Japanese Temple Problem From 1844
up vote
60
down vote
favorite
I recently learnt a Japanese geometry temple problem.
The problem is the following:
Five squares are arranged as the image shows. Prove that the area of triangle T and the area of square S are equal.
This is problem 6 in this article.
I am thinking about law of cosines, but I have not been able to prove the theorem. Any hints would be appreciated.
geometry sangaku
add a comment |
up vote
60
down vote
favorite
I recently learnt a Japanese geometry temple problem.
The problem is the following:
Five squares are arranged as the image shows. Prove that the area of triangle T and the area of square S are equal.
This is problem 6 in this article.
I am thinking about law of cosines, but I have not been able to prove the theorem. Any hints would be appreciated.
geometry sangaku
1
If you like this kind of problems I cannot recommend enough the book "Sacred Mathematics - Japanese Temple Geometry" by Fukagawa Hidetoshi and Tony Rothman. It also includes a couple of "relatives" to this problem.
– mickep
Nov 24 at 14:03
I checked it out. A great book indeed, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 24 at 14:22
The shapes $S,T$ share a vertex $A$ where $6$ angles meet, $3$ of them right angles. Thus the other $3$ angles sum to $pi/2$. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles and the right angle between them from $S$ sum to $pi-theta$. As $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$ where $BA,AC$ are sides of the upper squares. The challenge then is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:24
1
^ From J.G.'s answer.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:26
add a comment |
up vote
60
down vote
favorite
up vote
60
down vote
favorite
I recently learnt a Japanese geometry temple problem.
The problem is the following:
Five squares are arranged as the image shows. Prove that the area of triangle T and the area of square S are equal.
This is problem 6 in this article.
I am thinking about law of cosines, but I have not been able to prove the theorem. Any hints would be appreciated.
geometry sangaku
I recently learnt a Japanese geometry temple problem.
The problem is the following:
Five squares are arranged as the image shows. Prove that the area of triangle T and the area of square S are equal.
This is problem 6 in this article.
I am thinking about law of cosines, but I have not been able to prove the theorem. Any hints would be appreciated.
geometry sangaku
geometry sangaku
edited Nov 22 at 20:49
Jean-Claude Arbaut
14.7k63363
14.7k63363
asked Nov 22 at 20:40
Larry
1,3202722
1,3202722
1
If you like this kind of problems I cannot recommend enough the book "Sacred Mathematics - Japanese Temple Geometry" by Fukagawa Hidetoshi and Tony Rothman. It also includes a couple of "relatives" to this problem.
– mickep
Nov 24 at 14:03
I checked it out. A great book indeed, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 24 at 14:22
The shapes $S,T$ share a vertex $A$ where $6$ angles meet, $3$ of them right angles. Thus the other $3$ angles sum to $pi/2$. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles and the right angle between them from $S$ sum to $pi-theta$. As $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$ where $BA,AC$ are sides of the upper squares. The challenge then is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:24
1
^ From J.G.'s answer.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:26
add a comment |
1
If you like this kind of problems I cannot recommend enough the book "Sacred Mathematics - Japanese Temple Geometry" by Fukagawa Hidetoshi and Tony Rothman. It also includes a couple of "relatives" to this problem.
– mickep
Nov 24 at 14:03
I checked it out. A great book indeed, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 24 at 14:22
The shapes $S,T$ share a vertex $A$ where $6$ angles meet, $3$ of them right angles. Thus the other $3$ angles sum to $pi/2$. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles and the right angle between them from $S$ sum to $pi-theta$. As $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$ where $BA,AC$ are sides of the upper squares. The challenge then is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:24
1
^ From J.G.'s answer.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:26
1
1
If you like this kind of problems I cannot recommend enough the book "Sacred Mathematics - Japanese Temple Geometry" by Fukagawa Hidetoshi and Tony Rothman. It also includes a couple of "relatives" to this problem.
