Why Is My Calculation of a Regular Polygon's Area Incorrect?

  • Thread starter Thread starter disregardthat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Area Polygon
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the incorrect calculation of the area of a regular polygon using the side length "a" and the radius "r". The original formula derived was A_n = (n/4) a^2 tan(180/n), which was identified as wrong. The correct approach involves using the sine function to express r in terms of a, leading to a formula that incorporates the sine of the angle rather than the cosine. Participants noted that while the derived expressions can be equivalent, they may not match the exact form provided in the reference material. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly applying trigonometric identities in geometric calculations.
disregardthat
Science Advisor
Messages
1,864
Reaction score
34
Hi, I am to find a formula for the area of a regular polygon with a side "a".

I just keep getting the wrong answer: this is how i did it:

if we draw a circle in a coordinate system, with radius "r". The diameter lyes on the x-axis. I draw an angle from the center. This angle is then 360/n where n is the amount of sides the polygon can have.

The two other angles in the triangle we get with two sides "r" and one side "a" is 180/n.

Ok, to find the side r expressed with a:

r^2 = r^2 + a^2 2ra \cos{\frac{180}{n}}

a = 2r \cos{\frac{180}{n}}

r = \frac{a}{2 \cos{\frac{180}{n}}}

The area of this triangle is:

A = \frac{1}{2} \sin{\frac{180}{n}} ar = \frac{1}{2} \sin{\frac{180}{n}} \frac{a}{2 \cos{\frac{180}{n}}} a = \frac{1}{4} \tan{\frac{180}{n}} a^2

The area of the whole polygon will then be the area of the triangles in the circle. I multiply with the number I divided 360 with, "n".

So: A_n =\frac{n}{4} a^2 \tan{\frac{180}{n}}

But this is wrong! Why is it wrong?

The correct answer is:
A_n =\frac{na^2}{4 \tan{\frac{180}{n}}}
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
r^2 = r^2 + a^2 - 2ra \cos{\frac{180}{n}}

This is wrong. The angle is 90 - 180/n, hence giving r^2 = r^2 + a^2 - 2ra \sin{\frac{180}{n}}
 
Last edited:
Jarle said:
Ok, to find the side r expressed with a:

r^2 = r^2 + a^2 2ra \cos{\frac{180}{n}}

I've got no idea where that line came from but it looks wrong (edit: ok I now see it was supposed to be the cosine rule). You should have just used :

a/2 = r \sin(180/n)

Which gives : r = \frac{a}{2 \sin(180/n)}

Now just substitute that into :

A = n ( \frac{1}{2} r^2 \sin(360/n) )

PS. Remember to use the trig identity : \sin(2x) = 2 \sin(x) \cos(x) if you want to get your answer in exactly the same form as the one given.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it was the cosine rule I meant.

Hmm, that was wierd. We are not supposed to use trigonometric identities. Or at least the book doesn't mention any of it.
 
Well, uart expression is equivalent to A = n r^2 \sin(180/n)\cos(180/n)
 
Last edited:
Hmm, that was wierd. We are not supposed to use trigonometric identities.


You can get a perfectly good (correct) answer without even using that last trig idenity, it just won't be in the exact same form as the one given. It will be 100% equivalent but just not an identical form.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top