Does there exist a right triangle with area 7 and perimeter 12?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
This question is really trivial. I can prove that there is no right triangle with area 7 and perimeter 12, but what I do is solve the following system: if $a$, $b$ and $c$ are, respectively, the two legs and hypotenuse of such a triangle, then
$$a^2 + b^2 = c^2,$$
$$a + b +c = 12,$$
$$ab = 14$$
It is easy (although a bit boring and long) to see that there are no real solutions to this system.
But I feel that there is a simple answer to this question - perhaps using the triangle inequality - but I just cannot see it.
algebra-precalculus geometry
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
This question is really trivial. I can prove that there is no right triangle with area 7 and perimeter 12, but what I do is solve the following system: if $a$, $b$ and $c$ are, respectively, the two legs and hypotenuse of such a triangle, then
$$a^2 + b^2 = c^2,$$
$$a + b +c = 12,$$
$$ab = 14$$
It is easy (although a bit boring and long) to see that there are no real solutions to this system.
But I feel that there is a simple answer to this question - perhaps using the triangle inequality - but I just cannot see it.
algebra-precalculus geometry
2
"it is easy". Citation needed
â Eric Duminil
Aug 17 at 15:36
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
This question is really trivial. I can prove that there is no right triangle with area 7 and perimeter 12, but what I do is solve the following system: if $a$, $b$ and $c$ are, respectively, the two legs and hypotenuse of such a triangle, then
$$a^2 + b^2 = c^2,$$
$$a + b +c = 12,$$
$$ab = 14$$
It is easy (although a bit boring and long) to see that there are no real solutions to this system.
But I feel that there is a simple answer to this question - perhaps using the triangle inequality - but I just cannot see it.
algebra-precalculus geometry
This question is really trivial. I can prove that there is no right triangle with area 7 and perimeter 12, but what I do is solve the following system: if $a$, $b$ and $c$ are, respectively, the two legs and hypotenuse of such a triangle, then
$$a^2 + b^2 = c^2,$$
$$a + b +c = 12,$$
$$ab = 14$$
It is easy (although a bit boring and long) to see that there are no real solutions to this system.
But I feel that there is a simple answer to this question - perhaps using the triangle inequality - but I just cannot see it.
algebra-precalculus geometry
algebra-precalculus geometry
edited Aug 17 at 16:22
psmears
70349
70349
asked Aug 17 at 2:35
Lucas
481312
481312
2
"it is easy". Citation needed
â Eric Duminil
Aug 17 at 15:36
add a comment |Â
2
"it is easy". Citation needed
â Eric Duminil
Aug 17 at 15:36
2
2
"it is easy". Citation needed
â Eric Duminil
Aug 17 at 15:36
"it is easy". Citation needed
â Eric Duminil
Aug 17 at 15:36
add a comment |Â
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
up vote
21
down vote
I'm not sure if this counts as a "simple answer", but let $x$ be the length of one leg of a right triangle of area $7$; then the other leg is $frac14x$, and the hypotenuse is $sqrtx^2 + left(frac14xright)^2$, so the perimeter is given by the function
$$P(x) = x + frac14x + sqrtx^2 + left(frac14xright)^2$$
Asymptotically, we have $lim_xto 0 P(x) = +infty$ and $lim_xtoinfty P(x) = +infty$, and intuitively it seems clear that the absolute minimum occurs when the two legs of the triangle are equal in length, i.e. when $x=sqrt14$. At this value, we have
$$P(sqrt14) = 2sqrt14 +2sqrt7$$
This is the smallest possible perimeter for a right triangle of area $7$. It remains only to convince yourself that this number is greater than $12$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
17
down vote
If the perimeter is $12$, the triangle of maximum area is the equilateral triangle of side $4$ which has area $2times 2sqrt 3lt 7$ (square both sides $48lt 49$)
Now it is a question of how you show that the triangle of maximum area is equilateral. First fix a base AB. The third point C lies on an ellipse, and symmetry/convexity show that the maximum area is if the two remaining sides AC and BC are equal. So if the sides are not equal, you will get a greater area by averaging the shortest and longest. For maximum area (no further gains) all sides must be equal - hence equilateral.
In summary, a more formal way of showing that the maximal area of a triangle of fixed perimeter is reached when the triangle is equilateral is to go via Heron's formula (the area of a triangle as a function of its sides) and AM/GM. With the perimeter $2s=a+b+c$ fixed, note that $(-a+b+c)+(a-b+c)+(a+b-c)=2s$ and the product of the three terms in brackets is therefore greatest when they are equal.
Heron's formula is area =$sqrt s(s-a)(s-b)(s-c)$
This is a much better answer than mine. Finding the maximum area for a given perimeter is much more straightforward than finding the minimum perimeter for a given area. :)
â mweiss
Aug 17 at 17:56
@mweiss It's horses for courses - here the bound is good enough, which is fine. But there are cases for which this approach would not work and a more detailed analysis would be necessary. You can't always tell easily in advance.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:29
Showing that shortening the base and lengthening the other two sides (or vice versa) does not increase area is a bit of a pain. You have to show that any such transformation of side length (keeping the sum intact) can be reversed by successivly fixing a base and transferring length from the shorter side to a longer side of the remaining 2 sides (which I believe is true, just annoying to prove). Or is there an easier way? (your argument shows that 2-side manipulation cannot increase area unless they move towards equal; showing it for 3 is my issue)
â Yakk
Aug 17 at 18:33
@Yakk You don't need to do this. The dynamics here are if the three sides are not equal you can choose the middle side as base an increase the area by equalising the others. So no non-equilateral triangle can have maximum area for given perimeter. This method of optimising a three parameter problem by fixing one and showing that the others need to be equal, and concluding that all are equal at the critical point, is not particularly elegant in general, but works more often than it ought. Heron and AM/GM will do it "properly" here as noted.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:38
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
Note: This answer is to an earlier version of the question which asked for perimeter $14$.
What about $$
beginalign
a&=4+sqrt2\
b&=4-sqrt2\
c&=6
endalign
$$
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
2
@Hurkyl Not really. Look at the first sentence in the body of the question. The equation for the perimeter seems to be wrong. I pointed that out in a comment.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 3:02
Oh gosh, my bad. There is indeed an error. Thank you
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 3:03
4
I got really confused seeing this answer. Then I realized the question was edited to replace perimeter 14 with 12.
â Sunreef
Aug 17 at 7:22
@DavidRicherby Thanks for the edit.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
If the area was $7$ and the perimeter was $12$, the radius of the inscribed circle would be $14/12$ (exercise: why?). The circle is on the picture below.
On the other hand you can create any possible right triangle with perimeter $12$ by picking a point $H$ on the arc between $U$ and $V$ ($T$ is the center) and plotting a hypotenuse tangent to the arc at $H$ (exercise: why is the perimeter independent of $H$, if $H$ is on the arc?).
Imagine you move $H$ on the arc, generating all possible triangles. None of them would have the given circle as its inscribed circle. The radius of the circle is just to large (or the radius of the arc is too small).
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Note: This answer is to an earlier version of the question which asked for perimeter $14$.
There is indeed such a triangle.
The isosceles right triangle with legs $14/(2+sqrt2)$ has perimeter $14$ and area
$$
frac12left(frac142+sqrt2right)^2=147-98sqrt2approx8.4;.
$$
On the other hand, a right triangle with perimeter $14$ can be made to have arbitrarily small area by making one of the legs arbitrarily small. The right triangles with perimeter $14$ can be parametrized by the length of the shorter leg. The area is a continuous function of this parameter. By the intermediate value theorem, there is a right triangle with perimeter $14$ with some intermediate length of the shorter leg that has area $7$.