– mickep
Nov 24 at 14:03
If you like this kind of problems I cannot recommend enough the book "Sacred Mathematics - Japanese Temple Geometry" by Fukagawa Hidetoshi and Tony Rothman. It also includes a couple of "relatives" to this problem.
– mickep
Nov 24 at 14:03
I checked it out. A great book indeed, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 24 at 14:22
I checked it out. A great book indeed, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 24 at 14:22
The shapes $S,T$ share a vertex $A$ where $6$ angles meet, $3$ of them right angles. Thus the other $3$ angles sum to $pi/2$. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles and the right angle between them from $S$ sum to $pi-theta$. As $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$ where $BA,AC$ are sides of the upper squares. The challenge then is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:24
The shapes $S,T$ share a vertex $A$ where $6$ angles meet, $3$ of them right angles. Thus the other $3$ angles sum to $pi/2$. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles and the right angle between them from $S$ sum to $pi-theta$. As $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$ where $BA,AC$ are sides of the upper squares. The challenge then is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:24
1
1
^ From J.G.'s answer.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:26
^ From J.G.'s answer.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:26
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
40
down vote
accepted
We will, first of all, prove a very interesting property
$mathbf{Lemma;1}$
Given two squares PQRS and PTUV (as shown on the picture), the triangles $Delta STP$ and $Delta PVQ$ have equal area.
$mathbf {Proof}$
Denote by $alpha$ the angle SPT and by $[...]$ the area of the polygon "...". Hence
$$[Delta STP]=frac{overline {PS}cdotoverline {PT}cdot sin(alpha)}{2}$$ $$[Delta PVQ]=frac{overline {QP}*overline {PV}cdotsinBigl(360°-(90°+90+alpha)Bigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsinBigl(180°-alphaBigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsin(alpha)}{2}$$
Since $overline {PS}=overline {PQ}$ and $overline {PT}=overline {PV}$ $$[Delta STP]=[Delta PVQ]$$
Now, back to the problem
Let $overline {AB}=a$ and $overline {IJ}=b$. Note first of all that $$Delta BEC cong Delta EIF$$
See why? $mathbf {Hint:}$
It is obvious that $overline {CE}=overline {EF}$. Use the properties of right triangles in order to show that all angles are equal.
Thus $${(overline{CE})^2}={a^2}+{b^2}=S$$
Note furthermore that $$[Delta BEC]=[Delta EIF]=frac{ab}{2}$$
By Lemma 1:
$$[Delta DCG]=[Delta BEC]=frac{ab}{2}=[Delta EIF]=[Delta GFK]$$
The area of the polygon AJKGD is thus
$$[AJKGD]=[ABCD]+[CEFG]+[FIJK]+4[Delta DCG]=2Bigl({a^2}+{b^2}Bigr)+2ab$$
The area of the trapezoid AJKD is moreover
$$[AJKD]=frac{(a+b)(2a+2b)}{2}={a^2}+2ab+{b^2}$$
Finally
$$T=[Delta DKG]=[AJKGD]-[AJKD]={a^2}+{b^2}=S Rightarrow S=T$$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Nov 24 at 13:16
add a comment |
up vote
30
down vote
$$|square P_1 P_2 P_3 P_4| = (a+b)^2 = frac12(a+b)(2a+2b) = |square Q_1 Q_2 Q_3 Q_4|quad=:R$$
$$S ;=; R - 4cdotfrac12ab ;=; T$$
(This space intentionally left blank.)
3
I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
– Larry
Nov 23 at 14:24
5
@Larry: I use GeoGebra.
– Blue
Nov 23 at 19:47
1
I see, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 23 at 19:49
1
@crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
– Blue
Nov 25 at 11:40
1
@Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
– crskhr
Nov 25 at 14:34
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
17
down vote
Because there are so many squares, coordinates are easy to compute.
The area of the shaded square is clearly $u^2+v^2$.
