Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics

Welcome to the mathematics section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 25

What shape is a (gridiron) football ?

Mathematical approximation, that is. I'm thinking a rotation of some type of conic section about the central axis ? SinisterLefty (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The football

It's commonly described as a prolate spheroid, which is the rotation of an ellipse around its longer axis. CodeTalker (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. How about an American football, which is more pointed at the ends ? SinisterLefty (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not any shape with a mathematical name, not precisely anyway. If you want an approximation with a pithy mathematical name, I don't think you're going to do better than "prolate spheroid". Fight for Harvard's glorious name; won't it be peachy if we win the game? --Trovatore (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

How about if you draw an ellipse, offset the major axis on both sides, trim out the portion of the ellipse between the two offset lines, bring the two remaining portions of the ellipse together, then rotate those about the axis ? With suitable ellipse dimensions and offsets, wouldn't that provide a good approximation of an American football ? SinisterLefty (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, that would have a sharp point, whereas a football has a dull point, and in fact turns inward in a sort of "dimple" in the spot where your figure would have the sharp point.

But sure, if you give me enough parameters to play with, I can probably fit a football pretty well; that isn't surprising. It isn't going to have a catchy mathematical-sounding name, though. It'll just be a way to describe a rotationally symmetric shape. --Trovatore (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Since we're speaking of ideals: do NFL icons have enough resolution to tell whether the balls are pointy or blunt? —Tamfang (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Rotation of a Lens (geometry) —Tamfang (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That would mean the cross section of the football is two circular arcs. Is that correct ? SinisterLefty (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Approximately? Sure. Take a circular arc that meets the ball at the midpoint (on a seam or a panel? you decide) with the same tangent line and the same curvature. That will fit the profile, with an error proportional to the cube of the distance to the tangent point.

You could get the same error exponent by fitting it to a parabola. With an ellipse or a hyperbola, you have an extra parameter, so maybe you could get the fourth power, if agreement near the tangent point is what you're trying to match.

Which it probably isn't; maybe you really want to minimize the integral of the square of the error. Again, the more parameters you have, the closer you can get.

But the football isn't really any of these shapes; you're just fitting the shape to the ball, to optimize some figure of merit. --Trovatore (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The actual ball is constructed from several pieces of leather that are cut to a specific shape, and then stitched together. So, it would seem that there might be some way to describe the topology of a set of flat pieces described by a particular two-dimensional shape, and then stuffed, extending (embedding?) these surface pieces into three dimensions, with additional piecewise connectivity constraints at the seams. In the real world, surfaces can flex and bend, while an idealized topological surface should be rigid, or at least should be describable by some deformation metric (stretch factor?). As Trovatore has pointed out, if we permit a large number of parameters, we can fit parametric curves to the leather pieces; and we can characterize the deformation using matrices or tensors or something like that.

I think even with this intuition, there is still no "pithy" mathematical word for it.

From the viewpoint of computer graphic modeling, such a surface could be represented using a NURBS surface - specifically because this allows a mathematically-inclined artist to specify smoothness of the surface, and of its first-, second-, and higher-order derivatives (in other words, they can build smooth, well-defined object models that have "pointy" parts). The NURBS surface is one of many ways that we can formally describe a highly-parameterized model (with as many parameters as we want), using a standard format that is well-understood by many 3D scientific and artistic software tools.

Nimur (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The pieces of leather are not flat; though. They have to have some native curvature of their own; a three-dimensional curved object cannot be cut into purely flat shapes; this is the map/globe problem and why map projections always introduce a distortion. Since the football has curvature, the individual pieces need to maintain that curvature when cut apart. There is a sort of "law of conservation of curvature" that is a corollary of sorts to the Theorema Egregium. --Jayron32 12:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe the way "around" this problem is to take specific advantage of the piecewise discontinuity of the surface (and its curvature) at the seams - allowing perfectly-flat pieces to connect together if they are carefully cut to a specific shape. This is the key insight - the piecewise smoothness of the Bezier spline and its related functions - which makes them so useful in engineering. The ball has surface continuity along the line of the seam; but that line also defines a discontinuity in the surface curvature, which means both sides can be "flat" in their own coordinate system. I have to do some thinking to determine whether the perfect idealized geometric version of the surface requires any stretching or deformation during assembly - of course, in the real world, we might not notice a minuscule stretch of the material, or a tiny flexure that allows it to curve - but mathematically, that would mean some type of differential change to the surface-element. This is a great thought-experiment - I'll let you know if I get a chance to figure it out! Nimur (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

a three-dimensional curved object cannot be cut into purely flat shapes Most people would agree that a cylinder is curved (despite having zero Gaussian curvature). --JBL (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

