# How To Take Notes in Math Class

I was recently asked by someone how they should be taking notes in math class. I could immediately relate because I once asked this very same question. In both undergrad and grad, I had to ask myself how to take notes because I often would leave class with a bunch of sentence fragments based on what the professor said, but without anything I could use as a study guide. At best, it would be a garbled thing that I could combine with somebody else’s notes and try to make some legible out of it. Generally though, I would just ignore my notes and go to the text book if it was well written, or the library if the text book was not well written.

So how did I get past this? Well, after taking the Set Theory course, I started seeing mathematics as more of a construction job, like building a house. Mathematics is based on proofs which is nothing more than logical reasoning, and logical reasoning is just a series of statements that are either assumptions, definitions, or conclusions drawn from those assumptions based on known facts. The main purpose of classes is to present these “known facts” to the students and help them become more informed mathematicians. So what is a mathematical fact?

There are two important types of facts we generally learn in mathematics. The first gives us a language we can work from – these are our definitions. These are the most important things in a mathematics class because if it is a class on “group theory”, then one of the first definitions will be of a “group,” and not knowing this definition will cause problems when you are trying to prove that something is or is not a group. Similarly, if your class is on solving quadratic equations, then it is very important to be able to define what a “quadratic equation” is. Definitions in mathematics are important because, unlike in an English class, you cannot always derive the meaning of a mathematical term from its usage. Mathematical definitions are very precise and your notes should include this precision.

As a side note, I will state (if not stress) that examples are not definitions. Examples are meant to bring the definition to life, and to help connect the definition to the student, but if you are asked what is a group and respond that “the set of integers mod 7 under the operation of addition is a group”, you’d be incorrect because you gave an example of a group without telling why this is a group. Similarly, if I were to ask you to define a quadratic equation and you said “x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0 is a quadratic equation”, you’d be giving me an example but not a definition. It is important to understand the distinction between examples and definitions because when we understand the definition we can clearly explain why (ala prove) that the given instance is in fact an example.

Some professors will briefly mention a definition and then focus most of their time on examples in an attempt to make the concepts easier to understand. As a student though, it is important to ask the question “what is the definition of _____” because the exams, or the research that follows, or the applications of this concept in real life are not likely to be that same example. If the professor does not write out the definition of whatever concept you are studying, or you are unclear of this definition you should ask questions, go to an online resource, or a text book for supplementary reference.

The second type of fact presented in mathematical classes is the theorem (aka lemma or corollary). A theorem is a statement that is provable by mathematical reasoning. In a classroom setting, theorems will generally be presented in an orderly fashion such that if Theorem 1 is presented before Theorem 2, then Theorem 1 does not require Theorem 2 in order to be proven.

Because theorems are provable statements, it may be tempting to jump directly into the proof, and particularly to only take notes on the proof. I cannot stress against this enough. Before writing the proof, you should make sure to begin the proof with a clear statement of the theorem. This should be a declarative statement that is thus provable. Do not confuse the questions a professor may ask before proving a theorem with the theorem itself. An example of a theorem from group theory is “Any group that has a prime number of elements of elements in that group is cyclic (or can be generated by a single element). Also, do not confuse the nicknames of theorems with the theorem itself. For instance Lagrange’s Theorem says that “the number of elements of any subgroup of a finite group divides the number of elements in the original group.” Remembering this as Lagrange’s Theorem is fine, but it is much more important to remember the declarative statement proved.

I’m sure there are other things people use to take notes in math classes. Feel free to leave a comment sharing some of this advice.

# The Assignment Problem

Suppose you are the owner of a company and need to delegate tasks to your employees. You’ve generated a table that tells how long (in minutes) you think it would take each person to accomplish each individual task (called Jobs). Your goal is to find an assignment of people to jobs that minimizes the total amount of time it will take to complete all jobs. The requirements are that each job must be completed by only one person, and each person can complete only one job.

We can think of the employees at the job as our supply and the tasks as the demand. In order for this problem to have a feasible solution, we must have enough people (supply) to complete the number of jobs (demand). Because of this, our examples will all include situations where there are exactly the same number of people as jobs.

