Area of Trapezium Inscribed in a Parabola

  • Thread starter Thread starter utkarshakash
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Area
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The area of a trapezium inscribed in the parabola defined by the equation y²=4x can be calculated using the intersection points of the diagonal passing through (1,0) and the parabola. The length of the chord is determined to be 25/4, leading to the equation ℓ = 4(m²+1)/m². By equating this expression to 25/4, one can derive the values of m, which are essential for calculating the trapezium's area using the formula A=(h/2)(a+b). The discussion emphasizes that this problem can be solved manually without computational tools.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of parabolic equations, specifically y²=4x
  • Familiarity with the concept of focal chords in conic sections
  • Proficiency in using the quadratic formula for solving equations
  • Knowledge of the trapezium area formula A=(h/2)(a+b)
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of focal chords in parabolas
  • Learn how to apply the quadratic formula in geometric contexts
  • Explore advanced techniques for calculating areas of irregular shapes
  • Investigate numerical methods for solving complex algebraic equations
USEFUL FOR

Students studying geometry, mathematics educators, and anyone interested in solving problems involving parabolas and trapeziums.

utkarshakash
Gold Member
Messages
852
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement


A trapezium is inscribed in the parabola y^{2}=4x such that its diagonal pass through the point (1,0) and each has length 25/4. Find the area of trapezium.


Homework Equations


Length of chord is given by
(4/m^{2})(\sqrt{1+m^{2}}\sqrt{a(a-mc)}
Here a=1 and m is an unknown quantity

Equation of focal chord
(t_{1}+t_{2})y=2(x-1)

The Attempt at a Solution


The length of the chord is given. Also from the equation of focal chord c=-2/t_{1}+t_{2} which is m. So in my first equation the only unknown quantity is m and equating it to (25/4) yields a biquadratic equation. Now finding m from here is very difficult and laborious too as the roots are not in whole numbers. Also if I find m with much difficulty(I will need a computer to get the roots lol) I have one more step to go which is to find the 4 points which I assume will take a lot of time. But nevertheless if anyhow I manage to find those 4 points I still have one more step to go before I reach the final answer and that is calculation of area which is just impossible to calculate manually. There must be some other and easier way to do this because if it would have been this difficult no one would solve it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I answered it myself and the numbers were nice. No computers needed :wink:

Just start with equating y=m(x-1) with y2=4x then after using the quadratic formula you'll get

x=\frac{m^2+2\pm2\sqrt{m^2+1}}{m^2}

then find the first (x,y) coordinates by taking the positve of the \pm operator, then the second coordinates by taking the negative. You'll have two coordinates which represent the intersection of the diagonal through (1,0) with the parabola.

Now since you know those, you can find the length of the chord using the distance formula.

For that, I was able to simplify the expression down to
\ell = \frac{4(m^2+1)}{m^2}

And then of course you equate this to 25/4, which will give you the values of m. Plug these back into your intercept coordinates, then you can go ahead and find the h, a and b values to plug into the trapezium formula
A=\frac{h}{2}(a+b)

All good?
 
Hey you are great. Thank you! I got my answer within minutes. Now I feel how dumb I was as I thought this would require the use of a computer :smile: :-p
 
utkarshakash said:
Hey you are great. Thank you! I got my answer within minutes. Now I feel how dumb I was as I thought this would require the use of a computer :smile: :-p

If this question was given to you from class and you didn't make it up yourself, then 99% of the time you'll be able to solve it without the use of a computer. The other 1% of the time they'll tell you to solve it numerically.
So if there was no mention of solving it numerically, you can be sure you probably just made a mistake somewhere :-p
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K