Abstract:Outsourcing algebraic computations in dynamic geometry is a possible strategy used when software distribution constraints apply. Either if the target user machine has hardware limitations, or if the computer algebra system cannot be easily (or legally) packaged inside the geometric software, this approach can solve current shortcomings in dynamic environments. We report the design and implementation of a web service using Singular, a program specialized in ideal theory and commutative algebra. Besides its cano… Show more
“…In order to simplify the costly elimination process, we realize that IIdeal contains a polynomial d 1 > EliminationIdeal(IdealA,{t1,t2,t3,t4});EliminationIdeal(IdealB, {t1,t2,t3,t4}); <0> <t2> > EliminationIdeal (IIdeal, {t1,t2,t3,t4}); <0>…”
Section: Converse Varignon: Option B) Proving It Is Not Generally Famentioning
confidence: 99%
“…and the like) from a given list of relation questions, that are also automatically translated by the program into algebraic terms. Then, following different criteria, constraints and heuristics, a collection of algebraic methods in ADG, some of them using the own GeoGebra symbolic computation features, some others connecting with an external server (see, for instance, [1]) are activated and sequentially attempt dealing with the proposed question, until one of them eventually succeeds or the program yields a failure warning. In the successful case, the output is a grant/denial of the truth of the proposed statement, eventually including a list of non-degeneracy conditions for the validity of the proposition.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Roughly speaking, statements dealing with constructions that have multiple instances for a single value of the free parameters of the corresponding construction and which are neither true for all such instances nor false for all of them. Section 3 introduces a simple illustrative example 1 , where a statement, neither generally true nor generally false (if naively formulated), can be easily turned into a generally true one, by adding an "intuitive" and natural complementary hypothesis. Furthermore, it advances some proving related consequences when defining, in dynamic geometry, the midpoint of a segment.…”
Abstract. The aim of this note is to discuss some issues posed by the emergency of universal interfaces able to decide on the truth of geometric statements. More specifically, we consider a recent GeoGebra module allowing general users to verify standard geometric theorems. Working with this module in the context of Varignon's theorem, we were driven -by the characteristics of the GeoGebra interface-to perform a quite detailed study of the very diverse fate of attempting to automatically prove this statement, when using two different construction procedures. We highlight the relevance -for the theorem proving output-of expression power of the dynamic geometry interface, and we show that the algorithm deciding about the truth of some -even quite simplestatements can fall into a not true and not false situation, providing a source of confusion for a standard user and an interesting benchmark for geometers interested in discovering new geometric facts.
“…In order to simplify the costly elimination process, we realize that IIdeal contains a polynomial d 1 > EliminationIdeal(IdealA,{t1,t2,t3,t4});EliminationIdeal(IdealB, {t1,t2,t3,t4}); <0> <t2> > EliminationIdeal (IIdeal, {t1,t2,t3,t4}); <0>…”
Section: Converse Varignon: Option B) Proving It Is Not Generally Famentioning
confidence: 99%
“…and the like) from a given list of relation questions, that are also automatically translated by the program into algebraic terms. Then, following different criteria, constraints and heuristics, a collection of algebraic methods in ADG, some of them using the own GeoGebra symbolic computation features, some others connecting with an external server (see, for instance, [1]) are activated and sequentially attempt dealing with the proposed question, until one of them eventually succeeds or the program yields a failure warning. In the successful case, the output is a grant/denial of the truth of the proposed statement, eventually including a list of non-degeneracy conditions for the validity of the proposition.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Roughly speaking, statements dealing with constructions that have multiple instances for a single value of the free parameters of the corresponding construction and which are neither true for all such instances nor false for all of them. Section 3 introduces a simple illustrative example 1 , where a statement, neither generally true nor generally false (if naively formulated), can be easily turned into a generally true one, by adding an "intuitive" and natural complementary hypothesis. Furthermore, it advances some proving related consequences when defining, in dynamic geometry, the midpoint of a segment.…”
Abstract. The aim of this note is to discuss some issues posed by the emergency of universal interfaces able to decide on the truth of geometric statements. More specifically, we consider a recent GeoGebra module allowing general users to verify standard geometric theorems. Working with this module in the context of Varignon's theorem, we were driven -by the characteristics of the GeoGebra interface-to perform a quite detailed study of the very diverse fate of attempting to automatically prove this statement, when using two different construction procedures. We highlight the relevance -for the theorem proving output-of expression power of the dynamic geometry interface, and we show that the algorithm deciding about the truth of some -even quite simplestatements can fall into a not true and not false situation, providing a source of confusion for a standard user and an interesting benchmark for geometers interested in discovering new geometric facts.
“…GSP, although not having a specific command to deal with envelopes, gives some related advice about constructing envelopes. 5 There, the statement a geometric envelope can be thought of as the limit or edge of the locus of a line or a circle is succesfully An approximate envelope computed through definition E 3 in GeoGebra applied to find some envelopes. This protocol catches the concept behind definition E 3 , and it is a natural way to get the envelopes as curves.…”
Section: Envelopes As Limit Of Intersections Of Nearby Curvesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, the last part of Sections 3 and 4 address the second objective of this note, namely, to describe the basic issues behind a new command for envelope computation, featured in the new 5.0 version of GeoGebra (September 2014) and based on a series of recent contributions by the authors of this note and their collaborators [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. The idea here is to present just a sketchy picture on how some key ingredients from effective algebraic geometry are put together to conform the algorithmic approach behind this GeoGebra command.…”
We review the behavior of some popular dynamic geometry software when computing envelopes, relating the diverse methods implemented in these programs with the various definitions of envelope. Special attention is given to the new GeoGebra 5.0 version, that incorporates a mathematically rigorous approach for envelope computations. Furthermore, a discussion on the role, in this context, of the cooperation between GeoGebra and a recent parametric polynomial solving algorithm is detailed. This approach seems to yield accurate results, allowing for the first time sound computations of envelopes of families of plane curves in interactive environments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.