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
@Hurkyl: See saulspatz's comment to your identical comment under this answer.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:30
And see Lucas's response, comment on the OP, and updated question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:31
@Hurkyl: I do see that. I was merely pointing out that I answered the question that was at the time both the question in the title and the question in the text. Now that both have been edited, others can answer the edited question.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:33
joriki, good answer - this was the tack I thought of. The only change to your answer I would suggest is to mention that the isosceles right triangle has the maximum area of any right triangle. you mentioned that shorter legs would have less area, but this would explain why you chose the isosceles to begin with.
â Jim
Aug 17 at 13:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
$$a+b=12-c$$
$$(a^2+b^2)+2ab=(a+b)^2=c^2-24c+144$$
$$c^2+28=c^2-24c+144$$
$$c=frac296$$
$$a+b=frac436implies (a,b,c)=(k,frac436-k,frac296)$$
Since $c>a, c>b$, $$kin(0, frac296)$$
1
however, the found $a=k, b=frac436-k$ must satisfy $ab=14$, for which there will be no real $k$? it implies $c$ must be different...
â farruhota
Aug 17 at 4:23
1
That is the way I proved there is no right triangle satisfying the conditions, since $12 = ab = (46/6-k)k$ holds if and only if k is a complex number.
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 8:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Given a general triangle with
inradius $r$, circumradius $R$
and semiperimeter $rho=tfrac12(a+b+c)$,
the lengths of its sides $a,b,c$ can be found as
three roots of the cubic equation
beginalign
x^3-2rho,x^2+(rho^2+r^2+4,r,R),x-4,rrho,R
&=0
tag1label1
.
endalign
For the right triangle
the equation eqref1
can be simplified using a well-known condition
beginalign
R&=tfrac12(rho-r)
tag2label2
endalign
as follows:
beginalign
(x+r-rho)(x^2-(r+rho)x+2rrho)
&=0
tag3label3
.
endalign
The first root, provided by the linear term in eqref3
is the size of hypotenuse,
beginalign
c&=rho-r
,
endalign
the other two sides must be
beginalign
a,b&=tfrac12left(r+rhopmsqrtr^2-6rrho+rho^2right)
.
endalign
Or, in terms of the area $S$ and perimeter $p$,
beginalign
c&=tfrac12p-tfrac2Sp
,\
a,b&=
frac4S+p^2pmsqrtp^4-24Sp^2+16S^24p
tag4label4
.
endalign
So, given $S=7$, $p=12$ we get
beginalign
c&=tfrac296
,\
a,b&=tfrac112(43pmsqrt167,i)
,
endalign
thus, the right triangle with declared properties is impossible.
Using eqref4 it is trivial to find out that
the right triangle with $S=7$, $p=14$
has $c=6$, $a,b=4pmsqrt2$.
And as a bonus, the right triangle with $p=13$
is also valid and has side lengths
beginalign
c&=tfrac14126approx 5.423
,\
a&=tfrac152(197-sqrt953)approx 3.195
,\
b&=tfrac152(197+sqrt953)approx 4.382
endalign
and is just slightly bigger than
the famous $3-4-5$ right triangle.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Let me fill in a missing detail from the answer of @mweiss, namely, that a non-isosceles right triangle of perimeter $17$ does not have minimal area among all right triangles of perimeter $17$. And the specific value of perimeter does not matter for this purpose, so I'll do it for perimeter $p$.
Letting the legs of the triangle be $a,b$, from the Pythagorean theorem we get
$$a^2 + b^2 = (p-a-b)^2
$$
and simplifying we get
$$2p a + 2p b - 2ab = (2p)^2
$$
Differentiating implicitly with respect to $a$ we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda - 2b - 2 a fracdbda = 0
$$
and so
$$fracdbda = -fracp-bp-a qquad(*)
$$
Since the area is $A=fracab2$ we also get
$$2pa + 2pb - 4A = (2p)^2
$$
Differentiating with respect to $a$ we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda - 4 fracdAda = 0
$$
Assuming $A$ is a minimum we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda = 0
$$
and so $fracdbda=-1$. Combining this with $(*)$ and simplifying we get
$$a=b
$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The triangle is two adjacent sides and one diagonal of a rectangle. As you pointed out, the product of the two legs is 14. This is the rectangle's area.
Making the rectangle a square minimises the sum of the triangle's legs and also minimises the rectangle's diagonal (the triangle's hypotenuse). This thus minimises the triangle's perimeter. Each leg is $sqrt14$ and the hypotenuse is $sqrt28$. This gives a perimeter $>12.7$. Thus no such triangle with perimeter 12 exists.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
WLOG let $c>a>b$
$$14=abspace (0)$$
$$a+b+c=12space (1)$$
$$3c>12space (2)$$
$$c>4space (3)$$
$$a+b+c>4+a+bspace (4)$$
$$12>4+a+bspace (5)$$
$$8>a+bspace (6)$$
$$4>fraca+b2space (7)$$
$$16>left(fraca+b2right)^2space (8)$$
$$16>fraca^2+2ab+b^24space (9)$$
$$2>fraca^2-2ab+b^24space(10)=(9)-(0)$$
$$2>left(fraca-b2right)^2space (11)$$
$$sqrt2>fraca-b2space (12)$$
$$4+sqrt2>aspace (13)= (7)+(12) $$
$$4-sqrt2>bspace (14)=(7)-(12)$$
$$14>abspacespace (15)=(13)cdot (14)$$
(15) contradicts (0) QED
add a comment |Â
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
21
down vote
I'm not sure if this counts as a "simple answer", but let $x$ be the length of one leg of a right triangle of area $7$; then the other leg is $frac14x$, and the hypotenuse is $sqrtx^2 + left(frac14xright)^2$, so the perimeter is given by the function
$$P(x) = x + frac14x + sqrtx^2 + left(frac14xright)^2$$
Asymptotically, we have $lim_xto 0 P(x) = +infty$ and $lim_xtoinfty P(x) = +infty$, and intuitively it seems clear that the absolute minimum occurs when the two legs of the triangle are equal in length, i.e. when $x=sqrt14$. At this value, we have
$$P(sqrt14) = 2sqrt14 +2sqrt7$$
This is the smallest possible perimeter for a right triangle of area $7$. It remains only to convince yourself that this number is greater than $12$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
21
down vote
I'm not sure if this counts as a "simple answer", but let $x$ be the length of one leg of a right triangle of area $7$; then the other leg is $frac14x$, and the hypotenuse is $sqrtx^2 + left(frac14xright)^2$, so the perimeter is given by the function
$$P(x) = x + frac14x + sqrtx^2 + left(frac14xright)^2$$
Asymptotically, we have $lim_xto 0 P(x) = +infty$ and $lim_xtoinfty P(x) = +infty$, and intuitively it seems clear that the absolute minimum occurs when the two legs of the triangle are equal in length, i.e. when $x=sqrt14$. At this value, we have
$$P(sqrt14) = 2sqrt14 +2sqrt7$$
This is the smallest possible perimeter for a right triangle of area $7$. It remains only to convince yourself that this number is greater than $12$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
21
down vote
up vote
21
down vote
I'm not sure if this counts as a "simple answer", but let $x$ be the length of one leg of a right triangle of area $7$; then the other leg is $frac14x$, and the hypotenuse is $sqrtx^2 + left(frac14xright)^2$, so the perimeter is given by the function
$$P(x) = x + frac14x + sqrtx^2 + left(frac14xright)^2$$
Asymptotically, we have $lim_xto 0 P(x) = +infty$ and $lim_xtoinfty P(x) = +infty$, and intuitively it seems clear that the absolute minimum occurs when the two legs of the triangle are equal in length, i.e. when $x=sqrt14$. At this value, we have
$$P(sqrt14) = 2sqrt14 +2sqrt7$$
This is the smallest possible perimeter for a right triangle of area $7$. It remains only to convince yourself that this number is greater than $12$.