The area of the shaded triangle is one-half of the absolute value of the determinant of the array
$$left[ begin{array}{c}
1 & 1 & 1 \
2u-v & 3u & 2u \
3u+v & u+3v & u+v
end{array} right]$$
which is also $u^2+v^2$.
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
The four triangles adjacent to $S$ (two of them right, two of them obtuse) all have the same area. (Each has the same base and height as the one on the opposite side of the square, while the two right triangles are congruent.). Now rotate each of the obtuse triangles by $90^circ$ so that they are adjacent to $T$, as shown.
What now needs to be proved is that the two shaded pentagons have equal area. This can be done by observing that each pentagon decomposes into an isosceles right triangle and a trapezoid. The isosceles right triangles are congruent; the trapezoids have equal area as their two bases are the same and their heights are the same.
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
While the other solutions are obviously correct, they are also unnecessarily complicated.
Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles, so* why not pick one which is simple to work with and results in a degenerate case.
*) The assumption of truth is not required since we first do show that S=T is, in fact, true (in one simple case) and skirt the rules from there on by leaving the extrapolation to the reader.
While this approach is best suited for puzzles, looking at the edge cases first is a quick way to disprove things by example, or at least check that your calculations are correct
7
That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
– Owen
Nov 23 at 23:19
5
Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
– IanF1
Nov 24 at 8:01
1
I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:38
2
If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:40
The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
– Blue
16 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
This is a long comment.
The shapes $S,,T$ share a vertex $A$ where six angles meet, three of them right angles. The other three angles therefore sum to a right angle. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles, and the right angle between them from $S$, sum to $pi-theta$. Since $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$, where $BA,,AC$ are sides of the upper squares.
The challenge, then, is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:35
$BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
– I like Serena
Nov 22 at 21:41
$BACD$ is not a rhombus.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:42
2
@Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
– J.G.
Nov 23 at 10:22
1
I have converted your answer into a comment.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:28
|
show 4 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009635%2fjapanese-temple-problem-from-1844%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
40
down vote
accepted
We will, first of all, prove a very interesting property
$mathbf{Lemma;1}$
Given two squares PQRS and PTUV (as shown on the picture), the triangles $Delta STP$ and $Delta PVQ$ have equal area.
$mathbf {Proof}$
Denote by $alpha$ the angle SPT and by $[...]$ the area of the polygon "...". Hence
$$[Delta STP]=frac{overline {PS}cdotoverline {PT}cdot sin(alpha)}{2}$$ $$[Delta PVQ]=frac{overline {QP}*overline {PV}cdotsinBigl(360°-(90°+90+alpha)Bigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsinBigl(180°-alphaBigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsin(alpha)}{2}$$
Since $overline {PS}=overline {PQ}$ and $overline {PT}=overline {PV}$ $$[Delta STP]=[Delta PVQ]$$
Now, back to the problem
Let $overline {AB}=a$ and $overline {IJ}=b$. Note first of all that $$Delta BEC cong Delta EIF$$
See why? $mathbf {Hint:}$
It is obvious that $overline {CE}=overline {EF}$. Use the properties of right triangles in order to show that all angles are equal.
Thus $${(overline{CE})^2}={a^2}+{b^2}=S$$
Note furthermore that $$[Delta BEC]=[Delta EIF]=frac{ab}{2}$$
By Lemma 1:
$$[Delta DCG]=[Delta BEC]=frac{ab}{2}=[Delta EIF]=[Delta GFK]$$
The area of the polygon AJKGD is thus
$$[AJKGD]=[ABCD]+[CEFG]+[FIJK]+4[Delta DCG]=2Bigl({a^2}+{b^2}Bigr)+2ab$$
The area of the trapezoid AJKD is moreover
$$[AJKD]=frac{(a+b)(2a+2b)}{2}={a^2}+2ab+{b^2}$$
Finally
$$T=[Delta DKG]=[AJKGD]-[AJKD]={a^2}+{b^2}=S Rightarrow S=T$$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Nov 24 at 13:16
add a comment |
up vote
40
down vote
accepted
We will, first of all, prove a very interesting property
$mathbf{Lemma;1}$
Given two squares PQRS and PTUV (as shown on the picture), the triangles $Delta STP$ and $Delta PVQ$ have equal area.
