, I apologize.
Nor is ” f ” in ” f(x) ” shorthand for the word “function”. Mathematicians are just as likely to use ” g(x) “, or ” h(x) “, ” s(t) “, ” v(t) “,… the list goes on and on.

So what does it mean? It’s just a nickname for the function. If it helps, think of the ” f ” in ” f(x) ” as standing for “Frank”, or the ” g ” in ” g(x) ” standing for “George”.

What we’re trying to say is “Here’s a function. We’re gonna call it ” f “.”
And the ” (x) ” provides just a little extra information. It tells you that the independent variable for our function is an ” x “.

Here’s the “Math-to-English™” translation of a couple of examples:

Math: f(x) = x^2 + 4 x + 4
English: See that equation over there? It’s a function. And we’re going to call the function ” f “. The independent variable in the function is ” x “. And the full equation for the function is ” x^2 + 4 x + 4 ”

Math: g(x) = 1/x
English: Here’s another functions. This one is called ” g “. Yo, g. The independent variable in this function is ” x “. And the full expression for the function is ” 1/x “.

Math: s(t) = -16 t^2
English: I’m calling this function ” s “. The independent variable in this function is ” t “. And the full expression for the function is ” -16 t^2 “.

And if you’re reading this aloud, ” f(x) “, ” g(x) “, ” s(t) ” is read as “f of x”, “g of x” and “s of t”.

5.1a Independent and Dependent Variables

As we said above, for some function…
f(x) = x^2 + 4 x + 4
… ” x ” is the independent variable in the function.

Just to recap, the “independent variable” is the same thing as the “input variable”. It stands for some number you might be plugging into the equation. And if you’re graphing the function, this will be the horizontal axis for your graph.

So if ” x ” is the input, the entire ” f(x) ” is the output. Think of it like this: you plug some x into the function, do some arithmetic, and the ending result is your output. The “output variable” is the same as the “dependent variable”. And if you’re graphing the function, this will be the vertical axis for your graph.

We can use function notation to talk about the plugging in specific values into a function.

s(t) = -16 t^2

Let’s say we want to plug a ” 1 ” into this function. We’d just replace the ” t ” in the function with a ” 1 “, right? We do the same thing in the function notation.

s(1) = -16 * 1^2 = -16
1 was the input, – 16 is the output.

Similarly,

s(2) = -16 * 2^2 = - 64
2 was the input, – 64 is the output.

s(3) = -16 * 3^2 = - 144
3 was the input, – 144 is the output.

If we were graphing this function, we know the function would pass through the following coordinates:
(1, -16), (2, -64), (3, -144)

We can even use function notation to input something more than plain numbers into a function. For instance:

f(x) = x^2 + 5 x + 6

Let’s say we wanted to plug some constant into f(x). In this example, our input is ” π “, which is the number 3.14159… (it goes on and on and on…)

f(π) = π^2 + 5 π + 6 ≅31.5776

We could also plug in a “placeholder constant” that doesn’t have a specific value just yet, like ” n “.

f(n) = n^2 + 5 n + 6

We can even plug in slightly more complicated values, like ” 2m ”

f(2m) = (2m)^2 + 5(2m) + 6
= 4 m^2 + 10 m + 6

Or plugging in ” x + h ”
f(x + h) = (x + h)^2 + 5(x + h) + 6
= x^2 + 2xh + h^2 + 5x + 5h + 6

Here are some examples for you to try on your own. You’ll want to get comfortable with this topic, because we’re going to be building on it a lot in later sections.

(Ed note: domain and range, composite functions, inverse functions and transformations of functions)

The end of a relationship

      3 Comments on The end of a relationship

To my profound sadness and disappointment, a relationship of the past three and a half years has ended. As my brain has been churning with all of the expected emotional responses, I thought I would revisit some relationship thoughts I recently shared with an acquaintance.

When I’ve had relationships end in the past, I’ve spent a lot of cycles considering what lessons I’ve learned and what I would do differently next time. Sometimes that’s about necessary changes in my behavior, sometimes it’s about acknowledging what traits are essential to me in a partner. I feel like it’s my responsibility to bring that level of self awareness to the table. It seems unfair to expect a partner to contribute to my happiness if I don’t already know what it takes to accomplish that for myself.

The other thing that’s floating around my head these days is being “in love”. One of the harder lessons I’ve learned is that being in love is not the requirement for a happy and lasting relationship. It is, at best, an opening bid. I can find it in me to love a great many (and wide variety of) people. Many of whom would be absolutely dreadful partners for me. It took me a while to get past being in love and start including all of the other components that went towards making a relationship work (and not work) for me.

