The situations we've chosen are fairly straightforward, but the game we're playing is mathematically quite sophisticated. It's similar to starting with a familiar statement like 8 + x = 10, which works in natural numbers, and asking what happens in a case like 8 + x = 5: this can be made to work if we stretch our ideas about number, ie if invent new ones  the integers.
Note: From an RME perspective, we could say that we are engaged in horizontal mathematisation (expressing a 'real' situation mathematically) and then in vertical mathematisation (developing the maths).

MONDAY: Here we play with an area formula, for a shape that can vary in size. We start with a straightforward application of the formula but then consider a case which only works if we allow (or invent) edges with negative lengths.
Some students might feel that negative lengths are simply not allowed. That is a perfectly defensible position, but it would restrict the mathematics that we are able to do. A simple response is to say we are going to enter (or invent) a new (mathematical) world where negative lengths are allowed. So there!
This is what the shapes in parts i and ii look like (if you allow negative lengths in part ii):

TUESDAY: We look at another familiar area scenario, namely area of a trapezium (and, to keep it simple, a trapezium that is rightangled).
Here we need to accept the idea of a negative length again, but also the idea of a negative area (which we could sidestep or leave implicit in ALG 10A).
One way to find the area geometrically is to divide the trapezium into two triangles. For part i we can, for example, divide the trapezium into two triangles of area 30 and 15 square units (topleft diagram, below).
The topright diagram shows what happens to the trapezium as point P moves until it is 5 units to the left of the formerly topleft vertex. The trapezium 'twists' over itself to form two triangles whose areas, we can argue, are 20 and 5 square units.
The two diagrams at the bottom of the slide, below, show an alternative interpretation for part ii. The yellow triangle corresponds to the 30 square units triangle in the topleft diagram. The green triangle corresponds to the 15 square units triangle in the same diagram, except its base has changed from 5 units to 5 units. If we 'cancel' the region where the yellow and green triangles overlap, we are left with the regions with area 20 and 5 square untis shown in the topright diagram.

WEDNESDAY: Things get really interesting.... What's a 2andahalf sided regular polygon?!
I came across this beautiful idea, of replacing the whole number of sides, n, with a fraction, in one of David Fielker's articles in
Mathematics Teaching, many years ago. For me, the idea is almost on a par with
inventing negative or fractional indices. A simple but brilliant mathematical act!You may recognise the form of the instructions if you are familiar with LOGO and Turtle Geometry. If you don't have a turtle to hand I hope you will have enacted the instructions yourself and traced the resulting paths on paper or in your head! This is what they turn out to look like:

THURSDAY: We again make the shift from whole numbers to fractions, this time on a familiar number grid.
It can be useful to consider what happens to the sum, S, when the Tshape moves across the grid (eg 1 square to the right, or 1 square up). We can think about this spatially (What happens to each of the numbers in the Tshape?) or algebraically (What happens to S when n in the expression 6n+120 is increased by 1, say, or by 10?). In the case of part i, S has increased by 240–210 = 30, which can be achieved by moving the Tshape 5 squares to the right... [Are there other ways?]
Here are positions for the Tshape for parts i and ii.
Note: if we accept the principle behind the part ii answer, of allowing fractions of a square, we can find infinitely many positions for the Tshape, for parts i and ii, by moving the shape vertically (maybe just a tiny bit) as well as horizontally. What we're doing here, in effect, is to change the discrete 2D grid into a continuous Cartesian plane.

FRIDAY: Here we consider square grids made of matchsticks  or parts of matchsticks.
I'm particularly fond of this pattern  it's one whose structure is fairly easy to discern generically, even though the relation between the dimension of the square and the number of matchsticks is quadratic rather than linear.
Note: The slide below shows some interesting attempts to structure the grid by three Year 7 students (from a 'low attaining' set: set 3 of 4). I've written this up in chapter 3 of the Proof Materials Project report, Looking for Structure.
Here's a solution to ALG 10E (below). The last part is, of course, the most interesting. Using an expression for the number of matchsticks for an n by n grid, we get 31.5 sticks for a 3.5 by 3.5 grid. We've constructed a drawing for the grid that fits that total by allowing fractional matchsticks  though it's up to you whether you are willing to accept this! The drawing consists of 24 whole sticks, 8 sticks split in half 'cross ways', another 6 sticks split in half length ways, and two quarter sticks (resulting from being split in half cross ways and length ways). This makes 24 + 4 + 3 + 0.5 sticks = 31.5 sticks.

NEXT WEEK: We revisit the phenomenon of Letter as Object, ie we look at contexts where a letter represents a pure number (of objects) or a quantity (the price or length or mass or some other numerical quality of an object), but where there might be a temptation to use the letter as a shorthand for the object itself (as in 'a stands for apple, b stands for banana'  the classic fruit salad algebra). We will see that sometimes one can slide harmlessly between letter as object and letter as quantity, but that sometimes it leads to a completely fake algebra.
No comments:
Post a Comment