Skip to main content

Poisson Games and Sudden-Death Overtime

Young Alan Turing and the Arctangent

With the release of the new film "The Imitation Game", I decided to read the biography this excellent film was based on - Alan Turing: The Enigma. In it, the author Andrew Hodges relates the story that the 15-year-old Alan Turing derived the Maclaurin series for the \(\arctan\) function, i.e. \[\arctan(x) = x - \frac{x^3}{3} + \frac{x^5}{5} - \frac{x^7}{7} + \ldots\] This is trivial using calculus, but it's explicitly stated that young Alan Turing neither knew nor used calculus. How would you derived such a series without calculus?

This is a tricky problem, and I'd suggest first tackling the much easier problem of deriving the Maclaurin series for \(\exp(x)\) from the relation \( \exp(2x) = \exp(x)\cdot \exp(x)\). This is an underconstrained relation, so you'll need to assume \(c_0 = 1, c_1 = 1\).

Getting back to \(\arctan\), you could start with the half-angle formula for the tangent: \[\tan(2x) = \frac{2\tan(x)}{1-{\tan}^2(x)}.\] Now use the Weierstrass-like substitution \(x = \arctan(t)\) to get \[\tan(2\arctan(t)) = \frac{2t}{1-t^2}.\] The right-hand side can be expanded in the usual geometric series fashion to get \[\tan(2\arctan(t)) = 2t\cdot (1+t^2+t^4+\ldots).\]
Finally, take the \(\arctan\) of both sides and assume we have the series expansion \(\arctan(x) = c_1 x + c_3 x^3 + c_5 x^5 + \ldots\). Note that we may ignore the terms with even powers of \(x\) as \(\arctan(x)\) is an odd function.

This gives us the setting \[2\arctan(t) = \arctan(2t\cdot (1+t^2+t^4+\ldots))\] and expanding as a power series \[2(c_1 t + c_3 t^3 + \ldots) = c_1 (2t\cdot (1+t^2+\ldots) + c_3 (2t\cdot (1+t^2+\ldots))^3 + \ldots\]
The next step is to line up powers of \(t\) on both sides and set up a system of simultaneous equations. There's some algebra and combinatorics involved, but we end up with the system of equations \[c_{2i+1} = \sum_{j=0}^{i} c_{2j+1}\cdot 2^{2j} \cdot {{i+j} \choose {2j}}.\] Note that this system is underconstrained due to our functional relationship being satisfied by any multiple of the \(\arctan\) function. We'll assume that \(c_1 = 1\), but note that this follows from the classical (non-calculus) limit \( \lim_{x\to 0} \frac{\sin(x)}{x} = 1\).

The first few relations are \begin{align*}
c_1 &= c_1 \\
c_3 &= c_1 + 4\cdot c_3 \\
c_5 &= c_1 + 12\cdot c_3 + 16\cdot c_5 \\
c_7 &= c_1 + 24\cdot c_3 + 80\cdot c_5 + 64\cdot c_7
Assuming \(c_1 = 1\) as above we quickly calculate \( c_3 = -\frac{1}{3}, c_5 = \frac{1}{5}, c_7 = -\frac{1}{7}\), with the pattern being obvious.

That \(c_{2i+1} = \frac{(-1)^i}{2i+1}\) can be verified by Wolfram Alpha:

Wolfram Alpha

An obvious question is whether or not there's a simple demonstration of this; in particular, one that a young Alan Turing may have found. This I don't know (yet).


  1. Did you mean to link to the book 'Alan Turing: The Enigma' by Andrew Hodges?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Bayes' Solution to Monty Hall

For any problem involving conditional probabilities one of your greatest allies is Bayes' Theorem. Bayes' Theorem says that for two events A and B, the probability of A given B is related to the probability of B given A in a specific way.

Standard notation:

probability of A given B is written \( \Pr(A \mid B) \)
probability of B is written \( \Pr(B) \)

Bayes' Theorem:

Using the notation above, Bayes' Theorem can be written: \[ \Pr(A \mid B) = \frac{\Pr(B \mid A)\times \Pr(A)}{\Pr(B)} \]Let's apply Bayes' Theorem to the Monty Hall problem. If you recall, we're told that behind three doors there are two goats and one car, all randomly placed. We initially choose a door, and then Monty, who knows what's behind the doors, always shows us a goat behind one of the remaining doors. He can always do this as there are two goats; if we chose the car initially, Monty picks one of the two doors with a goat behind it at random.

Assume we pick Door 1 and then Monty sho…

What's the Value of a Win?

In a previous entry I demonstrated one simple way to estimate an exponent for the Pythagorean win expectation. Another nice consequence of a Pythagorean win expectation formula is that it also makes it simple to estimate the run value of a win in baseball, the point value of a win in basketball, the goal value of a win in hockey etc.

Let our Pythagorean win expectation formula be \[ w=\frac{P^e}{P^e+1},\] where \(w\) is the win fraction expectation, \(P\) is runs/allowed (or similar) and \(e\) is the Pythagorean exponent. How do we get an estimate for the run value of a win? The expected number of games won in a season with \(g\) games is \[W = g\cdot w = g\cdot \frac{P^e}{P^e+1},\] so for one estimate we only need to compute the value of the partial derivative \(\frac{\partial W}{\partial P}\) at \(P=1\). Note that \[ W = g\left( 1-\frac{1}{P^e+1}\right), \] and so \[ \frac{\partial W}{\partial P} = g\frac{eP^{e-1}}{(P^e+1)^2}\] and it follows \[ \frac{\partial W}{\partial P}(P=1) = …

Solving a Math Puzzle using Physics

The following math problem, which appeared on a Scottish maths paper, has been making the internet rounds.

The first two parts require students to interpret the meaning of the components of the formula \(T(x) = 5 \sqrt{36+x^2} + 4(20-x) \), and the final "challenge" component involves finding the minimum of \( T(x) \) over \( 0 \leq x \leq 20 \). Usually this would require a differentiation, but if you know Snell's law you can write down the solution almost immediately. People normally think of Snell's law in the context of light and optics, but it's really a statement about least time across media permitting different velocities.

One way to phrase Snell's law is that least travel time is achieved when \[ \frac{\sin{\theta_1}}{\sin{\theta_2}} = \frac{v_1}{v_2},\] where \( \theta_1, \theta_2\) are the angles to the normal and \(v_1, v_2\) are the travel velocities in the two media.

In our puzzle the crocodile has an implied travel velocity of 1/5 in the water …