To solve this problem, we must first generate an initial assignment and see how good this assignment is. There are several ways of generating an initial solution, but two that I wanted to focus on are the “NorthWest Corner Rule” and the “Minimum Matrix Method”.

1. The Northwest Corner Rule considers the matrix and repeatedly assigns the top remaining row to the left-most remaining column. If we think of the cost matrix as a being like a map then “top” becomes similar to “north” and left-most becomes similar to “west”, hence the derivation of the name. In assignment problems, this will result in the main diagonal being selected.
2. The Minimum Matrix Method is an iterative method that searches the matrix for the minimum cell in the matrix and assigns that person to the associated job and removes them from consideration and repeats itself until all people have been assigned to jobs.

Once we have formulated an initial feasible solution, we need to check it for optimality. To do this, we use the Network Simplex Method, where we build a basis based on this initial solution. When we consider this problem as a network flow problem, a basis for the problem is a spanning tree (one less than twice the number of nodes in the graph that does not have any cycles) of the network. Because the assignment solution only contains one edge for every two nodes in the graph, we need to add a number of edges to the basis that contains no flow (which makes the solution degenerate) to form this spanning tree.

Once a spanning tree is formulated, we can solve for the dual variables by arbitrarily setting one node’s dual value to zero and solving for the remaining dual variables under the requirement that all arcs in the basis (spanning tree) must satisfy the equation uk + vi = cki for each person k and job i.

When we have dual variables, we can check to see if this solution is optimal by checking to see if all the other constraints are violated. This means that for every person k and every job i, we must have uk + vi cki (notice that this is a more relaxed version of what we had when we were solving for the dual variables themselves).

If a constraint is found to be violated, then we need to add the associated edge to the basis and remove an edge on the cycle that is formulated as a result, which generates a new solution.

So check out The Assignment Problem Script and let me know what you think.

# Understanding Bayes’ Theorem

I’ve finished a script that helps understand Bayes’ Theorem.

If we have a set of mutually exclusive (aka non-overlapping) sets Bi for i {0, 1, 2, …, n} for some integer n, then the union of these sets forms a sample space. Lets call the sample space S. Suppose that we also have some set (also known as an event) A which is also a subset of S. Bayes’ Theorem considers the probability that one of these mutually exclusive events (one of the Bi‘s) caused the observed event (A).

This probability can be calculated by the formula

 Pr(Bj | A) = Pr(Bj) Pr(A | Bj) Pr(Bi) Pr(A | Bi)

The theorem helps us determine the the probability of the event Bj given A, or in more plain English, the probability that the event Bj is the cause that gives rise to the observed event A. The numerator is given by the product of of the probability of the causal event (Pr(Bj) times the conditional probability of the observed event given the causal event (Pr(A | Bj)). This numerator could be replaced by its equivalent statement of the set A Bj. Likewise, the denominator the sum (over all the causal events) of the probaility of each causal event times the conditional probability of the observed event given that particular causal event. Each term in this denominator could be replaced b its equivalent staetment A Bi, which when summed give the total probability of A because each pair of the Bj‘s is mutually exclusive. So we are able to replace the probability of A with Pr(Bi) Pr(A | Bi) because of the fundamental law of probability.

An example that would use Bayes’ Theorem is analyzing the results of an election. The set of mutually exclusive events could be membership in a political party (Democrat, Republican, or Independent). The observed event could be the election of an individual. And the conditional distributions could be the percentage of each party that voted for this individual. If we want to calculate how significant each party was to the individual’s election, we’d use Bayes’ Theorem.

The script I’ve written to help understand Bayes’ Theorem works as follows:
– A set of mutually exclusive sets is randomly generated (the number of sets also varies). These sets are called Bi for i (0, …, n}.
– A set A is randomly generated from the union of the Bi‘s.
– A table is displayed showing:
Pr(Bi) for each i on line 1.
Pr(A | Bi) for each i on line 2.

– The user is given the option to select which of the mutually exclusive sets they would like to use to calculate the probability that this set caused the event A.
– Once a set is chosen, the user clicks the “Calculate Conditional” button and Bayes’ Theorem gives the result.
– If the “show work” checkbox was checked, then the steps used in this calculation are also shown.
– All work is done using fractions to give an idea of where the numbers come from.

