Opposite Corners

Categories: Algebra

Essay, Pages 6 (1325 words)

Views

214

I have been given the task to investigate the differences of the products of the diagonal opposite corners of a square on a 10x10 Grid with the numbers 1 to 100 to start with.

I will start with a 2 x 2 square on a 10 x 10 grid and discover the rule for it, then I will progress onto a 3 x 3 square on the same grid.

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Proficient in: Algebra

4.7 (235)

“ Amazing writer! I am really satisfied with her work. An excellent price as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

I will then keep on going until I eventually find the rule for any sized square on a 10 x 10 grid.

Get to Know The Price Estimate For Your Paper

Topic

Deadline: 10 days left

Number of pages

Email Invalid email

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"

Write my paper

You won’t be charged yet!

2x2 Square

(2 x 11) - (1 x 12) = 10

(14 x 25) - (15 x 24) = 10

(8 x 17) - (7 x 18) = 10

(20 x 29) - (19 x 30) = 10

I have discovered that the answer is always 10 I will now use algebra to see if the answer is once again 10.

n+1

n+10

n+11

(n+1)(n+10) - n(n+11)

(n2+11n+10) - (n2+11n)

As the algebraic equation also gives the answer of 10 I know it must be right.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Opposite Corners ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

As I believe I can keep on learning throughout the investigation I will now move onto a 3x3 square on the same grid. I predict that once again all answers will be the same.

3 X 3 Square

(3 x 21) - (1 x 23) = 40

(6 x 24) - (4 x 26) = 40

(10 x 28) - (8 x 30) = 40

I believe the answer will always be 40 for a 3 x 3 square on this grid. So I will now use algebra to see if I am correct.

n+2

n+20

n+22

(n+2)(n+20) - n(n+22)

(n2+20n+2n+40) - (n2+22n)

This proves that the answer is always 40 when a 3 x 3 square is placed on a 10 x 10 grid.

I am now going to use a 4 x 4 square on a 10 x 10 grid. The only difference will be that I will only use algebra as numbers are very time consuming.

4 x 4 square

n+3

n+30

n+33

(n+3)(n+30) - n(n+33)

(n2+30n+3n+90) - (n2+33n)

As I am doing so well I will continue to go on to a 5 x 5 square on the 10 x 10 grid.

5 x 5 Square

n+4

n+40

n+44

(n+4)(n+40) - n(n+44)

(n2+40n+4n+160) - (n2+44n)

160

I am now going to create a table displaying my results so far

Square

Opposite Corners

2 x 2

3 x 3

4 x 4

5 x 5

160

6 x 6

???

I have noticed a pattern: the opposite corners are all square numbers of the square before multiplied by 10. Hence forth I predict that the product form the 6 x 6 square will have a difference of 250, I will now try it and see if my prediction is correct.

n+5

n+50

n+55

(n+5)(n+50) - n(n+55)

(n2+50n+5n+250) - (n2+55n)

250

I was correct. I will now attempt to convert my verbal rule into algebraic terms for any square on a 10 x 10 grid.

n+(m-1)

N+10(m-1)

N+11(m-1)

(n+(m-1))(n+10(m-1)) - n(n+11(m-1))

(n2+10n(m-1)+n(m-1)+10(m-1) 2)-(n2+11n(m-1))

10(m-1) 2

I have now discovered the rule for any square on a 10 x 10 grid I am now going to try and find a general rule which will allow me to work out on any square on any grid. As the rule for any square on a 10 x 10 grid is 10(m-1) 2 I predict that if were to use a 7 x 7 grid the rule would be 7(m-1) 2 . I will now see if I am correct. However I will once again only use algebra as numbers are too time consuming. I will use a 2 x 2 square on the grid to start with.

