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
AI Thread 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
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top