Other Blogs that have covered this topic:
Better Explained
Bayes’ Theorem-qed

# Learn Math Through Set Relations

Much of our world deals with relationships – both in the sense of romantic ones or ones that show some interesting property between two sets. When mathematicians think of set theory, a relation between the set A and the set B is a set of ordered pairs, where the first element of the ordered pair is from the set A and the second element of the ordered pair id from the set B. So if we say that R is a relation on the sets A and B, that would mean that R consists of elements that look like (a, b) where a is in A and b is in B. Another way of writing this is that R is a subset of A x B. For more on subsets and cross product, I refer you to my earlier script work on set operations.

Relations can provide a useful means of relating an abstract concept to a real world one. I think of things like the QB rating system in the NFL as an example. We have a set of all quarterbacks in the NFL (or really all people who have thrown a pass) and we would like some means of saying that one QB is performing better than another. The set of statistics kept on a QB is a large set, so attempting to show that one QB is better by showing that every year that they played one is better in every statistical category can be (a) exhaustive, and (b) will lead to very few interesting comparisons. Most of the really good QBs have some areas that they are really good and others that they are not. The QB rating system provides a relation between the set of all QBs in the NFL and the set of real numbers. Once this relation was defined, we can say that one QB is performing better than another if his QB rating is higher. Similarly we can compare a QB to his own statistics at different points in his career to see the changes and trends.

This is just one example, and there are countless others that I could have used instead.

Once we understand what a relation is, we have several properties that we are interested in. Below I list four, although there are many more.

Properties of Relations:
A relation R is symmetric if whenever an element (a, b) belongs to R, then so does (b, a).

A relation R is reflexive if for every element a in the universe of the relation, the element (a, a) belongs to R.

A relation R is transitive if for every pair of elements (a, b) and (c, d) and b = c, then the element (a, d) belongs to R.

A relation R is anti-symmetric if the elements (a, b) and (b, a) do not belong to the relation whenever a is not equal to b.

Once we understand what a relation is, there are a few common ones that we are interested in. Below I list four, but again, I want to stress that these are some of the more common ones, but there are several others.

Types of Relations:
A relation R is a function (on its set of defined elements) if there do not exist elements (a, b) and (a, c) which both belong to R.

A relation R is an equivalence relation if R is symmetric, reflexive and transitive.

A relation R is a partial order set if R is anti-symmetric, reflexive and transitive.

A relation R is a total order set if it is a partial order set and for every pair of elements a and b, either (a, b) is in R or (b, a) is in R.

A partial order is just an ordering, but not everything can be compared to everything else. Think about the Olympics, and a sport like gymnastics. Consider the floor and the balance beam. One person can win gold on the floor and another person wins gold on the balance beam. That puts each of them in the “top” of the order for their particular section, but there’s no way of comparing the person who won the floor exercise to the person who won the balance beam. So we say the set is “partially ordered”. More formally, lets say that two people (person X and person Y) relate if they competed in the same event and the the first person (in this case person X) received an equal or higher medal in that event than the second person (in this case person Y). Obviously any person receives the same medal as themselves, so this relation is reflexive. And if Jamie received an equal or higher medal than Bobby and Bobby received an equal or higher medal than Chris, then Jamie must have received an equal or higher medal than Chris so this relation is transitive. To test this relation for anti-symmetry, suppose that Chuck received an equal or higher medal than Charlie and Charlie received an equal or higher medal than Chuck. This means that they must have received the same medal, but since only one medal is awarded at each color for each event (meaning one gold, one silver and one bronze…if this is not true, assume it is), this must mean that Chuck and Charlie are the same person, and this relation is thus anti-symmetric.

If we have a partial ordering where we can compare everything, then we say that the set is “totally ordered”.

An equivalence relation tries to mimic equality on our relation. So, staying with that example of the Olympics, an example of an equivalence relation could be to say that two athletes relate to one another if they both received the same color medal in their event (for the sake of argument lets assume that no athlete competes in more than one event). Then obviously an athlete receives the same medal as themselves, so this relation is reflexive. If two people received the same medal, then it doesn’t matter if we say Chris and Charlie or Charlie and Chris, so the relation is symmetric. And Finally if Chris received the same medal as Charlie an if Charlie received the same medal as Jesse, then all three people received the same medals, so Chris and Jesse received the same medals and this relation is transitive. Because this relation has these three properties, it is called an equivalence relation.

