DOCSLIB.ORG

Math 295. Solutions to Homework 3 (1) Let S Be a Set

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Math 295. Solutions to Homework 3 (1) Let S Be a Set Math 295. Solutions to Homework 3 (1) Let S be a set. A function f : S ! S is called an involution provided that f ◦ f (s) = s for all s 2 S. Show: If g : S ! S is an involution, then g is bijective. We first show that g is surjective. Choose s 2 S. We need to produce and s0 2 S so that g(s0) = s. Let s0 = g(s). Then g(s0) = g(g(s)) = s: Now for injectivity. Suppose s; s0 2 S with g(s) = g(s0). We need to show that s = s0. Well, s = g(g(s)) = g(g(s0)) = s0: (2) Suppose a; b 2 R with a < b. Show that there exist c; d 2 R with c 2 Q and d 62 Q so that a < c < d < b. 1 First we prove that c exists. By the archimedian property of R, there is a natural number n such that n < (b−a). Thus multiplying by n, we have bn − an > 1. By a theorem proved in class, we can find a natural number m such that an < m < bn. Dividing by n, we see that we can take c = m . n p It remains to find d 2 R n Q such that c < d < b. We know that 2 is irrational, and if q 2 Q is not zero, then p p p −1 q · 2 is not rational. Since 2 > 0, we have 2 > 0 and p p c= 2 < b= 2: Thus, from what we just proved, there exists q 2 Q so that p p c= 2 < q < b= 2: p It follows that c < q 2 < b. (3) Show that every nonempty bounded above subset of N has a maximal element. That is, if ; 6= S ⊂ N is bounded above, then there is an element t 2 S so that t ≥ s for all s 2 S. Let S ⊂ N be a bounded above, nonempty subset of N. Since S is bounded above and nonempty, it has a supremum, call is σ. It will be enough to show that σ belongs to S. Since the set of natural numbers is unbounded, the set T := fn 2 N j n ≥ σg is nonempty. By well-ordering, T has a minimal element, call it j. Thus, since σ is positive, we have j−1 < σ ≤ j. We claim that σ = j. Since any element s of S is both a natural number and less than or equal to σ, we conclude, from the fact that there are no natural numbers strictly between (j − 1) and j, that either s ≤ (j − 1) or s = j. Thus, we have two cases: either there is an s for which s = j, or, for all s 2 S we have s ≤ (j − 1). In the former case, we must have j = s ≤ σ ≤ j; so σ = s 2 S. In the latter case, we conclude that for all s 2 S we have s ≤ (j − 1) < σ ≤ j: But this means that σ is not the least upper bound, a contradiction. (4) Fun with maps. (a) Suppose A is a set and f : N ! A is an injection. Show that there is a bijection between A and a proper subset of A. (That is, there is a subset A0 of A and a map g : A ! A0 such that A0 6= A and g is bijective.) For all n 2 N, define an 2 A by an := f(n). Let =(f) denote the image of f in A. Thus, =(f) = 0 fa1; a2;:::g. Let A = fa2; a3; a4;:::g [ (A n =(f)). 0 0 We claim that a1 62 A , so A is a proper subset of A. Since a1 = f(1), we have a1 62 An=(f). Consequently, 0 if a1 2 A , then it must be in the set fa2; a3;:::g: Thus, there is an n 2 N with n > 1 so that a1 = an = f(n). Since f is injective, the only way an can be a1 0 is if n = 1. Thus, a1 62 A . Since every a 2 A belongs to exactly one of =(f) or A n =(f), we can define the function g : A ! A0 by ( a if a 2 =(f) and a = a , g(a) = n+1 n a if a 2 A n =(f). We need to show that g is bijective. We first show that g is surjective. Choose a0 2 A0. If a0 2 [A n =(f)] ⊂ A0, then g(a0) = a0. Otherwise, if 0 0 a 2 fa2; a3; a4;:::g, then a = an for some n 2 N with n > 1. Since n > 1, we have (n − 1) 2 N and 0 g(a(n−1)) = an = a . Finally, we show that g is injective. Suppose a; a¯ 2 A and g(a) = g(¯a). We want to conclude that a =a ¯. Suppose first that g(a) 2 [A n =(f)] ⊂ A0. In this case, we have a = g(a) = g(¯a) =a: ¯ Now suppose that g(a) 62 [An=(f)]. We must have g(a) 2 fa2; a3;:::g. Thus, since g(¯a) = g(a), we have g(¯a) 2 fa2; a3;:::g as well. Thus, there are n; m 2 N for which a = an and a¯ = am. We have f(n + 1) = g(a) = g(¯a) = f(m+ 1). Consequently, since f is injective, we conclude that n + 1 = m + 1, or n = m. Hence a = an = am =a ¯. (b) For n 2 N, let Nn := fk 2 N: k ≤ ng. Suppose `; m 2 N. Show that N` = Nm if and only if ` = m. Serious hint: One direction is easy; for the other direction, use induction on max(`; m). If n = m, then Nn = Nm. Now suppose that Nn = Nm. Both Nn and Nm are nonempty bounded above subset of N. Thus, from problem number 2, they have maximal elements. In the first case, the maximal