I'm not sure if this counts as a "simple answer", but let $x$ be the length of one leg of a right triangle of area $7$; then the other leg is $frac14x$, and the hypotenuse is $sqrtx^2 + left(frac14xright)^2$, so the perimeter is given by the function
$$P(x) = x + frac14x + sqrtx^2 + left(frac14xright)^2$$
Asymptotically, we have $lim_xto 0 P(x) = +infty$ and $lim_xtoinfty P(x) = +infty$, and intuitively it seems clear that the absolute minimum occurs when the two legs of the triangle are equal in length, i.e. when $x=sqrt14$. At this value, we have
$$P(sqrt14) = 2sqrt14 +2sqrt7$$
This is the smallest possible perimeter for a right triangle of area $7$. It remains only to convince yourself that this number is greater than $12$.
edited Aug 17 at 4:53
answered Aug 17 at 3:39
mweiss
17.4k23268
17.4k23268
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
17
down vote
If the perimeter is $12$, the triangle of maximum area is the equilateral triangle of side $4$ which has area $2times 2sqrt 3lt 7$ (square both sides $48lt 49$)
Now it is a question of how you show that the triangle of maximum area is equilateral. First fix a base AB. The third point C lies on an ellipse, and symmetry/convexity show that the maximum area is if the two remaining sides AC and BC are equal. So if the sides are not equal, you will get a greater area by averaging the shortest and longest. For maximum area (no further gains) all sides must be equal - hence equilateral.
In summary, a more formal way of showing that the maximal area of a triangle of fixed perimeter is reached when the triangle is equilateral is to go via Heron's formula (the area of a triangle as a function of its sides) and AM/GM. With the perimeter $2s=a+b+c$ fixed, note that $(-a+b+c)+(a-b+c)+(a+b-c)=2s$ and the product of the three terms in brackets is therefore greatest when they are equal.
Heron's formula is area =$sqrt s(s-a)(s-b)(s-c)$
This is a much better answer than mine. Finding the maximum area for a given perimeter is much more straightforward than finding the minimum perimeter for a given area. :)
â mweiss
Aug 17 at 17:56
@mweiss It's horses for courses - here the bound is good enough, which is fine. But there are cases for which this approach would not work and a more detailed analysis would be necessary. You can't always tell easily in advance.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:29
Showing that shortening the base and lengthening the other two sides (or vice versa) does not increase area is a bit of a pain. You have to show that any such transformation of side length (keeping the sum intact) can be reversed by successivly fixing a base and transferring length from the shorter side to a longer side of the remaining 2 sides (which I believe is true, just annoying to prove). Or is there an easier way? (your argument shows that 2-side manipulation cannot increase area unless they move towards equal; showing it for 3 is my issue)
â Yakk
Aug 17 at 18:33
@Yakk You don't need to do this. The dynamics here are if the three sides are not equal you can choose the middle side as base an increase the area by equalising the others. So no non-equilateral triangle can have maximum area for given perimeter. This method of optimising a three parameter problem by fixing one and showing that the others need to be equal, and concluding that all are equal at the critical point, is not particularly elegant in general, but works more often than it ought. Heron and AM/GM will do it "properly" here as noted.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:38
add a comment |Â
up vote
17
down vote
If the perimeter is $12$, the triangle of maximum area is the equilateral triangle of side $4$ which has area $2times 2sqrt 3lt 7$ (square both sides $48lt 49$)
Now it is a question of how you show that the triangle of maximum area is equilateral. First fix a base AB. The third point C lies on an ellipse, and symmetry/convexity show that the maximum area is if the two remaining sides AC and BC are equal. So if the sides are not equal, you will get a greater area by averaging the shortest and longest. For maximum area (no further gains) all sides must be equal - hence equilateral.
In summary, a more formal way of showing that the maximal area of a triangle of fixed perimeter is reached when the triangle is equilateral is to go via Heron's formula (the area of a triangle as a function of its sides) and AM/GM. With the perimeter $2s=a+b+c$ fixed, note that $(-a+b+c)+(a-b+c)+(a+b-c)=2s$ and the product of the three terms in brackets is therefore greatest when they are equal.
Heron's formula is area =$sqrt s(s-a)(s-b)(s-c)$
This is a much better answer than mine. Finding the maximum area for a given perimeter is much more straightforward than finding the minimum perimeter for a given area. :)
â mweiss
Aug 17 at 17:56
@mweiss It's horses for courses - here the bound is good enough, which is fine. But there are cases for which this approach would not work and a more detailed analysis would be necessary. You can't always tell easily in advance.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:29
Showing that shortening the base and lengthening the other two sides (or vice versa) does not increase area is a bit of a pain. You have to show that any such transformation of side length (keeping the sum intact) can be reversed by successivly fixing a base and transferring length from the shorter side to a longer side of the remaining 2 sides (which I believe is true, just annoying to prove). Or is there an easier way? (your argument shows that 2-side manipulation cannot increase area unless they move towards equal; showing it for 3 is my issue)
â Yakk
Aug 17 at 18:33
@Yakk You don't need to do this. The dynamics here are if the three sides are not equal you can choose the middle side as base an increase the area by equalising the others. So no non-equilateral triangle can have maximum area for given perimeter. This method of optimising a three parameter problem by fixing one and showing that the others need to be equal, and concluding that all are equal at the critical point, is not particularly elegant in general, but works more often than it ought. Heron and AM/GM will do it "properly" here as noted.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:38
add a comment |Â
up vote
17
down vote
up vote
17
down vote
If the perimeter is $12$, the triangle of maximum area is the equilateral triangle of side $4$ which has area $2times 2sqrt 3lt 7$ (square both sides $48lt 49$)
Now it is a question of how you show that the triangle of maximum area is equilateral. First fix a base AB. The third point C lies on an ellipse, and symmetry/convexity show that the maximum area is if the two remaining sides AC and BC are equal. So if the sides are not equal, you will get a greater area by averaging the shortest and longest. For maximum area (no further gains) all sides must be equal - hence equilateral.
In summary, a more formal way of showing that the maximal area of a triangle of fixed perimeter is reached when the triangle is equilateral is to go via Heron's formula (the area of a triangle as a function of its sides) and AM/GM. With the perimeter $2s=a+b+c$ fixed, note that $(-a+b+c)+(a-b+c)+(a+b-c)=2s$ and the product of the three terms in brackets is therefore greatest when they are equal.
Heron's formula is area =$sqrt s(s-a)(s-b)(s-c)$
If the perimeter is $12$, the triangle of maximum area is the equilateral triangle of side $4$ which has area $2times 2sqrt 3lt 7$ (square both sides $48lt 49$)
Now it is a question of how you show that the triangle of maximum area is equilateral. First fix a base AB. The third point C lies on an ellipse, and symmetry/convexity show that the maximum area is if the two remaining sides AC and BC are equal. So if the sides are not equal, you will get a greater area by averaging the shortest and longest. For maximum area (no further gains) all sides must be equal - hence equilateral.
In summary, a more formal way of showing that the maximal area of a triangle of fixed perimeter is reached when the triangle is equilateral is to go via Heron's formula (the area of a triangle as a function of its sides) and AM/GM. With the perimeter $2s=a+b+c$ fixed, note that $(-a+b+c)+(a-b+c)+(a+b-c)=2s$ and the product of the three terms in brackets is therefore greatest when they are equal.
