• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13
  14. 14
    14
  15. 15
    15
  16. 16
    16
  17. 17
    17
  18. 18
    18
  19. 19
    19
  20. 20
    20
  21. 21
    21
  22. 22
    22
  23. 23
    23
  • Level: GCSE
  • Subject: Maths
  • Word count: 5216

Investigate the difference between the products of the numbers in the opposite corners of any rectangles that can be drawn on a 100 square.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Tom Gowing 11A GCSE Maths Coursework

Opposite Corners

Investigate the difference between the products of the numbers in the opposite corners of any rectangles that can be drawn on a 100 square.

During the investigation my aim is to find a formula to work out the difference of these products for any size rectangle on any size grid.

I will start off by working out the difference on different shapes and looking for a basic pattern. I will try moving the shapes around the grid to see how this affects the difference.

I am going to use the following 5 shapes during this part of the investigation:

A 2x2 square

A 3x3 square

A 2x3 rectangle

A 2x5 rectangle

A 3x5 rectangle

A 2x2 Square

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

For the 2x2 I have decided to try 3 different positions along the horizontal,

3 along the vertical and 3 along the diagonal this should tell me if the difference alters depending on which way you move the shape around the grid. I have done 3 along each axis to provide accurate results by highlighting any anomalous ones. The only way to get perfectly accurate results would be to test every position the shape could be on the grid, but this is a waste of time when you can take 3 measurements from each axis and see any anomalous results. I will also do one test at a random site on the grid to make sure that results are as close to perfect as possible.

I predict that the difference will increase as the shape moves across or down the grid.


1

2

11

12

1 x 12 = 12

2 x 11 = 22

        22 – 12 = 10

5

6

15

16

        5 x 16 = 80

        5 x 15 = 90

        90 – 80 = 10

9

10

19

20

        9 x 20 = 180

        10 x 19 = 190

        190 – 180 = 10

From this I can see that for a 2x2 square on a 100 grid the difference is equal no matter where the shape is on the horizontal axis. This disproves my theory.

...read more.

Middle

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

For the 2x5 tests I predict that the difference will remain the same for the shape in any position on the grid.

1

2

3

4

5

11

12

13

14

15

        1 x 15 = 15

        5 x 11 = 55

        55 – 15 = 40

6

7

8

9

10

16

17

18

19

20

        6 x 20 = 120

        10 x 16 = 160

        160 – 120 = 40

This proves that for a 2x5 the difference remains the same when you move it across the grid in a horizontal direction.

I will now test this vertically.

1

2

3

4

5

11

12

13

14

15

        1 x 15 = 15

        5 x 11 = 55

        55 – 15 = 40

81

82

83

84

85

91

92

93

94

95

        81 x 95 = 7695

        85 x 91 = 7735

        7735 – 7695 = 40

This proves that for a 2x5 the difference remains the same when you move it down the grid in a vertical direction.

I will now test this diagonally.

1

2

3

4

5

11

12

13

14

15

        1 x 15 = 15

        5 x 11 = 55

        55 – 15 = 40

34

35

36

37

38

44

45

46

47

48

        34 x 48 = 1632

        38 x 44 = 1672

        1672 – 1632 = 40

This proves that for a 2x5 the difference remains the same when you move it across the grid in a diagonal direction.

I will now test a random shape to ensure accurate results.

14

15

16

17

18

24

25

26

27

28

        14 x 28 = 392

        18 x 24 = 432

        432 – 392 = 40

This confirms my predictions that no matter where a 2x5 rectangle is on the grid the differences are always the same. It is starting to look like all identical rectangles have the same difference no matter where they are positioned, as with the squares. I will do one more test to confirm this, a 5x3.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

For the 3x5 tests I predict that the difference will remain the same for the shape in any position on the grid.


1

2

3

4

5

11

12

13

14

15

21

22

23

24

25

        1 x 25 = 25

        5 x 21 = 105

        105 – 25 = 80

6

7

8

9

10

16

17

18

19

20

26

27

28

29

30

        6 x 30 = 180

        10 x 26 = 260

        260 – 180 = 80

This proves that for a 3x5 the difference remains the same when you move it across the grid in a horizontal direction.

I will now test this vertically.

1

2

3

4

5

11

12

13

14

15

21

22

23

24

25

        1 x 25 = 25

        5 x 21 = 105

        105 – 25 = 80

71

72

73

74

75

81

82

83

84

85

91

92

93

94

95

        71 x 95 = 6745

        75 x 91 = 6825

        6825 – 6745 = 80

This proves that for a 3x5 the difference remains the same when you move it down the grid in a vertical direction.

I will now test this diagonally.

1

2

3

4

5

11

12

13

14

15

21

22

23

24

25

        1 x 25 = 25

        5 x 21 = 105

        105 – 25 = 80

45

46

47

48

49

55

56

57

58

59

65

66

67

68

69

        45 x 69 = 3105

        49 x 65 = 3185

        3185 – 3105 = 80

This proves that for a 3x5 the difference remains the same when you move it across the grid in a diagonal direction.

I will now test a random shape to ensure accurate results.

13

14

15

16

17

23

24

25

26

27

33

34

35

36

37

        13 x 37 = 481

        17 x 33 = 561

561 – 481 = 80

From all my tests so far I can deduce that as long as the rectangle is the same size and on the same angle that no matter where it is on the grid, the difference of the products is always the same.

But does the difference remain the same if the shape is rotated 90 degrees? Technically speaking this is a completely different shape e.g. a 2x3 is not the same shape as a 3x2, but it would be interesting to see if the differences are the same. Obviously this will work for squares because they are the same shape no matter what angle they are on, so I will try rotating the last 3 rectangles that I tested, a 2x3, a 2x5 and a 3x5. These will therefore become a 3x2, a 5x2 and a 5x3. From my previous tests I know that it doesn’t matter where I position them on the grid and I only need to do 1 for each test.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

For all of these shapes I would expect the differences to be different from the non-rotated ones.