element is n and in the second case the maximal element is m. We have shown in class that supremums are unique (when they exist). Since a maximal element is a supremum, we conclude that n is the unique maximal element of Nn = Nm. Since m is the unique maximal element of Nm = Nn, we conclude that n = m. (c) Suppose n 2 N. Show that if S is a nonempty subset of Nn, then there is a bijective map from S to N` for some ` ≤ n. Hint: use induction. Let P (n) be the statement: If S is a nonempty subset of Nn, then there is a bijective map from S to N` for some ` ≤ n. Define T ⊂ N by T := fn 2 N: P (n) is trueg: We need to show that T is an inductive subset of N. Since the only nonempty subset of N1 is N1 itself, we have 1 2 T . Suppose n 2 T . Let S ⊂ Nn+1 be nonempty. If (n + 1) 62 S, then S ⊂ Nn and since P (n) is true, we conclude that there is an ` ≤ n < (n + 1) 0 and a bijective map from S to N`. If (n + 1) 2 S, then consider the set S = S n fn + 1g. We note that 0 0 S is a subset of Nn, so there is an ` ≤ n < (n + 1) and a bijective map f : S ! N`. Define the function g : S ! N`+1 by ( f(s) if s 2 S0 g(s) = ` + 1 if s = n + 1 Since f is bijective, the function g is clearly bijective. (d) Compare your answers to parts (4a) and (4c). We see in these two problems the difference between finite sets and infinite sets. A finite set can not be bijectively mapped to a proper subset of itself while an infinite set can be bijectively mapped to a proper subset of itself. (5) What is a finite set anyway? (a) A set A is said to be finite if there is an n 2 N and a bijective function f : Nn ! A. Conclude from the previous problem that n is uniquely determined by A. We say that A has n elements. Suppose n; m 2 N and we have bijective maps fn : Nn ! A and fm : Nm ! A. We want to show n = m. We begin by establishing the general fact: if B and C are sets and g : B ! C is a bijection, then g−1 is a bijective function from C to B. Since g is injective, we know that g−1 : g(B) ! B is a function. Since g is surjective, we have g(B) = C. Thus, g−1 : C ! B. We now show that g−1 bijective. For surjective: −1 Choose b 2 B. Note that the image of g(b) under g is b. For injective: Suppose c1 and c2 are in C and −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 g (c1) = g (c2). We then have c1 = g(g (c1)) = g(g (c2)) = c2; so g is injective. We now show that if h: Nm ! Nn is a bijection, then m = n. We proceed by induction on max (n; m). More specifically, let S := f` 2 N: ` ≥ max (m; n) implies that if h: Nn ! Nm is a bijection, then n = mg: We shall show that S is inductive. If max (n; m) = 1, then n = m = 1; so 1 2 S. Suppose ` 2 S. We need to show that ` + 1 2 S. Suppose g : Nm ! Nn a bijection and max (m; n) = ` + 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Book of Involutions
    The Book of Involutions Max-Albert Knus Alexander Sergejvich Merkurjev Herbert Markus Rost Jean-Pierre Tignol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Book of Involutions Max-Albert Knus Alexander Merkurjev Markus Rost Jean-Pierre Tignol Author address: Dept. Mathematik, ETH-Zentrum, CH-8092 Zurich,¨ Switzerland E-mail address: [email protected] URL: http://www.math.ethz.ch/~knus/ Dept. of Mathematics, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, 90095-1555, USA E-mail address: [email protected] URL: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~merkurev/ NWF I - Mathematik, Universitat¨ Regensburg, D-93040 Regens- burg, Germany E-mail address: [email protected] URL: http://www.physik.uni-regensburg.de/~rom03516/ Departement´ de mathematique,´ Universite´ catholique de Louvain, Chemin du Cyclotron 2, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium E-mail address: [email protected] URL: http://www.math.ucl.ac.be/tignol/ Contents Pr´eface . ix Introduction . xi Conventions and Notations . xv Chapter I. Involutions and Hermitian Forms . 1 1. Central Simple Algebras . 3 x 1.A. Fundamental theorems . 3 1.B. One-sided ideals in central simple algebras . 5 1.C. Severi-Brauer varieties . 9 2. Involutions . 13 x 2.A. Involutions of the first kind . 13 2.B. Involutions of the second kind . 20 2.C. Examples . 23 2.D. Lie and Jordan structures . 27 3. Existence of Involutions . 31 x 3.A. Existence of involutions of the first kind . 32 3.B. Existence of involutions of the second kind . 36 4. Hermitian Forms . 41 x 4.A. Adjoint involutions . 42 4.B. Extension of involutions and transfer .