2 x 2 square

N+1

n+7

N+8

(n+1)(n+7) - n(n+8)

(n2+7n+n+7) - (n2+8n)

I think I have already spotted a trend as this occurred when I completed the work for the 10 x 10 grid. I think the rule for any square on a 7 x 7 grid will be 7(m-1) 2

I will now try to see if I am correct.

n+(m-1)

n+7(m-1)

n+8(m-1)

(n+(m-1)(n+7(m-1)) - n(n+8(m-1))

n2+7n(m-1)+n(m-1)+7(m-1) 2

7(m-1) 2

The answer is exactly what I predicted I am now going to find a general rule for any square (m x m) on any grid (g x g). This is what my grid would look like...

1+g

2+g

......

1+2g

......

Here is the process I will use to solve the general rule:

n+(m-1)

n+g(m-1)

n+(m-1)(g+1)

n+(m-1)(n+g(m-1)) - n(n(m-1)(g+1))

(n2+ng(m-1)+n(m-1)+g(m-1) 2

(n2+n(g+1)(m-1)+g(m-1) 2) - (n2+n(m-1)(g+1))

g(m-1) 2

Now I have completed my aims and found the general rule I will not have to use numbers again to find the opposite corners of a square. I have done this through progressive investigation and through algebraic methods. I have taken this piece of coursework as far as I can with squares and I am therefore going to progress onto using rectangles as they are similar shapes. As I have done lots of number and algebra work finding the formula for individual squares I am simply going to find the general rule straight away for any rectangle on any grid.

The letters I will use are:

L: the length of the rectangle must be bigger than 1 and equal to or smaller than the grid

size.

H: the height of the rectangle. This is a non-restrictive measurement if it is required to be

as extra rows can be added easily to the bottom of the grid. Must be a whole positive

integer

G: The grid size which must be at least 2 x 2 upwards so that it has opposing corners. It

must also be a whole, positive integer.

n+1

......

n+(L-1)

n+G

......

n+2G

......

n+G(H-1)

......

n+G(H-1)+(L-1)

(n+(L-1))(n+G(H-1)) - n(n+G(H-1)+(L-1))

n2+nG(H-1)+n(L-1)+(G(L-1)(H-1)) - (n2+nG(H-1)+n(L-1))

G(L-1)(H-1)

I have found my rule for any rectangle on any size of grid the algebraic rule is

G(L-1)(H-1) or subtract one from the length and one from the height and multiply by the grid size. I have completed the extension of the original task and did no think I could progress any further. However I discovered one aspect that I have not even mentioned before the difference between the numbers in the grid. For instance I could instead of having; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... I could have; 2, 4, 6, 8, 10... as I have in the last few investigations I will only use algebra as numbers as well are to time consuming.

These are the algebraic terms I will use in my formulae:

L: the length of the rectangle must be bigger than 1 and equal to or smaller than the grid

size.

H: the height of the rectangle. This is a non-restrictive measurement if it is required to be

as extra rows can be added easily to the bottom of the grid. Must be a whole positive

integer

G: The grid size which must be at least 2 x 2 upwards so that it has opposing corners. It

must also be a whole, positive integer.

S: The gap between the two numbers can be any number; positive, negative, decimals,

Fractions etc.

This is what my grid would look like

n+S

n+2S

......

n(g-1)S

n+GS

n+2GS

......

This is how I will work out the rule for any rectangle on any sized grid with any gap size between the numbers.

n+S(L-1)

n+GS(H-1)

n+S(L-1)+GS(H-1)

(n+S(L-1))(n+GS(H-1) - n(n+s(L-1)+GS(H-1))

(n2+nGS(H-1)+ns(L-1)+S2G(L-1)(H-1)) - (n2+ns(L-1)+nGS(H-1)

S2G(L-1)(H-1)

For Example

So if:

S= -0.1

G= 5

L=2

H=3

S2G(L-1)(H-1)

0.01 x 5 x 1 x 2 = 0.1

For Example

21.9

21.8

21.7

21.6

21.5

21.4

21.3

21.2

21.1

21.0

20.9

(21.9 x 21) - (22 x 20.9)

459.9 - 459.8

0.01

In conclusion I feel I have gone as far as possible with this investigation as I have covered all aspects of it as I can possibly think off. I am very happy with my results and have enjoyed doing this investigation.