<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
  <resource>
  <id>326</id>
  <path>/www/nrich/html/content/00/09/15plus3/</path>
  <resourceTypeID>1</resourceTypeID>
  <last_published>2011-02-01T00:00:01</last_published>
  <indexXML>&lt;mdoxml version=&quot;1.0&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;table border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;div&gt;We are given a regular icosahedron having three red vertices. Show that it has a vertex that has at least two red neighbours.&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;If you&amp;#39;re stuck, try this&lt;/span&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/content/00/09/15plus3/icosahedron.doc&quot; style=&quot;font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;proof sorting activity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;&lt;mdo:image alt=&quot;icosahedron&quot; height=&quot;346&quot; src=&quot;icosahedron.jpg&quot; width=&quot;418&quot;&gt;&lt;/mdo:image&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;framework&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;This problem was taken from the Hungarian magazine KoMaL. There are many other challenging problems in English on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cs.elte.hu/komal/index.e.html&quot;&gt;the KoMal website&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/mdoxml&gt;</indexXML>
  <solutionXML>&lt;mdoxml version=&quot;1.0&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;span class=&quot;editorial&quot;&gt;Solution to Proximity by Tony and John,
State College Area High School, PA, USA.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
 
&lt;table border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;&lt;mdo:image height=&quot;346&quot; width=&quot;418&quot; alt=&quot;icosahedron&quot; src=&quot;icosahedron.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/mdo:image&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;div&gt;We give a proof by contradiction.&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;

&lt;div&gt;Suppose no vertex has more than one red neighbour.&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;