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Elementary Set Theory
    1 Elementary Set Theory Notation: fg enclose a set. f1; 2; 3g = f3; 2; 2; 1; 3g because a set is not defined by order or multiplicity. f0; 2; 4;:::g = fxjx is an even natural numberg because two ways of writing a set are equivalent. ; is the empty set. x 2 A denotes x is an element of A. N = f0; 1; 2;:::g are the natural numbers. Z = f:::; −2; −1; 0; 1; 2;:::g are the integers. m Q = f n jm; n 2 Z and n 6= 0g are the rational numbers. R are the real numbers. Axiom 1.1. Axiom of Extensionality Let A; B be sets. If (8x)x 2 A iff x 2 B then A = B. Definition 1.1 (Subset). Let A; B be sets. Then A is a subset of B, written A ⊆ B iff (8x) if x 2 A then x 2 B. Theorem 1.1. If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A then A = B. Proof. Let x be arbitrary. Because A ⊆ B if x 2 A then x 2 B Because B ⊆ A if x 2 B then x 2 A Hence, x 2 A iff x 2 B, thus A = B. Definition 1.2 (Union). Let A; B be sets. The Union A [ B of A and B is defined by x 2 A [ B if x 2 A or x 2 B. Theorem 1.2. A [ (B [ C) = (A [ B) [ C Proof. Let x be arbitrary. x 2 A [ (B [ C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B [ C iff x 2 A or (x 2 B or x 2 C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B or x 2 C iff (x 2 A or x 2 B) or x 2 C iff x 2 A [ B or x 2 C iff x 2 (A [ B) [ C Definition 1.3 (Intersection).
    [Show full text]
  • Fuzzy Logic : Introduction
    Fuzzy Logic : Introduction Debasis Samanta IIT Kharagpur [email protected] 07.01.2015 Debasis Samanta (IIT Kharagpur) Soft Computing Applications 07.01.2015 1 / 69 What is Fuzzy logic? Fuzzy logic is a mathematical language to express something. This means it has grammar, syntax, semantic like a language for communication. There are some other mathematical languages also known • Relational algebra (operations on sets) • Boolean algebra (operations on Boolean variables) • Predicate logic (operations on well formed formulae (wff), also called predicate propositions) Fuzzy logic deals with Fuzzy set. Debasis Samanta (IIT Kharagpur) Soft Computing Applications 07.01.2015 2 / 69 A brief history of Fuzzy Logic First time introduced by Lotfi Abdelli Zadeh (1965), University of California, Berkley, USA (1965). He is fondly nick-named as LAZ Debasis Samanta (IIT Kharagpur) Soft Computing Applications 07.01.2015 3 / 69 A brief history of Fuzzy logic 1 Dictionary meaning of fuzzy is not clear, noisy etc. Example: Is the picture on this slide is fuzzy? 2 Antonym of fuzzy is crisp Example: Are the chips crisp? Debasis Samanta (IIT Kharagpur) Soft Computing Applications 07.01.2015 4 / 69 Example : Fuzzy logic vs. Crisp logic Yes or No Crisp answer True or False Milk Yes Water A liquid Crisp Coca No Spite Is the liquid colorless? Debasis Samanta (IIT Kharagpur) Soft Computing Applications 07.01.2015 5 / 69 Example : Fuzzy logic vs. Crisp logic May be May not be Fuzzy answer Absolutely Partially etc Debasis Samanta (IIT Kharagpur) Soft Computing Applications
    [Show full text]
  • The Matroid Theorem We First Review Our Definitions: a Subset System Is A
    CMPSCI611: The Matroid Theorem Lecture 5 We first review our definitions: A subset system is a set E together with a set of subsets of E, called I, such that I is closed under inclusion. This means that if X ⊆ Y and Y ∈ I, then X ∈ I. The optimization problem for a subset system (E, I) has as input a positive weight for each element of E. Its output is a set X ∈ I such that X has at least as much total weight as any other set in I. A subset system is a matroid if it satisfies the exchange property: If i and i0 are sets in I and i has fewer elements than i0, then there exists an element e ∈ i0 \ i such that i ∪ {e} ∈ I. 1 The Generic Greedy Algorithm Given any finite subset system (E, I), we find a set in I as follows: • Set X to ∅. • Sort the elements of E by weight, heaviest first. • For each element of E in this order, add it to X iff the result is in I. • Return X. Today we prove: Theorem: For any subset system (E, I), the greedy al- gorithm solves the optimization problem for (E, I) if and only if (E, I) is a matroid. 2 Theorem: For any subset system (E, I), the greedy al- gorithm solves the optimization problem for (E, I) if and only if (E, I) is a matroid. Proof: We will show first that if (E, I) is a matroid, then the greedy algorithm is correct. Assume that (E, I) satisfies the exchange property.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics Is Megethology
