Tuesday 23 September 2014

Russian Peasant Multiplication




Paul Hunt has let us know about this method of multiplication created by the Russians (Paul Hunt's Hint). 


What a little wonder!


These Russians are realistically creative.


From the Math Forum @ Drexel (Math Forum, Drexel), we read:


What is Russian peasant multiplication? How do I use it?
The way most people learn to multiply large numbers looks something like this:
        86
      x 57
     ------
       602
    + 4300
     ------
      4902
If you know your multiplication facts, this "long multiplication" is quick and relatively simple. However, there are many other ways to multiply. One of these methods is often called the Russian peasant algorithm. You don't need multiplication facts to use the Russian peasant algorithm; you only need to double numbers, cut them in half, and add them up. Here are the rules:
  • Write each number at the head of a column.
  • Double the number in the first column, and halve the number in the second column.
       If the number in the second column is odd, divide it by two and drop the remainder.
  • If the number in the second column is even, cross out that entire row.
  • Keep doubling, halving, and crossing out until the number in the second column is 1.
  • Add up the remaining numbers in the first column. The total is the product of your original numbers.
Let's multiply 57 by 86 as an example:
    Write each number at the head of a column.
     57   86 
    Double the number in the first column, and halve the number in the second column.
     57   86 
    114  43 
    If the number in the second column is even, cross out that entire row.
     57   86 
    114  43 
    Keep doubling, halving, and crossing out until the number in the second column is 1.
     57   86 
    114  43 
    228  21 
     456   10 
    912 
     1824   2 
    3648 
    Add up the remaining numbers in the first column.
     57   86 
    114  43 
    228  21 
     456   10 
    912 
     1824   2 
    + 3648 
    4902 
Real Russian peasants may have tracked their doublings with bowls of pebbles, instead of columns of numbers. (They probably weren't interested in problems as large as our example, though; four thousand pebbles would be hard to work with!) Russian peasants weren't the only ones to use this method of multiplication. The ancient Egyptians invented a similar process thousands of years earlier, and computers are still using related methods today.


Our explanation for such a phenomenon is:

Suppose we are multiplying constant A by constant B.

We then have A x B.

Now suppose the result is C, another constant, so that we now have  A x B = C.

We know that if we multiply A by a constant, say t, and we divide B by the same constant, the result remains unaltered. 

Let's prove that:

At x 1/t B = (t x 1/t) x A x B  = A x B.

If we keep on applying their recipe, we then have always the same result, C, that we had at the beginning of the proposal, when doing A x B.

Notice that if we have even numbers that factor nicely, we simply pick the result to the left and that is already our C:

4    16 
8     8
16   4
32   2
64   1

4 x 16 = 64.


Notice that we can always double the first number with no difficulties, but we frequently will have difficulties in halving the second number, since lots of times it will be an odd number.



Notice that any number times two will give us an even number, so that we will always have even numbers to the left, apart from at most the first, at the very top of the column.



If the second number factors nicely, as we said before, we get only even numbers on the second column. In this case, we should be getting the C from the first column, last line in the process.



The process resumes to the following:



a) Even/odd number, even number that perfectly divides by two all the way: We do not strike any and get C from the last line, left.
b) Even/odd number, even number that does not perfectly divide by two all the way/odd number: Strike the even number row, that is the row where there is an even number to the right in the process and add up what is not struck.




The process becomes a bit more complex when we have an odd number or an even number that does not perfectly divide by two all the way to the right side then.




That is obviously because we are halving something that does not split nicely into two (there is a remainder).


In mathematical writing, we could translate what we do to the numbers involved in the Peasant Multiplication in the following way:



Suppose we have  X * Y as our original proposal.


We then do  ((X*2)*2)*2  to the left side by the fourth line of our calculation. Thus, X3 = ((X*2)*2)*2  and X0 = X.


We do  (((Y/2)_| )/2_| )/2_|  to the right side by the fourth line of our calculation. Thus, Y3 = (((Y/2)_| )/2_| )/2_|  and Y0 = Y.


(Y/2)_| = (Y-1)/2 if Y = 2n + 1
and
(Y/2)_| = Y/2 if Y = 2n


If we do left member times right member, we get  2Xn-1 (Yn-1-1)/2, that is, Xn-1 (Yn-1-1), that is, Xn-1 Yn-1- Xn-1 whenever the right member is not an even number.



This just means that we have to add Xn-1 to recover our original calculation. Notice that, in this case, when we translate the index, we divide and multiply by two an equal number of times, what then makes us recover our X * Y.



When our right result is 1, all we have to do is then adding up all Xs, which are then going to appear only on the lines where we do not have an even number to the right.



This is a really interesting system, right?



Please leave a note saying you love us, if you like it. If you think that is not something you can do, then please buy one of our online courses or one of our books. Compliments anywhere also help or talking about our work in your paper in a favorable manner.



____________________________________________________________




____________________________________________________________

    


Wednesday 1 January 2014

On the Banach-Tarski paradox and the size of the ordered numerical sets



Today we got to know that the Banach-Tarski is still a concern for human kind.