# How Could You Possibly Love/Hate Math?

Growing up, I never really liked math. I saw it as one of those necessary evils of school. People always told me that if I wanted to do well and get into college, I needed to do well in math. So I took the courses required of a high school student, but I remember feeling utter confusion from being in those classes. My key problem was my inquisitive nature. I really didn’t like being “told” that certain things were true in math (I felt this way in most classes). I hated just memorizing stuff, or memorizing it incorrectly, and getting poor grades because I couldn’t regurgitate information precise enough. If this stuff was in fact “true”, I wanted to understand why. It seemed like so much was told to us without any explanation, that its hard to expect anybody to just buy into it. But that’s what teachers expected. And I was sent to the principal’s office a number of times for what they called “disturbing class”, but I’d just call it asking questions.

At the same time, I was taking a debate class. This class was quite the opposite of my math classes, or really any other class I’d ever had. We were introduced to philosophers like Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hobbes, John Rawls, etc. The list goes on and on. We discussed theories, and spoke of how these concepts could be used to support or reject various propositions. Although these philosophies were quite complex, what I loved was the inquiries we were allowed to make into understanding the various positions. Several classmates and I would sit and point out apparent paradoxes in the theories. We’d ask about them and sometimes find that others (more famous than us) had pointed out the same paradoxes and other things that seemed like paradoxes could be resolved with a deeper understanding of the philosophy.