1

2

11

12

21

22

        1 x 22 = 22

        2 x 21 = 42

        42 –22 = 20

This is the same difference as found on the 2x3.

24

25

26

34

35

36

44

45

46

54

55

56

64

65

66

        24 x 66 = 1584

        26 x 64 = 1664

        1664 – 1584 = 80

This is the same difference as found on the 3x5.

58

59

68

69

78

79

88

89

98

99

...read more.

Conclusion

But what happens on a rectangular grid? I expect this to need a different formula, because the X and Y-axes are different, as they were when I changed to square shapes to rectangle.

I will now try the formula out on 2 different sized rectangular grids, a 4x5 and a 9x7. For each of these I will test with 3 different shapes to prove my argument and to show up any anomalous results.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1

2

5

6

1 x 6 = 6

2 x 5 = 10

10 – 6 = 4

7

8

11

12

15

16

7 x 16 = 112

8 x 15 = 120

120 – 112 = 8

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

13 x 20 = 260

16 x 17 = 272

272 – 260 = 12

The formula for this should be 4(χ-1)(γ-1)

The difference for the 2x2 should be 4

4(2-1)(2-1) = 4

This is correct

The difference for the 3x2 should be 8

4(3-1)(2-1) = 8

This is correct

The difference for the 2x4 should be 12

4(2-1)(4-1) = 12

This is correct

This has disproved my first theory about needing to change the formula for a rectangle because it has a different sized X-axis than Y-axis.

It has told me that on a 4x5 grid that you simply replace the number at the beginning of the formula with the number of squares going across the top of the grid (the x-axis of the grid).

I will now test this on a 7x9 grid to prove this, and to make sure that it is definitely the X-axis that needs inserting into the formula.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

1

2

8

9

1 x 9 = 9

2 x 8 = 16

16 – 9 = 7

17

18

19

20

21

24

25

26

27

28

17 x 28 = 476

21 x 24 = 504

504 – 476 = 28

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

50 x 63 = 3150

56 x 57 = 3192

3192 – 3150 = 42

If my theory is correct the formula for these should be 7(χ-1)(γ-1).

The difference for the 2x2 should be 7

7(2-1)(2-1) = 7

This is correct

The difference for the 2x5 should be 28

7(2-1)(5-1) = 28

This is correct

The difference for the 2x7 should be 42

7(2-1)(7-1) = 42

This is correct

This has proved my theory.

The final formula, for finding the difference between the products of the numbers in the opposite corners of any rectangle, on any size grid is:

α(χ - 1) (γ - 1)

Where: α = The horizontal width (χ-axis) of the grid

χ = The horizontal width (χ-axis) of the shape

γ = The vertical depth (γ-axis) of the shape

...read more.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Number Stairs, Grids and Sequences section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Number Stairs, Grids and Sequences essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    I am going to investigate the difference between the products of the numbers in ...

    4 star(s)

    25x33= 825 23x35=805 825-805=20, D=20 2x4 77 78 79 80 87 88 89 90 80x87=6960 77x90=6930 6960-6930=30, D=30 From these I theorize that the difference is always a multiple of 10 (and goes up in 10). Using this, I predict that 2x5 rectangles will have a difference of 40: 2x5

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Opposite Corners. In this coursework, to find a formula from a set of numbers ...

    4 star(s)

    * What happens if the numbers are arranged in six columns or seven columns? Firstly, before the tasks are considered, other squares will be tried using the procedure in the example of the 2�2 square on Page 2. The following squares have been obtained from the 10 by 10 grid on Page 2.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Opposite Corners

    4 star(s)

    I think that any 5*5 square would have a difference of 160. To prove this I will use algebra. z z+1 z+2 z+3 z+4 z(z+44)=z�+44z z+10 z+11 z+12z+13 z+14 (z+4)(z+40)= z�+44z+160 z+20 z+21z+22 z+23 z+24 (z�+44z+160)-(z�+44z)=160 z+30 z+31z+32 z+33 z+34 Difference = 160 z+40 z+41z+42 z+43 z+44 This proves that

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Opposite Corners of a Square on a Number Grid

    3 star(s)

    160 6*6 1*56 & 6*51 250 5*60 & 10*55 250 41*96 & 46*91 250 45*100 & 50*95 250 Because the second difference is 20, the nth term is 202= 10n� So we know that the final algebraic expression will be associated with 10n�.

  1. For other 3-step stairs, investigate the relationship between the stair total and the position ...

    69 70 1 Formula: 15x-220 13 14 1: 15x49-220= 515 25 26 27 2: 1+13+25+37+49+14+26+38+50+27+39+51+40+52+53= 515 37 38 39 40 49 50 51 52 53 From the above 5 examples of such exercise, it clearly indicates that the algebra equation works and the theory is accurate.

  2. What the 'L' - L shape investigation.

    To do this I am going to look at the change in the L-Shape when it is rotated. I will start by doing a diagram of the four rotations that are possible using a standard L-Shape. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

  1. Number Grid Investigation.

    - (47 X 53) = 40. Product difference = 40. My prediction is correct. I will now try it again just to be sure. 83 84 85 86 87 93 94 95 96 97 (83 X 97) - (87 X 93)

  2. Maths coursework. For my extension piece I decided to investigate stairs that ascend along ...

    62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 41 42 43 44 n + 20 46 47 48 49 50 31 32 33 34 n + 10 n +11 37 38 39 40 21 22 23 24 n n

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work