John Urschel might know. j/k 173.228.123.207 (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

October 29

Nautical Metric

Was there a change from Nautical miles and knots etc to a more standardised metric type system? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

According to what I could find on-line, apparently not. A nautical mile is defined (more or less) as a one minute arc one a great circle route, and since nautical charts still use degrees and minutes it's easier to correlate the charts with distance if you use Nautical miles your unit of distance. I suppose if nautical charts where converted to use grads instead of degrees then converting to kilometers might be more feasible. However, since distances are being calculated by computers nowadays I guess whether nautical miles are easier or not is increasingly irrelevant. --RDBury (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

These days (since 1929, in fact) a nautical mile is a metric unit, sort of, in that it's defined simply as 1852 meters, although it is not part of the SI. This length is equal to 40,000/21,600 km (thus corresponding to 1 minute of arc along a circle whose circumference is 40,000 km) rounded to the nearest whole meter. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, few people would say inch is a metric unit, even though it is defined as being equal to 25.4mm. A more standardised metric type system can have three meanings:

1. that it follows the metric system or SI
2. that it has a precise metrologic definition (though not necessarily based on SI, see for instance the FPS system)
3. that it uses decimal units (again, not necessarily based on SI - for instance the gradian is not SI-based)

The nautical mile is not part of SI, but it has a precise definition (based on the SI meter). As to the decimality, it is hard to say, because it is not often used with subdivisions. My guess is that it used for distances at sea, not for distances between stars or bacteria, so all useful values will be somewhere between 0.1 and 1000, making subdivisions not so useful. I would say it is, as the cable length and the fathom are decimal subdivisions (1/10 and 1/1000) of the nautical mile. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed; it is correlated to the actual metric system, but it is not part of the metric system. For most units, the sine qua non for being a metric unit is that it is based on the decimal system; that is when related to smaller and larger units for the same measurement, it can be done so purely as a multiple of ten. Nautical miles are not related to other measurements of length by multiples of ten; and there are no "millinauticalmiles" or "kilonauticalmiles". --Jayron32 12:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Relative timing of withdrawal and interest accrual in a payout annuity

In a payout annuity, does the interest accrue before or after the disbursal?--Wikimedes (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends entirely on the contract that defines it. This may vary from institution to institution. In other words, read the fine print on your specific financial instrument.

And, like everything else, this may have tax implications, especially if your annuity involves non-trivial sums.

Nimur (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

True enough. Annuity implies that interest accrues before disbursal, so I'll work with that for hypothetical situations.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

October 30

Composition of polynomials

Moved from Talk:Polynomial ring

 – –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

For polynomials f(x) and g(x) in indeterminate x, can the composition operation f(g(x)) be defined in a natural manner? - or is there some technical difficulty that prevents that? - or have I overlooked something in the article that explains this?

Tashiro~enwiki (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The composition $f(g(x))$ is defined just how you'd expect – by substituting $g(x)$ into any x that appears in $f(x).$ For example, if $f(x)=x^{2}+2x$ and $g(x)=x^{3}+1,$ then

${\begin{aligned}f(g(x))&=(x^{3}+1)^{2}+2(x^{3}+1)\\&=x^{6}+2x^{3}+1+2x^{3}+2\\&=x^{6}+4x^{3}+3.\end{aligned}}$

The example I used had integer coefficients, but the same definition works for coefficients in any ring. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As a comment on the article from which my comment was taken: This information should be included in the article.

Tashiro~enwiki (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There could be some "irregularities". For example:

f(x) = x2
g(x) = x1/2

The simple answer is f(g(x)) = x, but for negative values of x, x^1/2 is an imaginary number. So, if you exclude imaginary numbers from the calcs, and only take the real root, you end up with f(g(x)) = |x|. Note that this also means f(g(x)) <> g(f(x)). SinisterLefty (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

x^1/2 is not a polynomial in x. --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)