Solving Number Theory Problems: Follow-up Question on Calculating Averages"

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the geometric interpretation of averaging numbers on a one-dimensional number line. It emphasizes that averaging the lengths of intervals, such as [0,1], [0,3], and [0,8], is a valid approach to calculating the average of the numbers 1, 3, and 8. The method proposed involves calculating the midpoints of the intervals and correctly summing them to derive the average, resulting in a final value of 4. This approach clarifies the logical inconsistencies in alternative methods suggested by participants.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of one-dimensional number lines
  • Basic knowledge of interval notation
  • Familiarity with averaging concepts in mathematics
  • Geometric interpretation of numerical data
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of intervals and their lengths in number theory
  • Learn about geometric interpretations of mathematical concepts
  • Explore advanced averaging techniques in statistics
  • Investigate the implications of interval elimination in mathematical reasoning
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, educators, students studying number theory, and anyone interested in the geometric aspects of mathematical averaging.

Astro
Messages
48
Reaction score
1
I have a follow-up question to the "Calculating Averages" thread.
Please see the "Followup_Question" attachment.

Any help is, as always, most appreciated.


(See this link for the original question: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=143759)
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Hey Astro,

You cannot do what you are suggesting for a pretty simple reason. Think of the one-dimensional number line. Each positive number x on the number line represents the distance between that number and 0. So, any line segment on the number line with length x lies on a closed interval [tex][0 + \alpha, x + \alpha][/tex] where [tex]\alpha[/tex] is an arbitrary constant in the real numbers. So, when you average the three numbers 1, 3, and 8, you are in fact averaging the lengths of three intervals [0,1], [0,3], [0,8] (here I'm taking [tex]\alpha[/tex] to be 0, but that's really inconsequential).

Your method posits taking half the length of the intervals [1,3] and [3,8] and averaging those values, which to be honest doesn't make any sense when you think of this geometrically. It also doesn't make sense logically, since you eliminated an interval in the process. However, you do have the germ of an idea here. If we consider three subintervals that lie on the interval [0,8]: [0,1], [1,3], and [3,8] and if we apply a version of your method:

[tex]\frac{1-0}{2} + \frac{3-1}{2} + \frac{8-3}{2}[/tex],

then we arrive at:

[tex]\frac{1 + 2 + 5}{2} = 4[/tex]

...which is the average of 1, 3, and 8. I'm not certain if I answered your question as thoroughly as you'd hoped, but I hope that this helps you in some way.

 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K