&lt;div&gt;Without loss of generality say the vertex at the top is red.
Then none of the five vertices around the upper horizontal
pentagon, which are neighbours of the top vertex, are red. This is
because if any of them were red then there would be two vertices
each having two red neighbours which is not allowed.&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Now consider the five vertices around the lower horizontal
pentagon. Only one of these can be red because if two were red then
there would be a vertex with two red neighbours which is not
allowed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The argument shows that of the eleven vertices discussed only
two can be red. We know that there is a third red vertex so it must
be the vertex at the bottom. However if the bottom vertex is red
then there will be two vertices on the lower horizontal pentagon
having two red neighbours which is not allowed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We have reached a contradiction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So the assumption that no vertex has more than one red neighbour
is false.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We have proved that there is at least one vertex with two red
neighbours.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;/mdoxml&gt;</solutionXML>
  <noteXML>&lt;mdoxml version=&quot;1.0&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;Why do this problem?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://nrich.maths.org/public/viewer.php?obj_id=326&amp;amp;part=index&quot;&gt;
The result&lt;/a&gt; can be proved by an argument using proof by
contradiction and it is a useful example of this type of reasoning.
It also calls for visualisation and to clearly explain the
reasoning provides learners with another challenge.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;Possible approach&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
You might discuss arguments by contradiction with the class first.
We often use arguments by contradiction in ordinary conversations
that are nothing to do with mathematics.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
You might want the class to realise that a statement and its
contrapositive are always logically equivalent. If we consider a
statement and its contrapositive, and we can prove one of them,
then we have also proved the other statement.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
One approach is to ask the learners to make up 'If ...then... &amp;quot;
statements of their own and write down their contrapositives. (See
Possible support below).&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
Invite the class to try to prove the Proximity result using an
argument by contradiction. A good strategy in cases like this is to
ask the learners to work individually for a short time, then to
work in pairs and explain their arguments to their partner and
agree on the best argument, then to work in fours so that each pair
explains their argument to the other pair and they try to get the
best argument possible between them. Then invite groups to come to
the board and try to convince the whole class that their argument
works.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
An alternative approach to consider is to work with your learners
on the NRICH resource&lt;a href=&quot;http://nrich.maths.org/public/viewer.php?obj_id=6332&amp;amp;part=index&quot;&gt;
Contrary Logic&lt;/a&gt; first and then to tackle the Proximity
problem.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;Key Questions&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
If you turn the statement you are trying to prove round to use a
proof by contradiction what would you start by assuming?&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
If the icosahedron has 3 red vertices is there any loss of
generality in taking the top vertex to be red?&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
If the top vertex is red, what can you say about the other vertices
around it?&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;Possible extension&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
Learners might try &lt;a href=&quot;http://nrich.maths.org/public/viewer.php?obj_id=1404&amp;amp;part=index&quot;&gt;
Proof Sorter&lt;/a&gt; to get the proof that the square root of 2 is
irrational in order/&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
A natural follow up, and re-inforcement for confidence in using
this sort of argument, would be to work on the resource &lt;a href=&quot;http://nrich.maths.org/public/viewer.php?obj_id=6332&amp;amp;part=index&quot;&gt;
Contrary Logic.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
Read the article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://nrich.maths.org/public/viewer.php?obj_id=4717&amp;amp;part=index&quot;&gt;
Proof by Contradiction&lt;/a&gt; .&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;Possible support&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
Even small children will understand the logical equivalence of the
following statements, supposing the only money they have to spend
is the pocket money they get on Saturdays:&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
(1) If you spend all your money on Saturday you will have none to
spend for the rest of the week.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
(2) If you have money to spend in the rest of the week you did not
spend it all on Saturday.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
These two statements are contrapoitives of each other. For another
example, if we are talking about polygons, then the two statements
(3) and (4) below are logically equivalent.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
(3) If this figure is a triangle then it has three sides&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
(4) If this figure does not have three sides then it is not a
triangle.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;/mdoxml&gt;</noteXML>
  <clueXML>&lt;mdoxml version=&quot;1.0&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
We have to prove the statement: &lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
If a regular icosahedron has three red vertices then it has a
vertex that has at least two red neighbours.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
We can use an argument by contradiction. We suppose that
NOvertex has more than one red neighbour and reach a
contradiction thus showing that this statement must be false&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
Without loss of generality you can think about the top vertex being
red and decide what that means for the other vertices around
it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;/mdoxml&gt;</clueXML>
  <canonXML>&lt;mdoxml version=&quot;1.0&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
Jenny writes:&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
An argument might go something like this: Let's assume I can make
an icosahedrons with 3 red vertices but no vertex has 2 red
neighbours. First, I mark any vertex red and call it A (see the
diagram), I can now think of the icosahedrons as made up of 4
layers of vertices.&lt;mdo:image height=&quot;373&quot; width=&quot;441&quot; src=&quot;proximity_sol_canonical.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/mdo:image&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The one I marked at the top, which is A&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The ring of 5 vertices adjacent to A, call it B&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The ring of 5 vertices below ring B, call it C&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The vertex that is adjacent to ring C, call it D&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
Since A is red, I cannot now mark any of the vertices on B red
because there will be a third vertex adjacent to this vertex and A
so that it has 2 red neighbours. So let me put a second red vertex
on the ring C, now there will always be a vertex on the ring B with
two adjacent red vertices. Thus, I cannot mark any of the vertices
on C red. The only place left for the second red vertex is the
vertex D. &lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
Now I have to place a third vertex on the ring B or C but I have
shown that by putting one there I can find a vertex with 2 red
neighbours. &lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
Therefore it is not possible to have 3 red vertices without at
least one vertex having 2 adjacent red vertices.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
Steve writes:&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
Suppose that three vertices are coloured red and that no vertex has
more than one red neighbour. Because no vertex can be adjacent to
two red vertices we can see that no two red vertices can be on the
same triangular face or on two adjacent triangular faces.
Furthermore, all of the 10 vertices on the two middle layers (B and
C) of the dodecahedron are on a face adjacent to a face containing
the point A. Therefore if A is coloured red then the only other
vertex which can be coloured red is D, which contradicts the
assumption that three vertices were coloured red.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;/mdoxml&gt;</canonXML>
  <end_user_role>2</end_user_role>
  <difficulty>4</difficulty>
  <keystage1>0</keystage1>
  <keystage2>0</keystage2>
  <keystage3>0</keystage3>
  <keystage4>1</keystage4>
  <keystage4plus>0</keystage4plus>
  <title>Proximity</title>
  <description>We are given a regular icosahedron having three red vertices. Show
that it has a vertex that has at least two red neighbours.</description>
  <spec_group>Using, Applying and Reasoning about Mathematics
    <specifier>Mathematical reasoning &amp; proof</specifier>
  </spec_group>
  <spec_group>Using, Applying and Reasoning about Mathematics
    <specifier>Visualising</specifier>
  </spec_group>
  <spec_group>Using, Applying and Reasoning about Mathematics
    <specifier>Proof by contradiction</specifier>
  </spec_group>
  <spec_group>3D Geometry, Shape and Space
    <specifier>Icosahedra</specifier>
  </spec_group>
  <spec_group>Using, Applying and Reasoning about Mathematics
    <specifier>Proof Sorting</specifier>
  </spec_group>
</resource>