Hate is a strong word, but I remember feeling that mathematicians were inferior to computer programmers because “all math could be programmed”. This was based on the number of formulas I had learned through high school and I remember having a similar feeling through my early years of college. But things changed when I took a course called Set Theory. Last year, I wrote a piece that somewhat describes this change:

```They Do Exist!

Let me tell you a story about when I was a kid
See, I was confused and here's what I did.
I said "irrational number, what’s that supposed to mean?
Infinite decimal, no pattern? Nah, can't be what it seems."
So I dismissed them and called the teacher wrong.
Said they can't exist, so let’s move along.
The sad thing is that nobody seemed to mind.
Or maybe they thought showing me was a waste of time.

Then one teacher said "I can prove they exist to you.
Let me tell you about my friend, the square root of two."
I figured it'd be the same ol' same ol', so I said,
"Trying to show me infinity is like making gold from lead"
So he replies, "Suppose you're right, what would that imply?"
And immediately I thought of calling all my teachers lies.
"What if it can be written in lowest terms, say p over q.
Then if we square both sides we get a fraction for two."

He did a little math and showed that p must be even.
Then he asked, "if q is even, will you start believing?"
I stood, amazed by what he was about to do.
But I responded, "but we don't know anything about q"
He says, "but we do know that p squared is a factor of 4.
And that is equal to 2 q squared, like we said before."
Then he divided by two and suddenly we knew something about q.
He had just shown that q must be even too.

Knowing now that the fraction couldn't be in lowest terms
a rational expression for this number cannot be confirmed.
So I shook his hand and called him a good man.
Because for once I yould finally understand
a concept that I had denied all my life,
a concept that had caused me such strife.
And as I walked away from the teacher's midst,
Excited, I called him an alchemist and exhaled "THEY DO EXIST!"```

Aside from its lack of poetic content, I think that many mathematicians can relate to this poem, particularly the ones who go into the field for its theoretic principles. For many of us, Set Theory is somewhat of a “back to the basics” course where we learn what math is really about. The focus is no longer on how well you can memorize a formula. Instead, its more of a philosophy course on mathematics – like an introduction to the theory of mathematics, hence the name Set Theory.

The poem above focuses on a particular frustration of mine, irrational numbers. Early on, we’re asked to believe that these numbers exist, but we’re not given any answers as to why they should exist. The same could be said for a number of similar concepts though – basically, whenever a new concept is introduced, there is a reasonable question of how do we know this is true. This is not just a matter of practicality, but a necessity of mathematics. I mean I could say “lets now consider the set of all numbers for which X + 1 = X + 2”, but if this is true for any X, then it means that 1 equals 2, which we know is not true. So the set I’d be referring to is the empty set. We can still talk about it, but that’s the set I’d be talking about.

So why is this concept of answering the why’s of mathematics ignored, sometimes until a student’s college years? This gives students a false impression of what math really is, which leads to people making statements like “I hate math”, not really knowing what math is about.

# Learning Math through Set Theory

In grade school, we’re taught that math is about numbers. When we get to college (the ones of us who are still interested in math), we’re taught that mathematics is about sets, operations on sets and properties of those sets.

Understanding Set Theory is fundamental to understanding advanced mathematics. Iv wrote these scripts so that users could begin to play with the different set operations that are taught in a basic set theory course. Here, the sets are limited to positive integers and we’re only looking at a few operations, in particular the union, intersection, difference, symmetric difference, and cross product of two sets. I will explain what each of these is below.

The union of the sets S1 and S2 is the set S1 [union] S2, which contains the elements that are in S1 or S2 (or in both).
Note: S1 [union] S2 is the same as S2 [union] S1.

The intersection of the sets S1 and S2 is the set S1 [intersect] S2, which contains the elements that are in BOTH S1 and S2.
Note: S1 [intersect] S2 is the same as S2 [intersect] S1.

The difference between the sets S1 and S2 is the set S1 / S2, which contains the elements that are in S1 and not in S2.
. Note. S1 / S2 IS NOT the same as S2 / S1.
Note. S1 / S2 is the same as S1 [intersect] [not]S2.

The symmetric difference between the sets S1 and S2 is the set S1 [symm diff] S2, which contains the elements that are in S1 and not in S2, or the elements that are in S2 and not in S1.
Note. S1 [symm diff] S2 is the same as S2 [symm diff] S1.
Note. S1 [symm diff] S2 is the same as (S1 [intersect] [not] S2) [union] (S2 [intersect] [not] S1).

The cartesian product of the two sets S1 and S2 is the set of all ordered pairs (a, b), where a [in] S1 and b [in] S2.

# Sieve of Eratosthenes

Prime numbers are an important concept in Number Theory and Cryptography which often uses the difficulty of finding prime numbers as a basis for building encryption systems that are difficult to break without going through all (or a very large number of) possible choices.

Remember that a prime number is a number greater than 1 whose only divisors are 1 and that number itself. One of the most famous algorithms for searching for prime numbers is the Sieve of Eratosthenes. I added a script which implements the Sieve of Eratosthenes to my Examples page.

This algorithm prints out all prime numbers less than a given number by first canceling out all multiples of 2 (the smallest prime), then all multiples of 3 (the second smallest prime), then all multiples of 5 (the third smallest prime – multiples of 4 do not need to be considered because they are also multiples of 2), etc until we have reached a number which cannot be a divisor of this maximum number.

So if we are given a number, n, the first step of the algorithm is write out a table that lists all the numbers that are less than n. For example lets run this Sieve on 50. So all numbers less than 50 are

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50.

So since 1 is not a prime number (by the definition of prime numbers), we cancel that number out.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50.

Next, we look at the list and the first number that is not crossed out is a prime. That number is 2. We will put a mark by 2 and cancel out all of 2’s multiples.

1, 2*, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50.

Again, we look at the list and the first number that is not marked or crossed out is 3, so that number is prime. We will put a mark by 3 and cancel out all of 3’s multiples.

1, 2*, 3*, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50.

Once again, we look at the list and the first number that is not marked or crossed out is 5, so that number is prime. We will put a mark by 5 and cancel out all of 5’s multiples.

1, 2*, 3*, 4, 5*, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50.

We look at the list and the first number that is not marked or crossed out is 7, so that number is prime. We will put a mark by 7 and cancel out all of 7’s multiples.

1, 2*, 3*, 4, 5*, 6, 7*, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50.

Now, we look and the first number that is not crossed out is 11. However, since 11 is greater than sqrt(50) we know that each of 11’s multiples that are less than 50 will have been cancelled out by a previous prime number. So we have finished the algorithm.