Heron's formula is area =$sqrt s(s-a)(s-b)(s-c)$
edited Aug 17 at 16:51
answered Aug 17 at 7:57
Mark Bennet
77.5k774174
77.5k774174
This is a much better answer than mine. Finding the maximum area for a given perimeter is much more straightforward than finding the minimum perimeter for a given area. :)
â mweiss
Aug 17 at 17:56
@mweiss It's horses for courses - here the bound is good enough, which is fine. But there are cases for which this approach would not work and a more detailed analysis would be necessary. You can't always tell easily in advance.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:29
Showing that shortening the base and lengthening the other two sides (or vice versa) does not increase area is a bit of a pain. You have to show that any such transformation of side length (keeping the sum intact) can be reversed by successivly fixing a base and transferring length from the shorter side to a longer side of the remaining 2 sides (which I believe is true, just annoying to prove). Or is there an easier way? (your argument shows that 2-side manipulation cannot increase area unless they move towards equal; showing it for 3 is my issue)
â Yakk
Aug 17 at 18:33
@Yakk You don't need to do this. The dynamics here are if the three sides are not equal you can choose the middle side as base an increase the area by equalising the others. So no non-equilateral triangle can have maximum area for given perimeter. This method of optimising a three parameter problem by fixing one and showing that the others need to be equal, and concluding that all are equal at the critical point, is not particularly elegant in general, but works more often than it ought. Heron and AM/GM will do it "properly" here as noted.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:38
add a comment |Â
This is a much better answer than mine. Finding the maximum area for a given perimeter is much more straightforward than finding the minimum perimeter for a given area. :)
â mweiss
Aug 17 at 17:56
@mweiss It's horses for courses - here the bound is good enough, which is fine. But there are cases for which this approach would not work and a more detailed analysis would be necessary. You can't always tell easily in advance.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:29
Showing that shortening the base and lengthening the other two sides (or vice versa) does not increase area is a bit of a pain. You have to show that any such transformation of side length (keeping the sum intact) can be reversed by successivly fixing a base and transferring length from the shorter side to a longer side of the remaining 2 sides (which I believe is true, just annoying to prove). Or is there an easier way? (your argument shows that 2-side manipulation cannot increase area unless they move towards equal; showing it for 3 is my issue)
â Yakk
Aug 17 at 18:33
@Yakk You don't need to do this. The dynamics here are if the three sides are not equal you can choose the middle side as base an increase the area by equalising the others. So no non-equilateral triangle can have maximum area for given perimeter. This method of optimising a three parameter problem by fixing one and showing that the others need to be equal, and concluding that all are equal at the critical point, is not particularly elegant in general, but works more often than it ought. Heron and AM/GM will do it "properly" here as noted.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:38
This is a much better answer than mine. Finding the maximum area for a given perimeter is much more straightforward than finding the minimum perimeter for a given area. :)
â mweiss
Aug 17 at 17:56
This is a much better answer than mine. Finding the maximum area for a given perimeter is much more straightforward than finding the minimum perimeter for a given area. :)
â mweiss
Aug 17 at 17:56
@mweiss It's horses for courses - here the bound is good enough, which is fine. But there are cases for which this approach would not work and a more detailed analysis would be necessary. You can't always tell easily in advance.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:29
@mweiss It's horses for courses - here the bound is good enough, which is fine. But there are cases for which this approach would not work and a more detailed analysis would be necessary. You can't always tell easily in advance.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:29
Showing that shortening the base and lengthening the other two sides (or vice versa) does not increase area is a bit of a pain. You have to show that any such transformation of side length (keeping the sum intact) can be reversed by successivly fixing a base and transferring length from the shorter side to a longer side of the remaining 2 sides (which I believe is true, just annoying to prove). Or is there an easier way? (your argument shows that 2-side manipulation cannot increase area unless they move towards equal; showing it for 3 is my issue)
â Yakk
Aug 17 at 18:33
Showing that shortening the base and lengthening the other two sides (or vice versa) does not increase area is a bit of a pain. You have to show that any such transformation of side length (keeping the sum intact) can be reversed by successivly fixing a base and transferring length from the shorter side to a longer side of the remaining 2 sides (which I believe is true, just annoying to prove). Or is there an easier way? (your argument shows that 2-side manipulation cannot increase area unless they move towards equal; showing it for 3 is my issue)
â Yakk
Aug 17 at 18:33
@Yakk You don't need to do this. The dynamics here are if the three sides are not equal you can choose the middle side as base an increase the area by equalising the others. So no non-equilateral triangle can have maximum area for given perimeter. This method of optimising a three parameter problem by fixing one and showing that the others need to be equal, and concluding that all are equal at the critical point, is not particularly elegant in general, but works more often than it ought. Heron and AM/GM will do it "properly" here as noted.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:38
@Yakk You don't need to do this. The dynamics here are if the three sides are not equal you can choose the middle side as base an increase the area by equalising the others. So no non-equilateral triangle can have maximum area for given perimeter. This method of optimising a three parameter problem by fixing one and showing that the others need to be equal, and concluding that all are equal at the critical point, is not particularly elegant in general, but works more often than it ought. Heron and AM/GM will do it "properly" here as noted.
â Mark Bennet
Aug 17 at 18:38
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
Note: This answer is to an earlier version of the question which asked for perimeter $14$.
What about $$
beginalign
a&=4+sqrt2\
b&=4-sqrt2\
c&=6
endalign
$$
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
2
@Hurkyl Not really. Look at the first sentence in the body of the question. The equation for the perimeter seems to be wrong. I pointed that out in a comment.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 3:02
Oh gosh, my bad. There is indeed an error. Thank you
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 3:03
4
I got really confused seeing this answer. Then I realized the question was edited to replace perimeter 14 with 12.
â Sunreef
Aug 17 at 7:22
@DavidRicherby Thanks for the edit.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
Note: This answer is to an earlier version of the question which asked for perimeter $14$.
What about $$
beginalign
a&=4+sqrt2\
b&=4-sqrt2\
c&=6
endalign
$$
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
2
@Hurkyl Not really. Look at the first sentence in the body of the question. The equation for the perimeter seems to be wrong. I pointed that out in a comment.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 3:02
Oh gosh, my bad. There is indeed an error. Thank you
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 3:03
4
I got really confused seeing this answer. Then I realized the question was edited to replace perimeter 14 with 12.
â Sunreef
Aug 17 at 7:22
@DavidRicherby Thanks for the edit.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
Note: This answer is to an earlier version of the question which asked for perimeter $14$.
What about $$
beginalign
a&=4+sqrt2\
b&=4-sqrt2\
c&=6
endalign
$$
Note: This answer is to an earlier version of the question which asked for perimeter $14$.
What about $$
beginalign
a&=4+sqrt2\
b&=4-sqrt2\
c&=6
endalign
$$
edited Aug 17 at 15:44
David Richerby
2,11211224
2,11211224
answered Aug 17 at 2:51
saulspatz
11.6k21324
11.6k21324
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
2
@Hurkyl Not really. Look at the first sentence in the body of the question. The equation for the perimeter seems to be wrong. I pointed that out in a comment.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 3:02
Oh gosh, my bad. There is indeed an error. Thank you
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 3:03
4
I got really confused seeing this answer. Then I realized the question was edited to replace perimeter 14 with 12.
â Sunreef
Aug 17 at 7:22
@DavidRicherby Thanks for the edit.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
2
@Hurkyl Not really. Look at the first sentence in the body of the question. The equation for the perimeter seems to be wrong. I pointed that out in a comment.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 3:02
Oh gosh, my bad. There is indeed an error. Thank you
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 3:03
4
I got really confused seeing this answer. Then I realized the question was edited to replace perimeter 14 with 12.
