Cannot find the height of this triangle given only one leg

In summary, in order to find x, the altitude or height of the triangle, we need to know more information such as the length of another leg of the triangle. One way to solve this is by using the Pythagorean Theorem and algebra, as demonstrated in the conversation. Another method is by using the fact that all triangles involved are similar, and using the ratios of the corresponding sides to find x. This is not typically taught in high school geometry, but can be derived from the Pythagorean Theorem.
  • #1
mileena
129
0

Homework Statement



Hi, I have inserted a picture of the problem:

17JUUIV.jpg


I have to find x, the altitude, or height of the triangle.

x is the height of the larger triangle, and is perpendicular to the base of 13. It divides the base into segments of length 4 and 9.

This was a question on my math assessment test for community college. But I couldn't think of an answer, so I left it blank. It's impossible to find x without more information, such as the length of another leg of the triangle.

If the other leg were y, then:

x = (y + 4)(y - 4)

but there is no y variable given.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think Pythagoras and a lot of algebra could have solved your problem.
 
  • #3
With the larger triangle, I have only 1 side to work with. And with the two smaller ones, I have only 2 sides each. In order to apply the Pythagorean Theorem, I need 3 sides.
 
  • #4
Take the two smaller triangles individually. You can use Pythagoras to write an expression for the length of the unknown side in each case. Once you have expressions for the unknown sides, then you know, also by Pythagoras, that the sum of the squares of the unknown lengths must equal 13^2. Now you apply a sufficient quantity of algebra and hard work, and you should be able to calculate the unknown distance 'x'.
 
  • #5
Ok, I got it! Thank you SteamKing.

x = 6

I'm very rusty when it comes to this, but it's slowly coming back.
 
  • #6
You can also use the fact that all of the triangles involved are similar, and so the ratios of the corresponding sides are all equal; i.e. x/9=4/x.
 
  • #7
It is not hard to get to:

height² = projection a × projection b
In this case:

x² = 9 * 4
x² = 36
x = 6
 
  • #8
gopher_p said:
You can also use the fact that all of the triangles involved are similar, and so the ratios of the corresponding sides are all equal; i.e. x/9=4/x.

Thanks gopher_p. How could you tell the triangles were similar without finding the other legs first?
 
  • #9
besulzbach said:
It is not hard to get to:

height² = projection a × projection b
In this case:

x² = 9 * 4
x² = 36
x = 6

I appreciate the info. I never heard of that projection formula. I can't kind even find it on the web, but what you wrote works!
 
  • #10
mileena said:
I never heard of that projection formula. I can't kind even find it on the web, but what you wrote works!

Some textbooks treat it as a formula and some say that the formula is [itex]\frac{m}{x}=\frac{x}{n}[/itex], from where you can get to [itex]m n = x^{2}.[/itex]
 
  • #11
Thanks! Are m and n the lengths of the line segments of the leg of a triangle that x, the height of a triangle, divides? And does x have to divide the right angle of the larger triangle, or can it be any angle?
 
  • #12
mileena said:
Thanks gopher_p. How could you tell the triangles were similar without finding the other legs first?

They have the same angles.
 
  • #13
mileena said:
Are m and n the lengths of the line segments of the leg of a triangle that x, the height of a triangle, divides?

mileena said:
(...) does x have to divide the right angle of the larger triangle, or can it be any angle?

Answering both questions:
[itex]m[/itex] and [itex]n[/itex] are projections, that means that [itex]m\ +\ n[/itex] needs to equal to the side of the triangle that the height segment intercepts.

The height intercepts a side perpendicularly. If [itex]x[/itex] divided another angle in a right triangle it would be superposed to one of the sides of the triangle.

Legend:
[itex]a[/itex] = cathetus (or side)
[itex]b[/itex] = cathetus (or side)
[itex]c[/itex] = hypotenuse
[itex]m[/itex] = projection relative to a
[itex]n[/itex] = projection relative to b
[itex]x[/itex] = height

Pythagorean theorem:
[itex]a^{2}\ +\ b^{2}=\ c^{2}[/itex]

Derived from it:
[itex]a^{2}\ =\ m c[/itex]
[itex]b^{2}\ =\ n c[/itex]
[itex]x^{2}\ =\ m n[/itex]
[itex]a b\ =\ x c[/itex]

Using equation I is the easiest way to find a cathethus as you don't need the 'crude' theorem:
If you needed, [itex]a[/itex], for instance, you would solve:
[itex]a = \sqrt{mc}[/itex]
[itex]a = \sqrt{13\cdot 9}[/itex]
[itex]a = \sqrt{117}[/itex]
[itex]a = 3\sqrt{13}[/itex]
 
  • #14
gopher_p said:
They have the same angles.

You're right! I had to really think about all three triangles for a while, but yes, they are similar, even though I didn't realize this at first. I was able to find that each of the two smaller triangles are similar to the large triangle containing them, by A.A.A (angle-angle-angle). Then, if the two smaller triangles are both similar to the larger triangle, they must be similar to each other, even though I couldn't find a direct A.A.A. relation between the two smaller triangles. Thank you!
 
  • #15
besulzbach said:
Answering both questions:
[itex]m[/itex] and [itex]n[/itex] are projections, that means that [itex]m\ +\ n[/itex] needs to equal to the side of the triangle that the height segment intercepts.

The height intercepts a side perpendicularly. If [itex]x[/itex] divided another angle in a right triangle it would be superposed to one of the sides of the triangle.

Legend:
[itex]a[/itex] = cathetus (or side)
[itex]b[/itex] = cathetus (or side)
[itex]c[/itex] = hypotenuse
[itex]m[/itex] = projection relative to a
[itex]n[/itex] = projection relative to b
[itex]x[/itex] = height

Pythagorean theorem:
[itex]a^{2}\ +\ b^{2}=\ c^{2}[/itex]

Derived from it:
[itex]a^{2}\ =\ m c[/itex]
[itex]b^{2}\ =\ n c[/itex]
[itex]x^{2}\ =\ m n[/itex]
[itex]a b\ =\ x c[/itex]

Using equation I is the easiest way to find a cathethus as you don't need the 'crude' theorem:
If you needed, [itex]a[/itex], for instance, you would solve:
[itex]a = \sqrt{mc}[/itex]
[itex]a = \sqrt{13\cdot 9}[/itex]
[itex]a = \sqrt{117}[/itex]
[itex]a = 3\sqrt{13}[/itex]

Wow. This is way above my head, but I am going to take some more time to study what you have written. They definitely don't teach this in high school geometry. I do appreciate this though!
 
  • #16
mileena said:
They definitely don't teach this in high school geometry.

I do not study in the U.S., but people that do confirmed that this IS taught in HS. And if it is not, you should derive those expressions from the "original formula".

The same way you can use the Pythagorean Theorem to derive:

Diagonal of a square of side [itex]l[/itex]: [itex]l\sqrt{2}[/itex]
Height of an equilateral triangle of side [itex]l[/itex]: [itex]...[/itex]

If you don't know the last "formula" that I mentioned, for real, use the Pythagorean Theorem to get to discover it.
Use paper if you can't do it by mind. Post your answer (or ask uncle Google if it is correct).

Obs.: These two formulas are absurdly easy and useful, so if you need math (as a student, you probably do), try to memorize them!
 
  • #17
mileena said:
You're right! I had to really think about all three triangles for a while, but yes, they are similar, even though I didn't realize this at first. I was able to find that each of the two smaller triangles are similar to the large triangle containing them, by A.A.A (angle-angle-angle). Then, if the two smaller triangles are both similar to the larger triangle, they must be similar to each other, even though I couldn't find a direct A.A.A. relation between the two smaller triangles. Thank you!

You're welcome. I needed to do a lot of problems involving triangles the "hard" way before I realized that recognizing/using similar triangle arguments made some of them much easier.
 

1. How do I find the height of a triangle with only one known leg?

The height of a triangle can be found by using the Pythagorean theorem or trigonometric ratios, depending on the given information.

2. Can I use the length of the hypotenuse to find the height of a right triangle with only one known leg?

Yes, the Pythagorean theorem states that in a right triangle, the square of the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. By rearranging the formula, the height can be found using the known leg and the length of the hypotenuse.

3. Is it possible to find the height of a triangle without knowing the length of any of its sides?

No, the height of a triangle cannot be determined without at least one known side or angle.

4. Can I use the area of a triangle to find its height with only one known leg?

No, the area of a triangle is calculated using the base and height, so the height cannot be found using only one known leg.

5. Are there any other methods besides the Pythagorean theorem to find the height of a triangle with only one known leg?

Yes, you can also use trigonometric ratios, such as sine, cosine, and tangent, to find the height of a triangle with one known leg and one known angle.

Similar threads

  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
792
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
767
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
877
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
214
Back
Top