$mathbf {Proof}$
Denote by $alpha$ the angle SPT and by $[...]$ the area of the polygon "...". Hence
$$[Delta STP]=frac{overline {PS}cdotoverline {PT}cdot sin(alpha)}{2}$$ $$[Delta PVQ]=frac{overline {QP}*overline {PV}cdotsinBigl(360°-(90°+90+alpha)Bigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsinBigl(180°-alphaBigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsin(alpha)}{2}$$
Since $overline {PS}=overline {PQ}$ and $overline {PT}=overline {PV}$ $$[Delta STP]=[Delta PVQ]$$
Now, back to the problem
Let $overline {AB}=a$ and $overline {IJ}=b$. Note first of all that $$Delta BEC cong Delta EIF$$
See why? $mathbf {Hint:}$
It is obvious that $overline {CE}=overline {EF}$. Use the properties of right triangles in order to show that all angles are equal.
Thus $${(overline{CE})^2}={a^2}+{b^2}=S$$
Note furthermore that $$[Delta BEC]=[Delta EIF]=frac{ab}{2}$$
By Lemma 1:
$$[Delta DCG]=[Delta BEC]=frac{ab}{2}=[Delta EIF]=[Delta GFK]$$
The area of the polygon AJKGD is thus
$$[AJKGD]=[ABCD]+[CEFG]+[FIJK]+4[Delta DCG]=2Bigl({a^2}+{b^2}Bigr)+2ab$$
The area of the trapezoid AJKD is moreover
$$[AJKD]=frac{(a+b)(2a+2b)}{2}={a^2}+2ab+{b^2}$$
Finally
$$T=[Delta DKG]=[AJKGD]-[AJKD]={a^2}+{b^2}=S Rightarrow S=T$$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Nov 24 at 13:16
add a comment |
up vote
40
down vote
accepted
up vote
40
down vote
accepted
We will, first of all, prove a very interesting property
$mathbf{Lemma;1}$
Given two squares PQRS and PTUV (as shown on the picture), the triangles $Delta STP$ and $Delta PVQ$ have equal area.
$mathbf {Proof}$
Denote by $alpha$ the angle SPT and by $[...]$ the area of the polygon "...". Hence
$$[Delta STP]=frac{overline {PS}cdotoverline {PT}cdot sin(alpha)}{2}$$ $$[Delta PVQ]=frac{overline {QP}*overline {PV}cdotsinBigl(360°-(90°+90+alpha)Bigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsinBigl(180°-alphaBigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsin(alpha)}{2}$$
Since $overline {PS}=overline {PQ}$ and $overline {PT}=overline {PV}$ $$[Delta STP]=[Delta PVQ]$$
Now, back to the problem
Let $overline {AB}=a$ and $overline {IJ}=b$. Note first of all that $$Delta BEC cong Delta EIF$$
See why? $mathbf {Hint:}$
It is obvious that $overline {CE}=overline {EF}$. Use the properties of right triangles in order to show that all angles are equal.
Thus $${(overline{CE})^2}={a^2}+{b^2}=S$$
Note furthermore that $$[Delta BEC]=[Delta EIF]=frac{ab}{2}$$
By Lemma 1:
$$[Delta DCG]=[Delta BEC]=frac{ab}{2}=[Delta EIF]=[Delta GFK]$$
The area of the polygon AJKGD is thus
$$[AJKGD]=[ABCD]+[CEFG]+[FIJK]+4[Delta DCG]=2Bigl({a^2}+{b^2}Bigr)+2ab$$
The area of the trapezoid AJKD is moreover
$$[AJKD]=frac{(a+b)(2a+2b)}{2}={a^2}+2ab+{b^2}$$
Finally
$$T=[Delta DKG]=[AJKGD]-[AJKD]={a^2}+{b^2}=S Rightarrow S=T$$
We will, first of all, prove a very interesting property
$mathbf{Lemma;1}$
Given two squares PQRS and PTUV (as shown on the picture), the triangles $Delta STP$ and $Delta PVQ$ have equal area.