â Sunreef
Aug 17 at 7:22
@DavidRicherby Thanks for the edit.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 15:50
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
2
2
@Hurkyl Not really. Look at the first sentence in the body of the question. The equation for the perimeter seems to be wrong. I pointed that out in a comment.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 3:02
@Hurkyl Not really. Look at the first sentence in the body of the question. The equation for the perimeter seems to be wrong. I pointed that out in a comment.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 3:02
Oh gosh, my bad. There is indeed an error. Thank you
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 3:03
Oh gosh, my bad. There is indeed an error. Thank you
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 3:03
4
4
I got really confused seeing this answer. Then I realized the question was edited to replace perimeter 14 with 12.
â Sunreef
Aug 17 at 7:22
I got really confused seeing this answer. Then I realized the question was edited to replace perimeter 14 with 12.
â Sunreef
Aug 17 at 7:22
@DavidRicherby Thanks for the edit.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 15:50
@DavidRicherby Thanks for the edit.
â saulspatz
Aug 17 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
If the area was $7$ and the perimeter was $12$, the radius of the inscribed circle would be $14/12$ (exercise: why?). The circle is on the picture below.
On the other hand you can create any possible right triangle with perimeter $12$ by picking a point $H$ on the arc between $U$ and $V$ ($T$ is the center) and plotting a hypotenuse tangent to the arc at $H$ (exercise: why is the perimeter independent of $H$, if $H$ is on the arc?).
Imagine you move $H$ on the arc, generating all possible triangles. None of them would have the given circle as its inscribed circle. The radius of the circle is just to large (or the radius of the arc is too small).
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
If the area was $7$ and the perimeter was $12$, the radius of the inscribed circle would be $14/12$ (exercise: why?). The circle is on the picture below.
On the other hand you can create any possible right triangle with perimeter $12$ by picking a point $H$ on the arc between $U$ and $V$ ($T$ is the center) and plotting a hypotenuse tangent to the arc at $H$ (exercise: why is the perimeter independent of $H$, if $H$ is on the arc?).
Imagine you move $H$ on the arc, generating all possible triangles. None of them would have the given circle as its inscribed circle. The radius of the circle is just to large (or the radius of the arc is too small).
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
If the area was $7$ and the perimeter was $12$, the radius of the inscribed circle would be $14/12$ (exercise: why?). The circle is on the picture below.
On the other hand you can create any possible right triangle with perimeter $12$ by picking a point $H$ on the arc between $U$ and $V$ ($T$ is the center) and plotting a hypotenuse tangent to the arc at $H$ (exercise: why is the perimeter independent of $H$, if $H$ is on the arc?).
Imagine you move $H$ on the arc, generating all possible triangles. None of them would have the given circle as its inscribed circle. The radius of the circle is just to large (or the radius of the arc is too small).
If the area was $7$ and the perimeter was $12$, the radius of the inscribed circle would be $14/12$ (exercise: why?). The circle is on the picture below.
On the other hand you can create any possible right triangle with perimeter $12$ by picking a point $H$ on the arc between $U$ and $V$ ($T$ is the center) and plotting a hypotenuse tangent to the arc at $H$ (exercise: why is the perimeter independent of $H$, if $H$ is on the arc?).
Imagine you move $H$ on the arc, generating all possible triangles. None of them would have the given circle as its inscribed circle. The radius of the circle is just to large (or the radius of the arc is too small).
answered Aug 17 at 21:47
Kamil Maciorowski
2,2811819
2,2811819
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Note: This answer is to an earlier version of the question which asked for perimeter $14$.
There is indeed such a triangle.
The isosceles right triangle with legs $14/(2+sqrt2)$ has perimeter $14$ and area
$$
frac12left(frac142+sqrt2right)^2=147-98sqrt2approx8.4;.
$$
On the other hand, a right triangle with perimeter $14$ can be made to have arbitrarily small area by making one of the legs arbitrarily small. The right triangles with perimeter $14$ can be parametrized by the length of the shorter leg. The area is a continuous function of this parameter. By the intermediate value theorem, there is a right triangle with perimeter $14$ with some intermediate length of the shorter leg that has area $7$.
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
@Hurkyl: See saulspatz's comment to your identical comment under this answer.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:30
And see Lucas's response, comment on the OP, and updated question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:31
@Hurkyl: I do see that. I was merely pointing out that I answered the question that was at the time both the question in the title and the question in the text. Now that both have been edited, others can answer the edited question.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:33
joriki, good answer - this was the tack I thought of. The only change to your answer I would suggest is to mention that the isosceles right triangle has the maximum area of any right triangle. you mentioned that shorter legs would have less area, but this would explain why you chose the isosceles to begin with.
â Jim
Aug 17 at 13:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Note: This answer is to an earlier version of the question which asked for perimeter $14$.
There is indeed such a triangle.
The isosceles right triangle with legs $14/(2+sqrt2)$ has perimeter $14$ and area
$$
frac12left(frac142+sqrt2right)^2=147-98sqrt2approx8.4;.
$$
On the other hand, a right triangle with perimeter $14$ can be made to have arbitrarily small area by making one of the legs arbitrarily small. The right triangles with perimeter $14$ can be parametrized by the length of the shorter leg. The area is a continuous function of this parameter. By the intermediate value theorem, there is a right triangle with perimeter $14$ with some intermediate length of the shorter leg that has area $7$.
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
@Hurkyl: See saulspatz's comment to your identical comment under this answer.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:30
And see Lucas's response, comment on the OP, and updated question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:31
@Hurkyl: I do see that. I was merely pointing out that I answered the question that was at the time both the question in the title and the question in the text. Now that both have been edited, others can answer the edited question.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:33
joriki, good answer - this was the tack I thought of. The only change to your answer I would suggest is to mention that the isosceles right triangle has the maximum area of any right triangle. you mentioned that shorter legs would have less area, but this would explain why you chose the isosceles to begin with.
â Jim
Aug 17 at 13:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Note: This answer is to an earlier version of the question which asked for perimeter $14$.
There is indeed such a triangle.
The isosceles right triangle with legs $14/(2+sqrt2)$ has perimeter $14$ and area
$$
frac12left(frac142+sqrt2right)^2=147-98sqrt2approx8.4;.
$$
On the other hand, a right triangle with perimeter $14$ can be made to have arbitrarily small area by making one of the legs arbitrarily small. The right triangles with perimeter $14$ can be parametrized by the length of the shorter leg. The area is a continuous function of this parameter. By the intermediate value theorem, there is a right triangle with perimeter $14$ with some intermediate length of the shorter leg that has area $7$.
Note: This answer is to an earlier version of the question which asked for perimeter $14$.
There is indeed such a triangle.
The isosceles right triangle with legs $14/(2+sqrt2)$ has perimeter $14$ and area
$$
frac12left(frac142+sqrt2right)^2=147-98sqrt2approx8.4;.
$$
On the other hand, a right triangle with perimeter $14$ can be made to have arbitrarily small area by making one of the legs arbitrarily small. The right triangles with perimeter $14$ can be parametrized by the length of the shorter leg. The area is a continuous function of this parameter. By the intermediate value theorem, there is a right triangle with perimeter $14$ with some intermediate length of the shorter leg that has area $7$.
edited Aug 17 at 15:45
David Richerby
2,11211224
2,11211224
answered Aug 17 at 2:47
joriki
168k10181336
168k10181336
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
@Hurkyl: See saulspatz's comment to your identical comment under this answer.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:30
And see Lucas's response, comment on the OP, and updated question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:31
@Hurkyl: I do see that. I was merely pointing out that I answered the question that was at the time both the question in the title and the question in the text. Now that both have been edited, others can answer the edited question.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:33
joriki, good answer - this was the tack I thought of. The only change to your answer I would suggest is to mention that the isosceles right triangle has the maximum area of any right triangle. you mentioned that shorter legs would have less area, but this would explain why you chose the isosceles to begin with.