    17 Mathematics is megethology Mereology is the theory of the relation of part to whole, and kindred notions. Megethology is the result of adding plural quantification, as advocated by George Boolos in [1] and [2], to the language of mere­ ology. It is so-called because it turns out to have enough expressive power to let us express interesting hypotheses about the size of Reality. It also has the power, as John P. Burgess and A. P. Hazen have shown in [3], to simulate quantification over relations. It is generally accepted that mathematics reduces to set theory. In my book Parts of Classes, [6], I argued that set theory in turn reduces, with the aid of mereology, to the theory of singleton functions. I also argued (somewhat reluctantly) for a 'structuralist' approach to the theory of singleton functions. We need not think we have somehow achieved a primitive grasp of some one special singleton function. Rather, we can take the theory of singleton functions, and hence set theory, and hence mathematics, to consist of generalisations about all singleton functions. We need only assume, to avoid vacuity, that there exists at least one singleton function. But we need not assume even that. For it now turns out that if the size of Reality is right, there must exist a singleton function. All we need as a foundation for mathematics, apart from the framework of megethology, are some hypotheses about the size of Reality. First published in this form in Philosophia Mathematila 3 (1993), 3--23. This paper consists in part of near-verbatim excerpts from David Lewis, Parts of Classes (Oxford, Blackwell, 1991).
    [Show full text]
  • Definiteness and Determinacy
    Linguistics and Philosophy manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Definiteness and Determinacy Elizabeth Coppock · David Beaver the date of receipt and acceptance should be inserted later Abstract This paper distinguishes between definiteness and determinacy. Defi- niteness is seen as a morphological category which, in English, marks a (weak) uniqueness presupposition, while determinacy consists in denoting an individual. Definite descriptions are argued to be fundamentally predicative, presupposing uniqueness but not existence, and to acquire existential import through general type-shifting operations that apply not only to definites, but also indefinites and possessives. Through these shifts, argumental definite descriptions may become either determinate (and thus denote an individual) or indeterminate (functioning as an existential quantifier). The latter option is observed in examples like `Anna didn't give the only invited talk at the conference', which, on its indeterminate reading, implies that there is nothing in the extension of `only invited talk at the conference'. The paper also offers a resolution of the issue of whether posses- sives are inherently indefinite or definite, suggesting that, like indefinites, they do not mark definiteness lexically, but like definites, they typically yield determinate readings due to a general preference for the shifting operation that produces them. Keywords definiteness · descriptions · possessives · predicates · type-shifting We thank Dag Haug, Reinhard Muskens, Luca Crniˇc,Cleo Condoravdi, Lucas
    [Show full text]
  • Determinacy in Linear Rational Expectations Models
    Journal of Mathematical Economics 40 (2004) 815–830 Determinacy in linear rational expectations models Stéphane Gauthier∗ CREST, Laboratoire de Macroéconomie (Timbre J-360), 15 bd Gabriel Péri, 92245 Malakoff Cedex, France Received 15 February 2002; received in revised form 5 June 2003; accepted 17 July 2003 Available online 21 January 2004 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to assess the relevance of rational expectations solutions to the class of linear univariate models where both the number of leads in expectations and the number of lags in predetermined variables are arbitrary. It recommends to rule out all the solutions that would fail to be locally unique, or equivalently, locally determinate. So far, this determinacy criterion has been applied to particular solutions, in general some steady state or periodic cycle. However solutions to linear models with rational expectations typically do not conform to such simple dynamic patterns but express instead the current state of the economic system as a linear difference equation of lagged states. The innovation of this paper is