Distance formula vs similar triangles

  • Thread starter Thread starter fayan77
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Triangles
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion between using the distance formula and similar triangles to find the distance from a point to the origin. The correct distance calculated using similar triangles is 9.6, while the distance formula yields 9.8 due to an incorrect point being used. The actual intersection point of the lines is identified as (5.76, 7.68), which should be used with the distance formula for accurate results. Participants emphasize that while both methods can yield the same answer, using the area of triangles can simplify the problem. Ultimately, recognizing the correct coordinates and understanding the relationship between the triangles is crucial for accurate calculations.
fayan77
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Hello, took a year off school, now shaking the rust off. so according to the book using similar triangles d=9.6 I understand how they got the answer, but i used distance formula from the point to the origin and got 9.8 I checked 9.6 and it checks out with the numbers but Idk why using the distance formula yields a different answer. am I doing something wrong?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0579.jpg
    IMG_0579.jpg
    22.5 KB · Views: 469
Physics news on Phys.org
To use the distance formula, you need the coordinates of that point. How did you find the coordinates? What were the steps that you used?
 
the book shows point A (4,9) sorry for the picture quality, my phone sucks.
 
I moved your thread to your homework section.
The picture quality is really problematic.

(4,9) are not the coordinates of any interesting point in the sketch.

9.6 is correct.
 
(4,9) is a point on that line between (0,12) and (16,0), but it is not the point of intersection {it does not satisfy the (4/3) slope from the origin}. You can find the intersection point by finding where the two lines meet.
It is not hard, just two straight lines to find the (x,y) coordinate. The actual intersection point is (5.76,7.68) which you can now use the distance formula and get the same answer.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
I wouldn't solve this via similar triangles, by the way. The area of a triangle can be calculated as length*height/2. You can use the vertical and horizontal sides as length and height to find the area. Then you can use the long diagonal and the unknown length (also a length/height pair) to find the unknown length.
 
yeah that is what i did i took the slope and line then derived an orthogonal line passing through origin and found the point. That point on the book is confusing tho. thanks.
 
fayan77 said:
yeah that is what i did i took the slope and line then derived an orthogonal line passing through origin and found the point.
That's not what I meant.

12=3*4 and 16=4*4, and you should recognize 3,4,5 as right triangle. Therefore, the hypothenuse has a length of 5*4=20.

The area of the triangle is 12*16/2.

If we call the unknown length h, we get 12*16/2 = 20*h/2.
The unknown length is then h=12*16/20, and that is something you can calculate easily.
 
  • Like
Likes scottdave
mfb said:
I wouldn't solve this via similar triangles, by the way. The area of a triangle can be calculated as length*height/2. You can use the vertical and horizontal sides as length and height to find the area. Then you can use the long diagonal and the unknown length (also a length/height pair) to find the unknown length.

Wouldn't similar triangles be the easiest possible way? Solving ##16/20 = d/12## is about as simple as it gets.

Of course, one would first need to recognize that the large triangle has hypotenuse 20, as you have indicated.
 
  • Like
Likes scottdave
  • #10
Well, it leads to the same formula, but you have to think which side corresponds to what.
 
Back
Top