Thomas LaRock, who is a member of one of our social networks, sent us a call like this: WARNING: DEEP THOUGHTS AHEAD --> There are Almost No Rational Numbers.

We then visited the website (Rochford, 2013) to read the following:

A counterintuitive construction shows that not every subset of the reals is measurable. The counterparts of such odd sets in R2 are intimately connected to the famous Banach-Tarski paradox.

Curious enough, we then directed ourselves to (Good Math, 2014).

There we stumbled on the following (Good Math, 2014):

How about this? Take the set of all natural numbers. Divide it into two sets: the set of even naturals, and the set of odd naturals. Now you have two infinite sets,
the set {0, 2, 4, 6, 8, ...}, and the set {1, 3, 5, 7, 9, ...}. The size of both of those sets is the ω - which is also the size of the original set you started with.


We then found the roots of the problem: Size for mathematicians, in terms of numerical sets, is the cardinality of those sets, which is measured from a human perspective: If we cannot count by hand or by any instrument that we have invented, in its totality, then it is all infinite, therefore of the same size… . 

We ourselves have written about that (Pinheiro, 2009): They are mixing up things.

Basically, when we enter the World of Mathematics, we have to use a special language developed to deal with it, so that our brain adapts. 

This special language cannot be formed from terms that point to more than one world object, since we need maximum objectivity in Mathematics: All is supposed to be abstract and perfect.

This way, we cannot simply say that the cardinality is infinity and we then have the same size of set when we have even natural numbers or the whole of the natural numbers.

The cardinality is infinity in what regards our capability of counting, of seeing, and etc.

This way, both situations create the same effect on our eyes and in our heads, but they are situations that are very different if the perspective of the World of Mathematics is considered.

Notice that the World of Mathematics is very different from the World of the Computers.

Computers are so close to us and our logical reasoning, when that is purest, that some people think of replacing us with them.

The World of Mathematics however is completely inaccessible to us: It lies there, on paper only, as it is, if so.

Notice that we have created sets inside of it that we cannot really describe with our vain human tools (we can mention them and the collective unconscious gives us the right pick, but we cannot list all the elements of the naturals, for instance, and this is even the topic of our discussion).

How do we deal with the straight line world?

We go again to (Good Math, 2013):

Take a line segment. How many points are in it? It's infinite. So, from that infinite set, remove an infinite set of points. How many points are left? It's still infinite.

Apparently, in the same way that we deal with the sets of numbers!

There is obviously only one solution to this problem: Segment all.

Lebesgue, with his infinitely perspicacious mind, had already noticed that somehow. See (Rochford, 2013):

The idea behind the Lebesgue measure is that the size of the interval (a,b) ought to be equal to its length, ba. The construction of the Lebesgue measure generalizes this notion to a much larger class of subsets of the real numbers.
Let m denote the Lebesgue measure. From the previous discussion, we define m((a,b))=ba. In order to extend the definition of the Lebesgue measure to a slightly larger class of sets, let us first consider the size of the set (0,1)(3,5). It seems quite reasonable to define
m((0,1)(3,5))=(10)+(53)=1+2=3.
We see that this idea readily generalizes to finite unions of pairwise disjoint intervals (recall that two sets are disjoint if their intersection is empty, that is, if they do not overlap). In that case, we define the Lebesgue mesure of the union to be the sum of the Lebesgue measures of each individual interval. More concretely, if a1<b1<a2<b2<<an<bn, then
m(ni=1(ai,bi))=i=1nm((ai,bi))=i=1n(biai).

We need however more than what Lebesgue has proposed to understand why there is probably no paradox once more and we are just confused for not being coherent/consistent or skilled enough on observation and logical reasoning.

It is obviously the case that if we segment the naturals, then we get that one is bigger than the other, and this idea is not only intuitive, but is obviously also true.

Take the naturals from 1 to 5, for instance.

When we consider them as a whole, we have {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} in this interval.

When we consider just the even ones, we have {2, 4} instead.

When we compare numerical sets, we must compare them by parts and comparing one part is equivalent to comparing the whole if they are regular things.

This way, 2N is smaller than N because when we consider the accumulation criterion {x ͼ SET/1 ≤ x ≤ 5} we get fewer elements in 2N and that is a reasonable sample (of size that is acceptable).

There seems to realistically be no mystery in any of it and we are simply uttering wrong things when we say that the cardinality of the reals is the same as the cardinality of the rational numbers, for instance.

The cardinality of the reals is greater than the cardinality of the rational numbers, quite trivially, since we add numbers to each small interval.

Marcia’s Measure would then be an interval of Lebesgue measure five, for instance, and would be suitable to determine how big an ordered numerical set is when compared to another.





____________________________________________________________



____________________________________________________________

    




References:


Good Math, Bad Math. (2014). The Banach-Tarski non-Paradox. Retrieved January 1st 2014 from http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2012/01/06/the-banach-tarski-non-paradox/

 
Pinheiro. (2009). Infinis. Retrieved January 1st 2014 from http://www.protosociology.de/Download/Pinheiro-Infinis.pdf