â Jim
Aug 17 at 13:08
add a comment |Â
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
@Hurkyl: See saulspatz's comment to your identical comment under this answer.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:30
And see Lucas's response, comment on the OP, and updated question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:31
@Hurkyl: I do see that. I was merely pointing out that I answered the question that was at the time both the question in the title and the question in the text. Now that both have been edited, others can answer the edited question.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:33
joriki, good answer - this was the tack I thought of. The only change to your answer I would suggest is to mention that the isosceles right triangle has the maximum area of any right triangle. you mentioned that shorter legs would have less area, but this would explain why you chose the isosceles to begin with.
â Jim
Aug 17 at 13:08
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
Note you're answering the problem in the title, not the problem in the question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:00
@Hurkyl: See saulspatz's comment to your identical comment under this answer.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:30
@Hurkyl: See saulspatz's comment to your identical comment under this answer.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:30
And see Lucas's response, comment on the OP, and updated question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:31
And see Lucas's response, comment on the OP, and updated question.
â Hurkyl
Aug 17 at 3:31
@Hurkyl: I do see that. I was merely pointing out that I answered the question that was at the time both the question in the title and the question in the text. Now that both have been edited, others can answer the edited question.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:33
@Hurkyl: I do see that. I was merely pointing out that I answered the question that was at the time both the question in the title and the question in the text. Now that both have been edited, others can answer the edited question.
â joriki
Aug 17 at 3:33
joriki, good answer - this was the tack I thought of. The only change to your answer I would suggest is to mention that the isosceles right triangle has the maximum area of any right triangle. you mentioned that shorter legs would have less area, but this would explain why you chose the isosceles to begin with.
â Jim
Aug 17 at 13:08
joriki, good answer - this was the tack I thought of. The only change to your answer I would suggest is to mention that the isosceles right triangle has the maximum area of any right triangle. you mentioned that shorter legs would have less area, but this would explain why you chose the isosceles to begin with.
â Jim
Aug 17 at 13:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
$$a+b=12-c$$
$$(a^2+b^2)+2ab=(a+b)^2=c^2-24c+144$$
$$c^2+28=c^2-24c+144$$
$$c=frac296$$
$$a+b=frac436implies (a,b,c)=(k,frac436-k,frac296)$$
Since $c>a, c>b$, $$kin(0, frac296)$$
1
however, the found $a=k, b=frac436-k$ must satisfy $ab=14$, for which there will be no real $k$? it implies $c$ must be different...
â farruhota
Aug 17 at 4:23
1
That is the way I proved there is no right triangle satisfying the conditions, since $12 = ab = (46/6-k)k$ holds if and only if k is a complex number.
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 8:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
$$a+b=12-c$$
$$(a^2+b^2)+2ab=(a+b)^2=c^2-24c+144$$
$$c^2+28=c^2-24c+144$$
$$c=frac296$$
$$a+b=frac436implies (a,b,c)=(k,frac436-k,frac296)$$
Since $c>a, c>b$, $$kin(0, frac296)$$
1
however, the found $a=k, b=frac436-k$ must satisfy $ab=14$, for which there will be no real $k$? it implies $c$ must be different...
â farruhota
Aug 17 at 4:23
1
That is the way I proved there is no right triangle satisfying the conditions, since $12 = ab = (46/6-k)k$ holds if and only if k is a complex number.
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 8:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
$$a+b=12-c$$
$$(a^2+b^2)+2ab=(a+b)^2=c^2-24c+144$$
$$c^2+28=c^2-24c+144$$
$$c=frac296$$
$$a+b=frac436implies (a,b,c)=(k,frac436-k,frac296)$$
Since $c>a, c>b$, $$kin(0, frac296)$$
$$a+b=12-c$$
$$(a^2+b^2)+2ab=(a+b)^2=c^2-24c+144$$
$$c^2+28=c^2-24c+144$$
$$c=frac296$$
$$a+b=frac436implies (a,b,c)=(k,frac436-k,frac296)$$
Since $c>a, c>b$, $$kin(0, frac296)$$
answered Aug 17 at 3:59
Mythomorphic
5,1891733
5,1891733
1
however, the found $a=k, b=frac436-k$ must satisfy $ab=14$, for which there will be no real $k$? it implies $c$ must be different...
â farruhota
Aug 17 at 4:23
1
That is the way I proved there is no right triangle satisfying the conditions, since $12 = ab = (46/6-k)k$ holds if and only if k is a complex number.
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 8:08
add a comment |Â
1
however, the found $a=k, b=frac436-k$ must satisfy $ab=14$, for which there will be no real $k$? it implies $c$ must be different...
â farruhota
Aug 17 at 4:23
1
That is the way I proved there is no right triangle satisfying the conditions, since $12 = ab = (46/6-k)k$ holds if and only if k is a complex number.
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 8:08
1
1
however, the found $a=k, b=frac436-k$ must satisfy $ab=14$, for which there will be no real $k$? it implies $c$ must be different...
â farruhota
Aug 17 at 4:23
however, the found $a=k, b=frac436-k$ must satisfy $ab=14$, for which there will be no real $k$? it implies $c$ must be different...
â farruhota
Aug 17 at 4:23
1
1
That is the way I proved there is no right triangle satisfying the conditions, since $12 = ab = (46/6-k)k$ holds if and only if k is a complex number.
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 8:08
That is the way I proved there is no right triangle satisfying the conditions, since $12 = ab = (46/6-k)k$ holds if and only if k is a complex number.
â Lucas
Aug 17 at 8:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Given a general triangle with
inradius $r$, circumradius $R$
and semiperimeter $rho=tfrac12(a+b+c)$,
the lengths of its sides $a,b,c$ can be found as
three roots of the cubic equation
beginalign
x^3-2rho,x^2+(rho^2+r^2+4,r,R),x-4,rrho,R
&=0
tag1label1
.
endalign
For the right triangle
the equation eqref1
can be simplified using a well-known condition
beginalign
R&=tfrac12(rho-r)
tag2label2
endalign
as follows:
beginalign
(x+r-rho)(x^2-(r+rho)x+2rrho)
&=0
tag3label3
.
endalign
The first root, provided by the linear term in eqref3
is the size of hypotenuse,
beginalign
c&=rho-r
,
endalign
the other two sides must be
beginalign
a,b&=tfrac12left(r+rhopmsqrtr^2-6rrho+rho^2right)
.
endalign
Or, in terms of the area $S$ and perimeter $p$,
beginalign
c&=tfrac12p-tfrac2Sp
,\
a,b&=
frac4S+p^2pmsqrtp^4-24Sp^2+16S^24p
tag4label4
.
endalign
So, given $S=7$, $p=12$ we get
beginalign
c&=tfrac296
,\
a,b&=tfrac112(43pmsqrt167,i)
,
endalign
thus, the right triangle with declared properties is impossible.
Using eqref4 it is trivial to find out that
the right triangle with $S=7$, $p=14$
has $c=6$, $a,b=4pmsqrt2$.
