### Sunday, January 29, 2006

##
Static or dynamic systems

How do we think about systems of equations (or inequalities)? I know, most of us don’t think about them at all. But teachers and students of algebra certainly do. Whether we call them

But that’s not really the point of this post. Whichever way you characterize equations, you also have to confront what simultaneity means. I always used to believe that it means what it says: we have a

But now, after conversations with my department head, I am thinking of a system in a

Ordinans takes the standard emphasis on the geometric description of equations and presents it in a 3-D context: three planes that intersect in any of eight ways match the algebraic conclusions to be drawn from them (consistent or inconsistent, dependent or independent). This is the traditional, static view.

A dynamic view would take the equations one at a time:

*systems of equations*or*simultaneous equations,*we traditionally think about them in a static way, as the word “simultaneous” suggests. For example,Wikipedia says this:simultaneous equations are a set of equations where variables are shared. A solution consists of values for the variables which satisfy all of the equations simultaneously.In other words, all the equations are given

*at the same time*— i.e., simultaneously — and we find a common solution (if we are looking for a solution). If you prefer the more concise definition given by Mathematica, try this one:Far be it from me to say that Wikipedia has better definitions than Mathematica, but in this case it certainly does, since the Wikipedia entry distinguishes between the use of an equation toSimultaneous Equations

A finite set of equations in the same unknowns of which the common solutions have to be determined.

*state*a relationship and the use of an equation to*determine*the value of an unknown. Mathematica ignores the former (and conceptually more important) definition. Far too many students — and even teachers — think of algebra as the study in which variables represent unknowns that have to be solved for, rather than the study of the relations among variables.But that’s not really the point of this post. Whichever way you characterize equations, you also have to confront what simultaneity means. I always used to believe that it means what it says: we have a

*static*view of a system, whether it’s equations or inequalities; all are true*at once,*like a snapshot.But now, after conversations with my department head, I am thinking of a system in a

*dynamic*way: each equation or inequality represents a**constraint**, and the constraints are imposed in time, not all at once. We have a video, not a snapshot. Consider, for examples, a system of three equations presented in an article by Joseph Ordinans in the February 2006 issue of the Mathematics Teacher:Ordinans takes the standard emphasis on the geometric description of equations and presents it in a 3-D context: three planes that intersect in any of eight ways match the algebraic conclusions to be drawn from them (consistent or inconsistent, dependent or independent). This is the traditional, static view.

A dynamic view would take the equations one at a time:

- The first equation provides a constraint. The variables can have (infinitely) many tuples as their values, such as (10, 3, 10) or (-5, 1, 1). But there are also (infinitely) many tuples that do
*not*satisfy the first equation, such as (1, 1, 1). So the constraint partitions the set of all tuples of numbers into two subsets, those that satisfy the first equation and those that don’t. In other words, at this point the first equation represents one constraint. If we take a snapshot, or freeze-frame our video, we can capture the set of solutions so far. - Now the second equation provides
*another*constraint. We can further subdivide our solution set to the first equation by finding the subset that also satisfies the second equation. Our video has moved on to its second frame. - Finally, the third equation provides a third constraint: frame #3. In this particular case, only the empty set remains. After imposing the third constraint, we find that no tuples satisfy all three.

Labels: math

###### ARCHIVES

- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- July 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009