A lovely circle problem – two ways

December 7, 2017 3 comments

So, I was working with some year 12s on a few problems around circles out of the new Pearson A Level textbook. (Incidentally, it’s this book, and I think it’s probably the best textbook I’ve come across. I would certainly recommend it.)

This question appears in a mixed exercise on circles:


It’s a lovely question. Before reading on, have a go at it – or at least have a think about what approach you’d take –  as I’m going to discuss a couple of methods and I’d be interested to know how everyone else approached it.

Method 1:

I looked at this problem and saw right angled triangles with the hypotenuse root 52. I knew the gradient of the radii must be -2/3 as each radius met a tangent of radius gradient 3/2. From there it followed logically that the ratio of vertical side : horizontal side is 2 : 3.

Using this I could call the vertical side 2k and the horizontal side 3k. Pythagoras’s Theorem  then gives 13k^2 = 52, which leads to k^2 is 4 and then k is 2 (or -2).

So the magnitude of the vertical side is 4 and of the horizontal side is 6.

From here it follows nicely that p is (-3,1) and q is (9, -7).

Finally there was just the case working out the equation given a gradient and a point.

L1:          y – 1 = (3/2)(x +3)

2y – 2 = 3x + 9

3x – 2y + 11 = 0


L2:          y + 7 = (3/2)(x -9)

2y + 14 = 3x – 27

3x – 2y – 41 = 0

I thought this was a lovely solution, but it seemed like a rather small amount of work for an 8 mark question. This made me wonder what the marks would be for, and then it occurred to me that perhaps this wasn’t the method the question writer had planned. Perhaps they had anticipated a more algebraic approach.

Method 2:

I had the equation of a circle: (x – 3)^2 + (y + 3)^2 = 52. I also knew that each tangent had the equation y = (3/2)x + c. It follows that if I solve these simultaneously I will end up with a quadratic that has coefficients and constants in terms of c. As the lines are tangents, I need the solution to be equal roots, so by setting the discriminant equal to zero I should get a quadratic in c which will solve to give me my 2 y intercepts. Here are the photos of my workings.


As you can see, this leads to the same answer, but took a lot more work.


I’d love to know how you, or your students, would tackle this problem.


Angle problem

December 5, 2017 Leave a comment

Today has been quite a geometric based day for me. I spent a couple of hours solving non-RAT trigonometry problems with year 10 and then a while with year 11 looking at various algebra angle problems. Then I went on Twitter and saw this from Ed Southall (@solvemymaths):

A couple of nice parallel lines questions that I might grow at y11 tomorrow.

Both are fairly straight forward to solve. I looked at the first one, imagines a third parallel line through the join if x and saw x must be the sum of 40 and 60 hence 100.

The second I saw an alternate angle to the 50 in the top triangle and used angle sum of a triangle is 180 to spot that x is a right angle. I glanced down at the responses and saw the vast majority had the same answers as me. That would probably have been the end of it but then I noticed this response:

The same thought process for the first one, but a significantly different approach to the second.

It made me wonder what approach others would take, and which approach my students would take. I wondered if the first problem had led this respondent into this solutions the second, and if so why it hasn’t had the same effect as me.

I don’t know if either approach is better, I just thought the differences were interesting. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it and how you would approach it.

Saturday puzzle

December 2, 2017 2 comments

One of the first things I saw this morning when I awoke was this post from solve my maths on facebook:

That’s interesting I thought, so I thought it have a go.

The radius is given to be 2. So we have an equilateral triangle side length 2. Using my knowledge of triangle and exact trig ratios I know the height of such a triangle is root 3 and as such so is the area. 

Similarly, as the diagonal of the rectangle is 2 and the short side is 1 we can work out from Pythagoras’s Theorem that the longer side is root 3. And again it follows that so is the area.

Lastly we have the square, the diagonal is 2 and as such each side must be root 2, again this is evident from Pythagoras’s Theorem  this gives us an area of 2.

Which leaves us a nice product of the areas as 6.

I think that is correct, I’ve justvwoken up nd this post has been my working, so do about up if you spot an error. And I’d love to hear if youbsolved it a different way.

Reverse percentages and compound interest

November 15, 2017 3 comments

The other day a discussion arose in my year 10 class that I found rather interesting. There was a question on interest which incorporated compound interest and reverse percentages. One student was telling the other how to find the answer to the reverse part, “you need to divide it, because it was that amount times by the multiplier to get this amount and divide is the inverse of times.” All good so far, then they discussed how to complete it if it was a reverse of more than one year, “so in that case it’s the new amount dived by the multiplier to the power of how many years.” I was pleased at the discussion so I didn’t really interject.

Then one of them aid, “if I’m looking for two years ago, can’t I just times it by the multiplier to the power -2? Wouldn’t that work.” I thought this was an excellent thought process. The other student disagreed though, sating “no, it has to be divide.” So I thought at this point I’d better interject a little.

“Does it give you the same answer?” I asked. They both thought about it and tried it and discussed it and said yes. So I asked “does it ALWAYS give the same number?” they tried a number of scenarios using different amounts, different interest rates and different numbers of years. Eventually they had convinced themselves. “Yes, yes it is always the same.”

“So is it a valid method then?” I probed. Some more discussion, then one ventured “yes. It must be.”

“Why does it work?”, I then asked. And left them discussing it.

When I came back to the pair I asked if they could explain why it works and one of them said, “we think that it’s because multiplying by a negative power is the same as dividing by the positive version.”


