MHB Can an Equilateral Triangle be Formed with Rational Vertices on the X-Axis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kaliprasad
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry
Click For Summary
An equilateral triangle cannot be formed with rational vertices on the x-axis due to the properties of rational coordinates. If vertices A, B, and C are rational, and C is positioned at the origin, a rotation transformation leads to a contradiction involving the irrational number √3. The transformation shows that one coordinate must be irrational, which contradicts the assumption that all coordinates are rational. An alternative approach also confirms that fixing points A and B on the x-axis results in a non-rational value for the height of the triangle. Thus, it is impossible to construct such a triangle with all rational vertices.
kaliprasad
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,333
Reaction score
0
in a plane point is said to be rational if both x and y co-ordinates are rational. Show that if in a $\triangle$ ABC all the vericles A , B, c are rational then $\triangle$ cannot be equilateral
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
[sp]Suppose that $ABC$ is an equilateral triangle whose vertices are all rational. By translating the axes through rational distances, we may assume that $C$ is at the origin. Let $A$ be the point $(x,y)$ and $B$ be the point $(u,v)$, where $x,y,u,v$ are all rational. The linear transformation of rotation through $\pi/3$ takes $A$ to $B$. But this transformation is given by the matrix $\begin{bmatrix} \cos(\pi/3) & -\sin(\pi/3) \\ \sin(\pi/3) & \cos(\pi/3) \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \frac12 & -\frac{\sqrt3}2 \\ \frac{\sqrt3}2 & \frac12 \end{bmatrix}.$ It follows that $\begin{bmatrix} u \\ v \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \frac12 & -\frac{\sqrt3}2 \\ \frac{\sqrt3}2 & \frac12 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x \\ y \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \frac12 x -\frac{\sqrt3}2y \\ \frac{\sqrt3}2 x + \frac12y \end{bmatrix},$ so that $u = \frac12 x -\frac{\sqrt3}2y$. But then $\sqrt3 = \frac{x-2u}y$ – a contradiction since the right side is rational and the left side is not. Therefore no such triangle can exist.[/sp]
 
great answer by Opalg. This gives me another insight of the solution

my solution

Without loss of generality we can chose the co-ordinates ( we can make this by proper shift of co-ordinates) as A= (0,0), B= (x,y), C=(a,b) with x y
a and b being rationalNow slope of AB = $\frac{y}{x}$ is rational

Slope of AC = $\frac{b}{a}$ is rationalSo $\tan\angle (BAC) = \frac{\frac{y}{x} –\frac{b}{a}} {1 + \frac{by}{ax}}$ which is rational as both numerator and denominator are rational

As $\tan \, 60^0 = \sqrt(3)$ is irrational so $\angle (BAC)$ cannot be $60^0$ as tan of the angle is rational.

so the triangle cannot be equilateral

Hence proved
 
kaliprasad said:
in a plane point is said to be rational if both x and y co-ordinates are rational. Show that if in a $\triangle$ ABC all the vericles A , B, c are rational then $\triangle$ cannot be equilateral
if $\triangle ABC$ is equilateral with side length a
let x and y coordinates of points being :$A(0,0),B(a,0),C(\frac{a}{2},b)$
(here $a,b$ are all rational)
the area of $\triangle ABC=\dfrac {\sqrt 3a^2}{4}=\dfrac {ab}{2}$
$\therefore b=\dfrac {\sqrt 3a}{2}$ is not rational
and we conclude that $\triangle ABC$ cannot be equilateral
 
Albert said:
if $\triangle ABC$ is equilateral with side length a
let x and y coordinates of points being :$A(0,0),B(a,0),C(\frac{a}{2},b)$
(here $a,b$ are all rational)
the area of $\triangle ABC=\dfrac {\sqrt 3a^2}{4}=\dfrac {ab}{2}$
$\therefore b=\dfrac {\sqrt 3a}{2}$ is not rational
and we conclude that $\triangle ABC$ cannot be equilateral

B(a,0) does not cover all cases of B for example B=(1,1) by rotation cannot be a rational point in x-axis
 
we fix point A and B on the x axis,and point C(a/2 ,b)
(here a,b rational) and show that b cannot be rational
if the triangle is equilateral
so we don't even have to rotate
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K