And as a bonus, the right triangle with $p=13$
is also valid and has side lengths
beginalign
c&=tfrac14126approx 5.423
,\
a&=tfrac152(197-sqrt953)approx 3.195
,\
b&=tfrac152(197+sqrt953)approx 4.382
endalign
and is just slightly bigger than
the famous $3-4-5$ right triangle.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Given a general triangle with
inradius $r$, circumradius $R$
and semiperimeter $rho=tfrac12(a+b+c)$,
the lengths of its sides $a,b,c$ can be found as
three roots of the cubic equation
beginalign
x^3-2rho,x^2+(rho^2+r^2+4,r,R),x-4,rrho,R
&=0
tag1label1
.
endalign
For the right triangle
the equation eqref1
can be simplified using a well-known condition
beginalign
R&=tfrac12(rho-r)
tag2label2
endalign
as follows:
beginalign
(x+r-rho)(x^2-(r+rho)x+2rrho)
&=0
tag3label3
.
endalign
The first root, provided by the linear term in eqref3
is the size of hypotenuse,
beginalign
c&=rho-r
,
endalign
the other two sides must be
beginalign
a,b&=tfrac12left(r+rhopmsqrtr^2-6rrho+rho^2right)
.
endalign
Or, in terms of the area $S$ and perimeter $p$,
beginalign
c&=tfrac12p-tfrac2Sp
,\
a,b&=
frac4S+p^2pmsqrtp^4-24Sp^2+16S^24p
tag4label4
.
endalign
So, given $S=7$, $p=12$ we get
beginalign
c&=tfrac296
,\
a,b&=tfrac112(43pmsqrt167,i)
,
endalign
thus, the right triangle with declared properties is impossible.
Using eqref4 it is trivial to find out that
the right triangle with $S=7$, $p=14$
has $c=6$, $a,b=4pmsqrt2$.
And as a bonus, the right triangle with $p=13$
is also valid and has side lengths
beginalign
c&=tfrac14126approx 5.423
,\
a&=tfrac152(197-sqrt953)approx 3.195
,\
b&=tfrac152(197+sqrt953)approx 4.382
endalign
and is just slightly bigger than
the famous $3-4-5$ right triangle.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Given a general triangle with
inradius $r$, circumradius $R$
and semiperimeter $rho=tfrac12(a+b+c)$,
the lengths of its sides $a,b,c$ can be found as
three roots of the cubic equation
beginalign
x^3-2rho,x^2+(rho^2+r^2+4,r,R),x-4,rrho,R
&=0
tag1label1
.
endalign
For the right triangle
the equation eqref1
can be simplified using a well-known condition
beginalign
R&=tfrac12(rho-r)
tag2label2
endalign
as follows:
beginalign
(x+r-rho)(x^2-(r+rho)x+2rrho)
&=0
tag3label3
.
endalign
The first root, provided by the linear term in eqref3
is the size of hypotenuse,
beginalign
c&=rho-r
,
endalign
the other two sides must be
beginalign
a,b&=tfrac12left(r+rhopmsqrtr^2-6rrho+rho^2right)
.
endalign
Or, in terms of the area $S$ and perimeter $p$,
beginalign
c&=tfrac12p-tfrac2Sp
,\
a,b&=
frac4S+p^2pmsqrtp^4-24Sp^2+16S^24p
tag4label4
.
endalign
So, given $S=7$, $p=12$ we get
beginalign
c&=tfrac296
,\
a,b&=tfrac112(43pmsqrt167,i)
,
endalign
thus, the right triangle with declared properties is impossible.
Using eqref4 it is trivial to find out that
the right triangle with $S=7$, $p=14$
has $c=6$, $a,b=4pmsqrt2$.
And as a bonus, the right triangle with $p=13$
is also valid and has side lengths
beginalign
c&=tfrac14126approx 5.423
,\
a&=tfrac152(197-sqrt953)approx 3.195
,\
b&=tfrac152(197+sqrt953)approx 4.382
endalign
and is just slightly bigger than
the famous $3-4-5$ right triangle.
Given a general triangle with
inradius $r$, circumradius $R$
and semiperimeter $rho=tfrac12(a+b+c)$,
the lengths of its sides $a,b,c$ can be found as
three roots of the cubic equation
beginalign
x^3-2rho,x^2+(rho^2+r^2+4,r,R),x-4,rrho,R
&=0
tag1label1
.
endalign
For the right triangle
the equation eqref1
can be simplified using a well-known condition
beginalign
R&=tfrac12(rho-r)
tag2label2
endalign
as follows:
beginalign
(x+r-rho)(x^2-(r+rho)x+2rrho)
&=0
tag3label3
.
endalign
The first root, provided by the linear term in eqref3
is the size of hypotenuse,
beginalign
c&=rho-r
,
endalign
the other two sides must be
beginalign
a,b&=tfrac12left(r+rhopmsqrtr^2-6rrho+rho^2right)
.
endalign
Or, in terms of the area $S$ and perimeter $p$,
beginalign
c&=tfrac12p-tfrac2Sp
,\
a,b&=
frac4S+p^2pmsqrtp^4-24Sp^2+16S^24p
tag4label4
.
endalign
So, given $S=7$, $p=12$ we get
beginalign
c&=tfrac296
,\
a,b&=tfrac112(43pmsqrt167,i)
,
endalign
thus, the right triangle with declared properties is impossible.
Using eqref4 it is trivial to find out that
the right triangle with $S=7$, $p=14$
has $c=6$, $a,b=4pmsqrt2$.
And as a bonus, the right triangle with $p=13$
is also valid and has side lengths
beginalign
c&=tfrac14126approx 5.423
,\
a&=tfrac152(197-sqrt953)approx 3.195
,\
b&=tfrac152(197+sqrt953)approx 4.382
endalign
and is just slightly bigger than
the famous $3-4-5$ right triangle.
answered Aug 18 at 1:29
g.kov
5,7771718
5,7771718
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Let me fill in a missing detail from the answer of @mweiss, namely, that a non-isosceles right triangle of perimeter $17$ does not have minimal area among all right triangles of perimeter $17$. And the specific value of perimeter does not matter for this purpose, so I'll do it for perimeter $p$.
Letting the legs of the triangle be $a,b$, from the Pythagorean theorem we get
$$a^2 + b^2 = (p-a-b)^2
$$
and simplifying we get
$$2p a + 2p b - 2ab = (2p)^2
$$
Differentiating implicitly with respect to $a$ we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda - 2b - 2 a fracdbda = 0
$$
and so
$$fracdbda = -fracp-bp-a qquad(*)
$$
Since the area is $A=fracab2$ we also get
$$2pa + 2pb - 4A = (2p)^2
$$
Differentiating with respect to $a$ we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda - 4 fracdAda = 0
$$
Assuming $A$ is a minimum we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda = 0
$$
and so $fracdbda=-1$. Combining this with $(*)$ and simplifying we get
$$a=b
$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Let me fill in a missing detail from the answer of @mweiss, namely, that a non-isosceles right triangle of perimeter $17$ does not have minimal area among all right triangles of perimeter $17$. And the specific value of perimeter does not matter for this purpose, so I'll do it for perimeter $p$.
Letting the legs of the triangle be $a,b$, from the Pythagorean theorem we get
$$a^2 + b^2 = (p-a-b)^2
$$
and simplifying we get
$$2p a + 2p b - 2ab = (2p)^2
$$
Differentiating implicitly with respect to $a$ we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda - 2b - 2 a fracdbda = 0
$$
and so
$$fracdbda = -fracp-bp-a qquad(*)
$$
Since the area is $A=fracab2$ we also get
$$2pa + 2pb - 4A = (2p)^2
$$
Differentiating with respect to $a$ we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda - 4 fracdAda = 0
$$
Assuming $A$ is a minimum we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda = 0
$$
and so $fracdbda=-1$. Combining this with $(*)$ and simplifying we get
$$a=b
$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Let me fill in a missing detail from the answer of @mweiss, namely, that a non-isosceles right triangle of perimeter $17$ does not have minimal area among all right triangles of perimeter $17$. And the specific value of perimeter does not matter for this purpose, so I'll do it for perimeter $p$.