to apply the determinacy criterion to the sets of coefficients of these linear difference equations. Its main result shows that only one set of such coefficients, or the corresponding solution, is locally determinate. This solution is commonly referred to as the fundamental one in the literature. In particular, in the saddle point configuration, it coincides with the saddle stable (pure forward) equilibrium trajectory. © 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. JEL classification: C32; E32 Keywords: Rational expectations; Selection; Determinacy; Saddle point property 1. Introduction The rational expectations hypothesis is commonly justified by the fact that individual forecasts are based on the relevant theory of the economic system.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Linear Logic
    Introduction to Linear Logic Beniamino Accattoli INRIA and LIX (École Polytechnique) Accattoli ( INRIA and LIX (École Polytechnique)) Introduction to Linear Logic 1 / 49 Outline 1 Informal introduction 2 Classical Sequent Calculus 3 Sequent Calculus Presentations 4 Linear Logic 5 Catching non-linearity 6 Expressivity 7 Cut-Elimination 8 Proof-Nets Accattoli ( INRIA and LIX (École Polytechnique)) Introduction to Linear Logic 2 / 49 Outline 1 Informal introduction 2 Classical Sequent Calculus 3 Sequent Calculus Presentations 4 Linear Logic 5 Catching non-linearity 6 Expressivity 7 Cut-Elimination 8 Proof-Nets Accattoli ( INRIA and LIX (École Polytechnique)) Introduction to Linear Logic 3 / 49 Quotation From A taste of Linear Logic of Philip Wadler: Some of the best things in life are free; and some are not. Truth is free. You may use a proof of a theorem as many times as you wish. Food, on the other hand, has a cost. Having baked a cake, you may eat it only once. If traditional logic is about truth, then Linear Logic is about food Accattoli ( INRIA and LIX (École Polytechnique)) Introduction to Linear Logic 4 / 49 Informally 1 Classical logic deals with stable truths: if A and A B then B but A still holds) Example: 1 A = ’Tomorrow is the 1st october’. 2 B = ’John will go to the beach’. 3 A B = ’If tomorrow is the 1st october then John will go to the beach’. So if tomorrow) is the 1st october, then John will go to the beach, But of course tomorrow will still be the 1st october. Accattoli ( INRIA and LIX (École Polytechnique)) Introduction to Linear Logic 5 / 49 Informally 2 But with money, or food, that implication is wrong: 1 A = ’John has (only) 5 euros’.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1809.02384V2 [Math.OA] 19 Feb 2019 H Ruet Eaefloigaecmlctd N Oi Sntcerin Clear Not Is T It Saying So Worth and Is Complicated, It Are Following Hand
    INVOLUTIVE OPERATOR ALGEBRAS DAVID P. BLECHER AND ZHENHUA WANG Abstract. Examples of operator algebras with involution include the op- erator ∗-algebras occurring in noncommutative differential geometry studied recently by Mesland, Kaad, Lesch, and others, several classical function alge- bras, triangular matrix algebras, (complexifications) of real operator algebras, and an operator algebraic version of the complex symmetric operators stud- ied by Garcia, Putinar, Wogen, Zhu, and others. We investigate the general theory of involutive operator algebras, and give many applications, such as a characterization of the symmetric operator algebras introduced in the early days of operator space theory. 1. Introduction An operator algebra for us is a closed subalgebra of B(H), for a complex Hilbert space H. Here we study operator algebras with involution. Examples include the operator ∗-algebras occurring in noncommutative differential geometry studied re- cently by Mesland, Kaad, Lesch, and others (see e.g. [26, 25, 10] and references therein), (complexifications) of real operator algebras, and an operator algebraic version of the complex symmetric operators studied by Garcia, Putinar, Wogen, Zhu, and many others (see [21] for a survey, or e.g. [22]). By an operator ∗-algebra we mean an operator algebra with an involution † † N making it a ∗-algebra with k[aji]k = k[aij]k for [aij ] ∈ Mn(A) and n ∈ . Here we are using the matrix norms of operator space theory (see e.g. [30]). This notion was first introduced by Mesland in the setting of noncommutative differential geometry [26], who was soon joined by Kaad and Lesch [25]. In several recent papers by these authors and coauthors they exploit operator ∗-algebras and involutive modules in geometric situations.