An earlier draft of this post used the phrase “when I’ve had relationships fail in the past”. And mostly, I don’t believe in relationships failing. Each relationship I’ve ever had has fulfilled some need I’ve had at the time. Just because I or my partner have reached a place we aren’t meeting each others’ needs in the same fashion doesn’t mean the entire relationship is a wash. Things have just changed. Frankly, the only times I want to describe a relationship as “failed” is when I haven’t been able to learn the lessons I really should have learned from it.

So here I am, taking stock and re-evaluating. I’m trying to make the most out of a very painful situation. Using the time for reflection, for self-improvement, for making some new friendships, and reconnecting with some neglected friendships. This change in circumstances has led me to reconsider some priorities, canceling some old plans, making new ones. Cleaning house, emotionally, physically and metaphorically.

If you’re so inclined, drop me an email. Or offer up a real life hug. I promise not to bore you with the whole sordid story.

Math for Mathematicians

      1 Comment on Math for Mathematicians

I’ve come to a realization over the last couple of weeks.

Math, as most of us know it, from algebra through Calculus, isn’t really for mathematicians. It’s for engineers, physicists and the like. Those subjects are all about giving those folks the tools they need to solve certain classes of problems.

This has really been driven home by my Differential Equations class (which is pretty late in the Calculus sequence). Every new technique we’ve learned has been directly related to some real-world problem involving related population models for predators and prey, voltage flow in simple circuits, physics problems involving springs, situations where different fluids are mixed in a vat, … you get the idea.

Post-calculus, once the engineers and the physicists have left the room, math is finally for the mathematicians. And the problems get more esoteric, more abstract and less formula-driven.

I’m learning to come to terms with it, but it’s like an entirely new subject altogether.

Path Pwned

      1 Comment on Path Pwned

Last Summer, when I was biking all over town with one of my frequent riding companions, there was periodic friction over the topic of bike routes. The aforementioned pal is a self-confessed map fiend, the sort of person who will miss scenery on a road trip because her eyes are magnetically drawn to the map perpetually open on her lap. So, when biking around town, she’s quick to reach for her bike map and suggest the nearest roads that have been designated as optimal for bike traffic. By contrast, I’ve been much more haphazard about such things. Bahh! I know what my destination is, and the general direction I need to go. It may not be the perfect route, the optimal route, but I’ll get us there! Okay, just maybe, occasionally, my attitude could warrant the description “scornful”.

As Summer drifted into Fall, I did a lot more riding around town solo, doing some longer rides all the way into town, or just riding to classes downtown. As usual, I wandered whatever direction seemed reasonable on a given day. And over time, I’d modify the route. Hmm, this road is pretty hilly, how about sliding over a few blocks? And this street doesn’t go through, maybe I could try a little farther north. What’s the best way to skirt around Mt Tabor? Ugh, crossing this major road here stinks; I really need an intersection that has a traffic light.

Over time, I began to notice something disturbing. Increasingly, the roads I settled on were the city’s designated bike routes. For the most part, those routes seem to carry less car traffic, have fewer hills, have traffic lights when crossing major arteries. And as I ride those routes more often, I find I’m getting to my destinations a little faster, with fewer dead ends and less back-tracking.

So, here I am, eating crow. She was right, I was wrong. This time. 🙂

And while I’m on the topic, here’s a link to a PDF of Portland bike routes.
And here’s a link to the iPhone app for finding your way around Portland on bike.

Links du week

      1 Comment on Links du week

These are just a few cool links I found on the intarwebs. I’m experimenting with doing this, rather than sharing stuff on GoogleReader.

I have mixed feelings about this. I’m trying to look on the bright side; at least the newer figure is more anatomically accurate in some ways.
Barbie is evolving.

Is this cat drugged? Or is it just one of those rare odd cats that actually likes water? Either way, the cute is overwhelming.

This cracks me up. I’d be more excited about the Portland shout-out, but… you know, … Aquaman…
If Superheroes Were Hipsters.

This is absolutely brilliant! I’d buy a whole set of books done like this.
Batman by Dostoyevsky

I am a complete sucker for computer visualizations of cellular activity.

Atheists and Faith

      4 Comments on Atheists and Faith

Lately, I’ve been thinking about atheism and faith. There seems to be a common sentiment that atheists don’t have faith, that they lack the ability to take something on faith.

Speaking only for myself, this is not true. I do have faith. I have a great deal of faith. It’s just that my faith is not in a higher power or some deity or another.

I have faith in the scientific method. I believe in a way of looking at the world that takes into account observable results and updates hypothesis and theories to accommodate them.

I have faith in the repeatability of experiments, and the learning that happens when one team of researchers attempts to replicate the results of another.

I have faith in a process that is willing to overturn centuries of accepted dogma when evidence is revealed that contradicts it.