Letting the legs of the triangle be $a,b$, from the Pythagorean theorem we get
$$a^2 + b^2 = (p-a-b)^2
$$
and simplifying we get
$$2p a + 2p b - 2ab = (2p)^2
$$
Differentiating implicitly with respect to $a$ we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda - 2b - 2 a fracdbda = 0
$$
and so
$$fracdbda = -fracp-bp-a qquad(*)
$$
Since the area is $A=fracab2$ we also get
$$2pa + 2pb - 4A = (2p)^2
$$
Differentiating with respect to $a$ we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda - 4 fracdAda = 0
$$
Assuming $A$ is a minimum we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda = 0
$$
and so $fracdbda=-1$. Combining this with $(*)$ and simplifying we get
$$a=b
$$
Let me fill in a missing detail from the answer of @mweiss, namely, that a non-isosceles right triangle of perimeter $17$ does not have minimal area among all right triangles of perimeter $17$. And the specific value of perimeter does not matter for this purpose, so I'll do it for perimeter $p$.
Letting the legs of the triangle be $a,b$, from the Pythagorean theorem we get
$$a^2 + b^2 = (p-a-b)^2
$$
and simplifying we get
$$2p a + 2p b - 2ab = (2p)^2
$$
Differentiating implicitly with respect to $a$ we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda - 2b - 2 a fracdbda = 0
$$
and so
$$fracdbda = -fracp-bp-a qquad(*)
$$
Since the area is $A=fracab2$ we also get
$$2pa + 2pb - 4A = (2p)^2
$$
Differentiating with respect to $a$ we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda - 4 fracdAda = 0
$$
Assuming $A$ is a minimum we get
$$2p + 2p fracdbda = 0
$$
and so $fracdbda=-1$. Combining this with $(*)$ and simplifying we get
$$a=b
$$
answered Aug 18 at 14:32
Lee Mosher
46.1k33579
46.1k33579
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The triangle is two adjacent sides and one diagonal of a rectangle. As you pointed out, the product of the two legs is 14. This is the rectangle's area.
Making the rectangle a square minimises the sum of the triangle's legs and also minimises the rectangle's diagonal (the triangle's hypotenuse). This thus minimises the triangle's perimeter. Each leg is $sqrt14$ and the hypotenuse is $sqrt28$. This gives a perimeter $>12.7$. Thus no such triangle with perimeter 12 exists.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The triangle is two adjacent sides and one diagonal of a rectangle. As you pointed out, the product of the two legs is 14. This is the rectangle's area.
Making the rectangle a square minimises the sum of the triangle's legs and also minimises the rectangle's diagonal (the triangle's hypotenuse). This thus minimises the triangle's perimeter. Each leg is $sqrt14$ and the hypotenuse is $sqrt28$. This gives a perimeter $>12.7$. Thus no such triangle with perimeter 12 exists.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The triangle is two adjacent sides and one diagonal of a rectangle. As you pointed out, the product of the two legs is 14. This is the rectangle's area.
Making the rectangle a square minimises the sum of the triangle's legs and also minimises the rectangle's diagonal (the triangle's hypotenuse). This thus minimises the triangle's perimeter. Each leg is $sqrt14$ and the hypotenuse is $sqrt28$. This gives a perimeter $>12.7$. Thus no such triangle with perimeter 12 exists.
The triangle is two adjacent sides and one diagonal of a rectangle. As you pointed out, the product of the two legs is 14. This is the rectangle's area.
Making the rectangle a square minimises the sum of the triangle's legs and also minimises the rectangle's diagonal (the triangle's hypotenuse). This thus minimises the triangle's perimeter. Each leg is $sqrt14$ and the hypotenuse is $sqrt28$. This gives a perimeter $>12.7$. Thus no such triangle with perimeter 12 exists.
answered Aug 18 at 16:18
Rosie F
1,148314
1,148314
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
WLOG let $c>a>b$
$$14=abspace (0)$$
$$a+b+c=12space (1)$$
$$3c>12space (2)$$
$$c>4space (3)$$
$$a+b+c>4+a+bspace (4)$$
$$12>4+a+bspace (5)$$
$$8>a+bspace (6)$$
$$4>fraca+b2space (7)$$
$$16>left(fraca+b2right)^2space (8)$$
$$16>fraca^2+2ab+b^24space (9)$$
$$2>fraca^2-2ab+b^24space(10)=(9)-(0)$$
$$2>left(fraca-b2right)^2space (11)$$
$$sqrt2>fraca-b2space (12)$$
$$4+sqrt2>aspace (13)= (7)+(12) $$
$$4-sqrt2>bspace (14)=(7)-(12)$$
$$14>abspacespace (15)=(13)cdot (14)$$
(15) contradicts (0) QED
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
WLOG let $c>a>b$
$$14=abspace (0)$$
$$a+b+c=12space (1)$$
$$3c>12space (2)$$
$$c>4space (3)$$
$$a+b+c>4+a+bspace (4)$$
$$12>4+a+bspace (5)$$
$$8>a+bspace (6)$$
$$4>fraca+b2space (7)$$
$$16>left(fraca+b2right)^2space (8)$$
$$16>fraca^2+2ab+b^24space (9)$$
$$2>fraca^2-2ab+b^24space(10)=(9)-(0)$$
$$2>left(fraca-b2right)^2space (11)$$
$$sqrt2>fraca-b2space (12)$$
$$4+sqrt2>aspace (13)= (7)+(12) $$
$$4-sqrt2>bspace (14)=(7)-(12)$$
$$14>abspacespace (15)=(13)cdot (14)$$
(15) contradicts (0) QED
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
WLOG let $c>a>b$
$$14=abspace (0)$$
$$a+b+c=12space (1)$$
$$3c>12space (2)$$
$$c>4space (3)$$
$$a+b+c>4+a+bspace (4)$$
$$12>4+a+bspace (5)$$
$$8>a+bspace (6)$$
$$4>fraca+b2space (7)$$
$$16>left(fraca+b2right)^2space (8)$$
$$16>fraca^2+2ab+b^24space (9)$$
$$2>fraca^2-2ab+b^24space(10)=(9)-(0)$$
$$2>left(fraca-b2right)^2space (11)$$
$$sqrt2>fraca-b2space (12)$$
$$4+sqrt2>aspace (13)= (7)+(12) $$
$$4-sqrt2>bspace (14)=(7)-(12)$$
$$14>abspacespace (15)=(13)cdot (14)$$
(15) contradicts (0) QED
WLOG let $c>a>b$
$$14=abspace (0)$$
$$a+b+c=12space (1)$$
$$3c>12space (2)$$
$$c>4space (3)$$
$$a+b+c>4+a+bspace (4)$$
$$12>4+a+bspace (5)$$
$$8>a+bspace (6)$$
$$4>fraca+b2space (7)$$
$$16>left(fraca+b2right)^2space (8)$$
$$16>fraca^2+2ab+b^24space (9)$$
$$2>fraca^2-2ab+b^24space(10)=(9)-(0)$$
$$2>left(fraca-b2right)^2space (11)$$
$$sqrt2>fraca-b2space (12)$$
$$4+sqrt2>aspace (13)= (7)+(12) $$
$$4-sqrt2>bspace (14)=(7)-(12)$$
$$14>abspacespace (15)=(13)cdot (14)$$
(15) contradicts (0) QED
edited Aug 22 at 4:21
answered Aug 22 at 3:49
quantus14
702187
702187
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2885347%2fdoes-there-exist-a-right-triangle-with-area-7-and-perimeter-12%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
2
"it is easy". Citation needed
â Eric Duminil
Aug 17 at 15:36