$mathbf {Proof}$
Denote by $alpha$ the angle SPT and by $[...]$ the area of the polygon "...". Hence
$$[Delta STP]=frac{overline {PS}cdotoverline {PT}cdot sin(alpha)}{2}$$ $$[Delta PVQ]=frac{overline {QP}*overline {PV}cdotsinBigl(360°-(90°+90+alpha)Bigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsinBigl(180°-alphaBigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsin(alpha)}{2}$$
Since $overline {PS}=overline {PQ}$ and $overline {PT}=overline {PV}$ $$[Delta STP]=[Delta PVQ]$$
Now, back to the problem
Let $overline {AB}=a$ and $overline {IJ}=b$. Note first of all that $$Delta BEC cong Delta EIF$$
See why? $mathbf {Hint:}$
It is obvious that $overline {CE}=overline {EF}$. Use the properties of right triangles in order to show that all angles are equal.
Thus $${(overline{CE})^2}={a^2}+{b^2}=S$$
Note furthermore that $$[Delta BEC]=[Delta EIF]=frac{ab}{2}$$
By Lemma 1:
$$[Delta DCG]=[Delta BEC]=frac{ab}{2}=[Delta EIF]=[Delta GFK]$$
The area of the polygon AJKGD is thus
$$[AJKGD]=[ABCD]+[CEFG]+[FIJK]+4[Delta DCG]=2Bigl({a^2}+{b^2}Bigr)+2ab$$
The area of the trapezoid AJKD is moreover
$$[AJKD]=frac{(a+b)(2a+2b)}{2}={a^2}+2ab+{b^2}$$
Finally
$$T=[Delta DKG]=[AJKGD]-[AJKD]={a^2}+{b^2}=S Rightarrow S=T$$
edited Nov 23 at 7:43
Mutantoe
558411
558411
answered Nov 22 at 21:39
Dr. Mathva
906315
906315
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Nov 24 at 13:16
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Nov 24 at 13:16
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Nov 24 at 13:16
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Nov 24 at 13:16
add a comment |
up vote
30
down vote
$$|square P_1 P_2 P_3 P_4| = (a+b)^2 = frac12(a+b)(2a+2b) = |square Q_1 Q_2 Q_3 Q_4|quad=:R$$
$$S ;=; R - 4cdotfrac12ab ;=; T$$
(This space intentionally left blank.)
3
I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
– Larry
Nov 23 at 14:24
5
@Larry: I use GeoGebra.
– Blue
Nov 23 at 19:47
1
I see, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 23 at 19:49
1
@crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
– Blue
Nov 25 at 11:40
1
@Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
– crskhr
Nov 25 at 14:34
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
30
down vote
$$|square P_1 P_2 P_3 P_4| = (a+b)^2 = frac12(a+b)(2a+2b) = |square Q_1 Q_2 Q_3 Q_4|quad=:R$$
$$S ;=; R - 4cdotfrac12ab ;=; T$$
(This space intentionally left blank.)
3
I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
– Larry
Nov 23 at 14:24
5
@Larry: I use GeoGebra.
– Blue
Nov 23 at 19:47
1
I see, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 23 at 19:49
1
@crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
– Blue
Nov 25 at 11:40
1
@Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
– crskhr
Nov 25 at 14:34
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
30
down vote
up vote
30
down vote
$$|square P_1 P_2 P_3 P_4| = (a+b)^2 = frac12(a+b)(2a+2b) = |square Q_1 Q_2 Q_3 Q_4|quad=:R$$
$$S ;=; R - 4cdotfrac12ab ;=; T$$
(This space intentionally left blank.)
$$|square P_1 P_2 P_3 P_4| = (a+b)^2 = frac12(a+b)(2a+2b) = |square Q_1 Q_2 Q_3 Q_4|quad=:R$$
$$S ;=; R - 4cdotfrac12ab ;=; T$$
(This space intentionally left blank.)
edited Nov 23 at 6:02
answered Nov 23 at 3:39
Blue
47.3k870149
47.3k870149
3
I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
– Larry
Nov 23 at 14:24
5
@Larry: I use GeoGebra.