November 10, 2017 5 comments

Last week while we were waiting for a swimming lesson to start my daughter told me that one of her teachers had got “higgledy piggledy” about oblongs. I asked what she meant and she said that she’d accidentally called one a rectangle and had to correct herself and had informed the class that at her last school she’d had to call them rectangles but at this school had to call them oblongs and sometimes got higgledy piggledy about this. I asked my daughter why they couldn’t call them rectangles and she said that it was because squares can be rectangles too.

This set off a lengthy chain of thoughts in my head. Firstly, I was quite impressed by the fact a 5 year old could articulate all this about knowledge about shapes so well. Then I thought, does it really matter whether they call them oblongs or rectangles? Then I thought, wait a minute, why are we prohibiting the use of rectangle because it can also mean a square, but we are not prohibiting the use of oblong when it can also mean an ellipse? My chain of thought then jumped down a rabbit hole questioning whether we should actually be referring to regular or equilateral rectangular parallelograms and non – regular/equilateral parallelograms. Why are we allowing children to call a shape a triangle, when it is one possible type of triangle in a family of triangles, but not allowing them to call a shape a rectangle when it is only one possible rectangle in a family of rectangles. These thoughts stewed around in my head for a while and I thought I’d ask the twittersphere for their opinions on the matter.

These opinions fell into a couple of camps. The first cam thought that oblong was a nice enough word and they didn’t mind others using it but preferred not to themselves. The second camp felt that it was important to distinguish between an oblong and a square so important to use oblong not rectangle and the third camp thought that actually it was better to use rectangles due to the elliptical oblongs. I questioned some of the respondents from the second two groups a little further to see why they fell into these groups. Those in the second seemed unaware that the word oblong also meant ellipse and those in the third thought it was more important to excluded ellipses than squares. Stating that it was easy enough to explain away the special case that is the square.

I’ve spend rather a lot of time considering this, and am now not really sure what I think on the issue. I can’t see a problem with using a rectangle and explaining away the square as a special case. We call all triangles triangles and expand as and when required. No one bothers about calling a non-rectangular parallelogram a parallelogram, despite the fact that that could mean a rectangle. But again I’m not sure I’m massively strongly against the term oblong either. It could open up a good discussion about the term and how it could apply to ellipses, although this probably is a little too much for a year 1 classroom. I think I’m leaning towards rectangle as a preference though, as explaining away a special case is, for me, much more preferable than ignoring a whole class of oblongs.


If you have views on this, whichever way you lean, I’d love to hear them, either in the comments or via social media.

Categories: #MTBoS, KS2, KS3, Maths, SSM, Teaching Tags: , ,

Dodgy Microsoft Graphics 

October 10, 2017 1 comment

So my new laptop arrived today and I quickly set about using it. It’s a Windows 10 laptop and as such has all the usual Microsoft stuff preloaded in it. I was going to set chrome as the default browser when it suggested I try Microsoft edge as it’s apparently faster and made for Windows 10. When I opened it it showed me this graphic:

Immediately I called shinanegans. The 5% difference between the green and the blue looked far too big. Initially I thought it was just down to the scale starting from 25000 and the size, but looking deeper there are also 4 extra sets if 5 notches on the blue which further add a to the illusion.

All in all a terrible diagram. Poor form Microsoft. Poor form.

An excellent puzzle – alternate methods

July 19, 2017 2 comments

Yesterday I wrote this post looking at a nice puzzle I’d seen and how I solved it.

The puzzle again:

Lovely, isn’t It?

After I published my previous post I wondered if I may have been better using a vector approach or a coordinate geometry approach. So I gave them a try.

Coordinate Geometry

I started by sketching the figure against an axis.

I place the origin at the centre of the circle, worked out the equation if the circle and the right leg of the triangle and solved simultaneously for x. Giving x =1 and x=1/3. These x values correspond to half the base of each triangle, which shows the scale factor from the large triangle to the small one is 1/3. As the area of the large one is rt2 this gives the area of the small as rt2/9.

I like this method, probably a little better than the one prior to it.


First I sketched it out and reasoned I could work it out easy enough with 4 vectors.

I saw that I could write AC as a sum of two others:

I knew that the length of AC was 1 so I used Pythagoras’s Theorem to calculate mu. It left me with the exact same quadratic to solve. This time mu was the fraction of DB needed so was automatically the length scale factor. The rest falls out as it did before.

As well as this, Colin Beveridge (@icecolbeveridge), maths god and general legend, tweeted a couple of 1 tweet solutions. First he used trig identities:

Trig Identities 

I assumed this was right, but checked it through to ensure I knew why was going on:

We can see beta is 2 x alpha and as such the tan value is correct. The cos value (although it is missing a negative sign that I’m sure Colin missed to test me) follows from Pythagoras’s Theorem:

This is again the scale factor as it is half the base of the small triangle and the base if large triangle is 2.

Complex Numbers

Then Colin tweeted this:

At first I wasn’t totally sure I followed so I asked for further clarification:

I had a moment of stupidity:

And then saw where Colin was going. I tried to work it through, by way of explaining here in a better manner.

I sketched it out and reasoned the direction of lines:

Then I normalised that and equated imaginary parts to get the same scale factor:

I am happy that is is valid, and that it shows Colin is right, but I’m not entirely sure this as the exact method Colin was meaning. He has promised a blog on the subject so I will add a link when it comes.

I like all these methods. I dontvthink I would have though of Colin’s methods myself though. I’d love to hear another methods you see.

%d bloggers like this: