MHB Finding Side Lengths of Tangram Shapes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deeds
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Shapes
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the side lengths of various tangram shapes, specifically isosceles right triangles, a square, and a parallelogram, arranged to form a 1x1 unit square. The user has successfully calculated the dimensions of the large triangles but is uncertain about the next steps without making midpoint assumptions. There is a request for clarification on the mathematical reasoning behind the placement of certain points, particularly how JF lies on a diagonal of the square. The response explains that since JF is perpendicular to a known diagonal and passes through a vertex, it must be part of that diagonal. The conversation highlights the challenges of visualizing and mathematically proving relationships within the tangram configuration.
Deeds
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello, I'm trying to find the lengths of the sides of all of the shapes in the below tangram. This is what is given:
• 2 large, and congruent, isosceles right triangles
• 1 medium isosceles right triangle
• 2 small, and congruent, isosceles right triangles
• 1 square
• 1 parallelogram

The pieces can be rearranged with no gaps or overlapping of shapes into a square with dimensions 1 unit by 1 unit (i.e., the entire area of the square is 1 unit^{2}) You cannot make midpoint assumptions.

I've figured out the lengths of the two large triangles. (1 for the hypotenuse and \sqrt{2}/2 for the other two legs). Without assuming midpoints, I'm not sure where to go next. Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • task 2  puzzle.png
    task 2 puzzle.png
    4.5 KB · Views: 159
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi,
I hope the following is understandable and helps.

sfxtnp.png


jrb5ex.png
 
johng said:
Hi,
I hope the following is understandable and helps.

Thank you so much for your help. Most of it I understand. I will sit with this later to see if I can get it to connect in my brain. :-) If not, I'll ask you more questions.

Again, thank you so much!
 
See also http://mathhelpboards.com/geometry-11/tangrams-11357.html?highlight=tangram.
 
johng said:
Hi,
I hope the following is understandable and helps.

I'm confused about how you know that JF lies on a diagonal of the large square. I can understand how AK does and I can visually and conceptually see how JF would, but how can I mathematically show that?

Sorry, this problem is so difficult for me. Thanks again.
 
Deeds said:
I'm confused about how you know that JF lies on a diagonal of the large square. I can understand how AK does and I can visually and conceptually see how JF would, but how can I mathematically show that?
You know that AK is a diagonal of the large square. You also know that JF is perpendicular to AK (because the angles at F are right angles). Since the diagonals of a square are perpendicular to each other, it follows that JF must be parallel to the other diagonal. But since it passes through the vertex J, it must actually be part of that diagonal.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top