– Blue
Nov 23 at 19:47
1
I see, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 23 at 19:49
1
@crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
– Blue
Nov 25 at 11:40
1
@Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
– crskhr
Nov 25 at 14:34
|
show 1 more comment
3
I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
– Larry
Nov 23 at 14:24
5
@Larry: I use GeoGebra.
– Blue
Nov 23 at 19:47
1
I see, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 23 at 19:49
1
@crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
– Blue
Nov 25 at 11:40
1
@Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
– crskhr
Nov 25 at 14:34
3
3
I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
– Larry
Nov 23 at 14:24
I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
– Larry
Nov 23 at 14:24
5
5
@Larry: I use GeoGebra.
– Blue
Nov 23 at 19:47
@Larry: I use GeoGebra.
– Blue
Nov 23 at 19:47
1
1
I see, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 23 at 19:49
I see, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 23 at 19:49
1
1
@crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
– Blue
Nov 25 at 11:40
@crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
– Blue
Nov 25 at 11:40
1
1
@Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
– crskhr
Nov 25 at 14:34
@Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
– crskhr
Nov 25 at 14:34
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
17
down vote
Because there are so many squares, coordinates are easy to compute.
The area of the shaded square is clearly $u^2+v^2$.
The area of the shaded triangle is one-half of the absolute value of the determinant of the array
$$left[ begin{array}{c}
1 & 1 & 1 \
2u-v & 3u & 2u \
3u+v & u+3v & u+v
end{array} right]$$
which is also $u^2+v^2$.
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
Because there are so many squares, coordinates are easy to compute.
The area of the shaded square is clearly $u^2+v^2$.
The area of the shaded triangle is one-half of the absolute value of the determinant of the array
$$left[ begin{array}{c}
1 & 1 & 1 \
2u-v & 3u & 2u \
3u+v & u+3v & u+v
end{array} right]$$
which is also $u^2+v^2$.
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
up vote
17
down vote
Because there are so many squares, coordinates are easy to compute.
The area of the shaded square is clearly $u^2+v^2$.
The area of the shaded triangle is one-half of the absolute value of the determinant of the array
$$left[ begin{array}{c}
1 & 1 & 1 \
2u-v & 3u & 2u \
3u+v & u+3v & u+v
end{array} right]$$
which is also $u^2+v^2$.
Because there are so many squares, coordinates are easy to compute.
The area of the shaded square is clearly $u^2+v^2$.
The area of the shaded triangle is one-half of the absolute value of the determinant of the array
$$left[ begin{array}{c}
1 & 1 & 1 \
2u-v & 3u & 2u \
3u+v & u+3v & u+v
end{array} right]$$
which is also $u^2+v^2$.
answered Nov 23 at 14:50
steven gregory
17.6k32257
17.6k32257
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
The four triangles adjacent to $S$ (two of them right, two of them obtuse) all have the same area. (Each has the same base and height as the one on the opposite side of the square, while the two right triangles are congruent.). Now rotate each of the obtuse triangles by $90^circ$ so that they are adjacent to $T$, as shown.
What now needs to be proved is that the two shaded pentagons have equal area. This can be done by observing that each pentagon decomposes into an isosceles right triangle and a trapezoid. The isosceles right triangles are congruent; the trapezoids have equal area as their two bases are the same and their heights are the same.
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
The four triangles adjacent to $S$ (two of them right, two of them obtuse) all have the same area. (Each has the same base and height as the one on the opposite side of the square, while the two right triangles are congruent.). Now rotate each of the obtuse triangles by $90^circ$ so that they are adjacent to $T$, as shown.
What now needs to be proved is that the two shaded pentagons have equal area. This can be done by observing that each pentagon decomposes into an isosceles right triangle and a trapezoid. The isosceles right triangles are congruent; the trapezoids have equal area as their two bases are the same and their heights are the same.
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
up vote
12
down vote
The four triangles adjacent to $S$ (two of them right, two of them obtuse) all have the same area. (Each has the same base and height as the one on the opposite side of the square, while the two right triangles are congruent.). Now rotate each of the obtuse triangles by $90^circ$ so that they are adjacent to $T$, as shown.
What now needs to be proved is that the two shaded pentagons have equal area. This can be done by observing that each pentagon decomposes into an isosceles right triangle and a trapezoid. The isosceles right triangles are congruent; the trapezoids have equal area as their two bases are the same and their heights are the same.
The four triangles adjacent to $S$ (two of them right, two of them obtuse) all have the same area. (Each has the same base and height as the one on the opposite side of the square, while the two right triangles are congruent.). Now rotate each of the obtuse triangles by $90^circ$ so that they are adjacent to $T$, as shown.
What now needs to be proved is that the two shaded pentagons have equal area. This can be done by observing that each pentagon decomposes into an isosceles right triangle and a trapezoid. The isosceles right triangles are congruent; the trapezoids have equal area as their two bases are the same and their heights are the same.
edited Nov 24 at 15:01
answered Nov 24 at 9:25
Will Orrick
13.4k13359
13.4k13359
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
While the other solutions are obviously correct, they are also unnecessarily complicated.
Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles, so* why not pick one which is simple to work with and results in a degenerate case.
*) The assumption of truth is not required since we first do show that S=T is, in fact, true (in one simple case) and skirt the rules from there on by leaving the extrapolation to the reader.
While this approach is best suited for puzzles, looking at the edge cases first is a quick way to disprove things by example, or at least check that your calculations are correct
7
That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
– Owen
Nov 23 at 23:19
5
Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
– IanF1
Nov 24 at 8:01
1
I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:38
2
If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:40
The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
– Blue
16 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
While the other solutions are obviously correct, they are also unnecessarily complicated.
Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles, so* why not pick one which is simple to work with and results in a degenerate case.
*) The assumption of truth is not required since we first do show that S=T is, in fact, true (in one simple case) and skirt the rules from there on by leaving the extrapolation to the reader.
While this approach is best suited for puzzles, looking at the edge cases first is a quick way to disprove things by example, or at least check that your calculations are correct
7
That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
– Owen
Nov 23 at 23:19
5
Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
– IanF1
Nov 24 at 8:01
1
I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:38
2
If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:40
The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
– Blue
16 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
While the other solutions are obviously correct, they are also unnecessarily complicated.
Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles, so* why not pick one which is simple to work with and results in a degenerate case.
*) The assumption of truth is not required since we first do show that S=T is, in fact, true (in one simple case) and skirt the rules from there on by leaving the extrapolation to the reader.
While this approach is best suited for puzzles, looking at the edge cases first is a quick way to disprove things by example, or at least check that your calculations are correct
While the other solutions are obviously correct, they are also unnecessarily complicated.
Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles, so* why not pick one which is simple to work with and results in a degenerate case.
*) The assumption of truth is not required since we first do show that S=T is, in fact, true (in one simple case) and skirt the rules from there on by leaving the extrapolation to the reader.
While this approach is best suited for puzzles, looking at the edge cases first is a quick way to disprove things by example, or at least check that your calculations are correct
edited Nov 24 at 9:49
answered Nov 23 at 19:06
DenDenDo
57948
57948
7
That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
– Owen
Nov 23 at 23:19
5
Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
– IanF1
Nov 24 at 8:01
1
I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:38
2
If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:40
The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
– Blue
16 hours ago
add a comment |
7
That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
– Owen
Nov 23 at 23:19
5
Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
– IanF1
Nov 24 at 8:01
1
I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:38
2
If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:40
The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
– Blue
16 hours ago
7
7
That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
– Owen
Nov 23 at 23:19
That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
– Owen
Nov 23 at 23:19
5
5
Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
– IanF1
Nov 24 at 8:01
Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
– IanF1
Nov 24 at 8:01
1
1
I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:38
I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:38
2
2
If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:40
If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
– user3445853
Nov 24 at 20:40
The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
– Blue
16 hours ago
The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
– Blue
16 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
This is a long comment.
The shapes $S,,T$ share a vertex $A$ where six angles meet, three of them right angles. The other three angles therefore sum to a right angle. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles, and the right angle between them from $S$, sum to $pi-theta$. Since $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$, where $BA,,AC$ are sides of the upper squares.
The challenge, then, is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:35
$BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
– I like Serena
Nov 22 at 21:41
$BACD$ is not a rhombus.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:42
2
@Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
– J.G.
Nov 23 at 10:22
1
I have converted your answer into a comment.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:28
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
This is a long comment.
The shapes $S,,T$ share a vertex $A$ where six angles meet, three of them right angles. The other three angles therefore sum to a right angle. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles, and the right angle between them from $S$, sum to $pi-theta$. Since $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$, where $BA,,AC$ are sides of the upper squares.
The challenge, then, is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:35
$BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
– I like Serena
Nov 22 at 21:41
$BACD$ is not a rhombus.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:42
2
@Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
– J.G.
Nov 23 at 10:22
1
I have converted your answer into a comment.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:28
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
This is a long comment.
The shapes $S,,T$ share a vertex $A$ where six angles meet, three of them right angles. The other three angles therefore sum to a right angle. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles, and the right angle between them from $S$, sum to $pi-theta$. Since $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$, where $BA,,AC$ are sides of the upper squares.
The challenge, then, is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
This is a long comment.
The shapes $S,,T$ share a vertex $A$ where six angles meet, three of them right angles. The other three angles therefore sum to a right angle. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles, and the right angle between them from $S$, sum to $pi-theta$. Since $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$, where $BA,,AC$ are sides of the upper squares.
The challenge, then, is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
answered Nov 22 at 21:11
J.G.
21.2k21933
21.2k21933
I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:35
$BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
– I like Serena
Nov 22 at 21:41
$BACD$ is not a rhombus.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:42
2
@Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
– J.G.
Nov 23 at 10:22
1
I have converted your answer into a comment.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:28
|
show 4 more comments
I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:35
$BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
– I like Serena
Nov 22 at 21:41
$BACD$ is not a rhombus.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:42
2
@Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
– J.G.
Nov 23 at 10:22
1
I have converted your answer into a comment.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:28
I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:35
I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:35
$BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
– I like Serena
Nov 22 at 21:41
$BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
– I like Serena
Nov 22 at 21:41
$BACD$ is not a rhombus.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:42
$BACD$ is not a rhombus.
– D. Thomine
Nov 22 at 21:42
2
2
@Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
– J.G.
Nov 23 at 10:22
@Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
– J.G.
Nov 23 at 10:22
1
1
I have converted your answer into a comment.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:28
I have converted your answer into a comment.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:28
|
show 4 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009635%2fjapanese-temple-problem-from-1844%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
If you like this kind of problems I cannot recommend enough the book "Sacred Mathematics - Japanese Temple Geometry" by Fukagawa Hidetoshi and Tony Rothman. It also includes a couple of "relatives" to this problem.
– mickep
Nov 24 at 14:03
I checked it out. A great book indeed, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 24 at 14:22
The shapes $S,T$ share a vertex $A$ where $6$ angles meet, $3$ of them right angles. Thus the other $3$ angles sum to $pi/2$. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles and the right angle between them from $S$ sum to $pi-theta$. As $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$ where $BA,AC$ are sides of the upper squares. The challenge then is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:24
1
^ From J.G.'s answer.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:26