I have faith in people of considerable intelligence, education and/or experience, and their ability to delve deeply into very complex topics and reveal underlying patterns and behaviors that can be tested, used and expanded upon by others.

I have to have faith in these things! The universe is too large and too complex for me (or any person) to question, test and validate first-hand every theory that has been proposed. Every time I step on an airplane, I show faith in the scientists and engineers who have contributed to its design and maintenance. Every time I take a medicine I’m exercising faith in the doctor who investigate diseases and the unknowns of the human body, and the teams that develop treatments for them.

It’s not a blind faith. I know there are scientists who knowingly submit flawed data. I know there are researchers who will let personal prejudices override cold, hard facts. But I have faith that those are the exception rather than the rule, and that over time such problems are identified and corrected.

I also accept that there are an extraordinary number of things about our existence that we don’t understand yet, don’t even have a theory about. I’m even willing to consider that there may be things that humans will never know. But I don’t have any need to ascribe supernatural explanations to the unknown. I’m content simply to say “We don’t know yet. Maybe we will someday.” I have faith that scientists, from the tinkerers in a garage to the folks in white lab coats, will continue to provide new answers and even newer questions.

Time and tide

      3 Comments on Time and tide

There are times when a new model, a new way of doing business, is so clearly superior that it seems inevitable that the old ways will fall into the past like gas lamps and the telegraph.

One such example is Netflix. Way back in 2000, I could see the writing on the wall. Blockbuster (and its endless competitors) expected the customer to come to them, shop a limited inventory, and return the movies right on time or face exorbitant late fees. By comparison, Netflix allowed the user to rent movies using their web browser, from a staggeringly large library, and allowed the customer to keep the movies for as long as they like, days, weeks, months even. As soon as it was apparent that Blockbuster wasn’t smart enough to buy Netflix outright, I knew they would fade into extinction and the new way of doing business would prevail. Now that Netflix has gotten a commanding lead on streaming video on demand, I expect their lead to continue to grow. The biggest thing holding them back is the deplorable state of American broadband.

I would very much like to conclude that digital books and magazines offer a similarly compelling advance. And I say that as a current bibliophile, and a one-time bookaholic. As much as I love the experience of holding a book in my hands, the texture of the pages, the smell of paper, ink and glue, it seems inevitable that it will fall to the wayside like a dusty eight-track tape. There is every reason to expect a competing product that eliminates all of the costs associated with paper production, printing and distribution will triumph in the marketplace in very short order. If you’ve ever worked in a bookstore and seen unsold books stripped of their front cover and returned to the publisher so they can be destroyed, you’re probably already surprised the existing business model has lasted as this long.

And yet, a number of hurdles have been put in place that are significantly slowing the growth of digital books, and may even forestall their triumph until a later generation buys a clue. Here are the barriers I see:

Cost: Given the savings for publishers that I described above, there’s every reason to expect that digital books would be cheaper for the consumer. Much cheaper. And yet, prepare to be disappointed. As a quick metric, I looked at the top ten books for 2010, as selected by Amazon.com. Buy them as “real” books and the cost is $141.74. Buy them as Kindle “eBooks” and the cost os $104.53. The publisher saves on paper, printing and distribution, and the customer saves… about 25%. And better yet, one of those ten books is actually more expensive when you buy the digital version. There’s no reason digital books shouldn’t be much cheaper. Well, okay, one reason. Greed.

Ownership: When you buy a book, you own it, like you own your pickup. You can loan it to your partner, to your kids, to a co-worker, and when you’re done with it you can even sell it at a used book store for a (very) little coin. Tragically, the same is not true for digital books. eBooks from the two primary vendors in this market (Amazon and Apple) both treat the buyer as a lesee of the book, at best. Your ability to share a digital book with someone else is severely curtailed, as is your right to sell it when you’re done.

Portability: One of the strengths of traditional books is their longevity. You may have books handed down from your grandparents that are still perfectly useable. But the digital rights management (DRM) on eBooks is far from reassuring when it comes to longevity. Will the digital books of today still be readable on the hot, sexy new eBook readers of tomorrow? That depends a lot on who you think will be selling the next generation of readers, and how optimistic you are. (I’m not.)

I think the market is painfully in need of an open standard format for digital books; a standard that is free of DRM, capable of being supported by any vendor who so choses. And we need publishes who are willing to share the incredible cost savings with the buyer, and grant buyers full ownership of the books being purchased. If those hurdles are knocked down, I think we’ll see traditional printed books and magazines fade from the landscape in short order.

Until then, I believe digital books as currently defined will be severely stunted in their growth. Notice that Amazon refuses to even publish any numbers on how many Kindles (their model of eBook reader) have actually been sold.