    [Show full text]
  • Solutions Are Available
    Math 436 Introduction to Topology Spring 2018 Examination 1 1. Define (a) the concept of the closure of a set, and (b) the concept of a basis for a given topology. Solution. The closure of a set A can be defined as the smallest closed set containing A, or as the intersection of all closed sets containing A, or as the union of A with the set of limit points of A. A basis for a given topology is a subset of such that every element of can be obtained as a union of elements of . In alternative language, a basis for a given topology is a collection of open sets such that every open set can be obtained by taking a union of some open sets belonging to the basis. 2. Give an example of a separable Hausdorff topological space .X; / with the property that X has no limit points. Solution. A point x is a limit point of X when every neighborhood of x intersects X ⧵ ^x`. This property evidently holds unless the singleton set ^x` is an open set. Saying that X has no limit points is equivalent to saying that every singleton set is an open set. In other words, the topology on X is the discrete topology. The discrete topology is automatically Hausdorff, for if x and y are distinct points, then the sets ^x` and ^y` are disjoint open sets that separate x from y. A minimal basis for the discrete topology consists of all singletons, so the discrete topology is separable if and only if the space X is countable.
    [Show full text]
  • PROBLEM SET 1. the AXIOM of FOUNDATION Early on in the Book
    PROBLEM SET 1. THE AXIOM OF FOUNDATION Early on in the book (page 6) it is indicated that throughout the formal development ‘set’ is going to mean ‘pure set’, or set whose elements, elements of elements, and so on, are all sets and not items of any other kind such as chairs or tables. This convention applies also to these problems. 1. A set y is called an epsilon-minimal element of a set x if y Î x, but there is no z Î x such that z Î y, or equivalently x Ç y = Ø. The axiom of foundation, also called the axiom of regularity, asserts that any set that has any element at all (any nonempty set) has an epsilon-minimal element. Show that this axiom implies the following: (a) There is no set x such that x Î x. (b) There are no sets x and y such that x Î y and y Î x. (c) There are no sets x and y and z such that x Î y and y Î z and z Î x. 2. In the book the axiom of foundation or regularity is considered only in a late chapter, and until that point no use of it is made of it in proofs. But some results earlier in the book become significantly easier to prove if one does use it. Show, for example, how to use it to give an easy proof of the existence for any sets x and y of a set x* such that x* and y are disjoint (have empty intersection) and there is a bijection (one-to-one onto function) from x to x*, a result called the exchange principle.
    [Show full text]
  • Surviving Set Theory: a Pedagogical Game and Cooperative Learning Approach to Undergraduate Post-Tonal Music Theory
    Surviving Set Theory: A Pedagogical Game and Cooperative Learning Approach to Undergraduate Post-Tonal Music Theory DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Angela N. Ripley, M.M. Graduate Program in Music The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: David Clampitt, Advisor Anna Gawboy Johanna Devaney Copyright by Angela N. Ripley 2015 Abstract Undergraduate music students often experience a high learning curve when they first encounter pitch-class set theory, an analytical system very different from those they have studied previously. Students sometimes find the abstractions of integer notation and the mathematical orientation of set theory foreign or even frightening (Kleppinger 2010), and the dissonance of the atonal repertoire studied often engenders their resistance (Root 2010). Pedagogical games can help mitigate student resistance and trepidation. Table games like Bingo (Gillespie 2000) and Poker (Gingerich 1991) have been adapted to suit college-level classes in music theory. Familiar television shows provide another source of pedagogical games; for example, Berry (2008; 2015) adapts the show Survivor to frame a unit on theory fundamentals. However, none of these pedagogical games engage pitch- class set theory during a multi-week unit of study. In my dissertation, I adapt the show Survivor to frame a four-week unit on pitch- class set theory (introducing topics ranging from pitch-class sets to twelve-tone rows) during a sophomore-level theory course. As on the show, students of different achievement levels work together in small groups, or “tribes,” to complete worksheets called “challenges”; however, in an important modification to the structure of the show, no students are voted out of their tribes.
    [Show full text]