MHB How can I determine the G 1:3 using given midpoints?

  • Thread starter Thread starter squexy
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To determine the ratio G 1:3 using midpoints, one method involves drawing a line between points E and F, which divides the larger rectangle into two equal smaller rectangles. Each smaller rectangle is then split into four triangles, leading to a calculation of areas that reveals the white area is one-fourth of the rectangle, while the shaded area is three-fourths. This results in a ratio of the white area to the shaded area of 1:3. The discussion highlights the symmetry in the areas of the triangles formed, emphasizing that understanding these relationships can enhance mathematical insight. The conclusion is that the ratio of the areas is indeed 1:3.
squexy
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Can someone show me how to resolve this question?

View attachment 2902
The answer is G 1:3

Thanks ^.^
 

Attachments

  • Trigon.jpg
    Trigon.jpg
    16.5 KB · Views: 104
Mathematics news on Phys.org
This is how I would do it: image drawing a line between E and F, this splits the larger rectangle into 2 equal smaller rectangles, since these are midpoints.

Each smaller rectangle is then split into 4 triangles. Let's say the top and bottom ones have base length $a$ and the side ones have base length $b$.

The entire larger rectangle has area:

$(a + a)(b) = 2ab$.

It is easy to see that the top and bottom triangles have height $\dfrac{b}{2}$, so their area (each) is:

$\dfrac{1}{2}\cdot a\cdot \dfrac{b}{2} = \dfrac{ab}{4}$.

We have 2 of then, so their total area is $2\cdot\dfrac{ab}{4} = \dfrac{ab}{2}$.

The two side triangles must then together have total area:

$ab - \dfrac{ab}{2} = \dfrac{ab}{2}$ (Each smaller rectangle has area $ab$).

Since the white area is just two side triangles put together (one from each smaller rectangle made from the large rectangle cut in half), it must have area $\dfrac{ab}{2}$.

Thus the shaded area is $2ab - \dfrac{ab}{2} = \dfrac{3ab}{2}$.

So the ratio of the white area to the shaded area is:

$\dfrac{\dfrac{ab}{2}}{\dfrac{3ab}{2}} = \dfrac{ab}{2}\cdot \dfrac{2}{3ab} = \dfrac{1}{3}$
 
squexy said:
Can someone show me how to resolve this question?

View attachment 2902
The answer is G 1:3

Thanks ^.^

An easier way:

Draw the segment EF. This cuts the entire rectangle in half. Surely you can see that of these two halves, the resulting white triangles each make up 1/4 of these halves, so 1/8 of the entire rectangle's area.

Since there will be two of these triangles, the white region is 1/4 of the rectangle's area.

Compared to the remaining area of the rectangle (3/4), this gives a ratio of 1/4 : 3/4, or simply 1:3.
 
Prove It said:
An easier way:

Draw the segment EF. This cuts the entire rectangle in half. Surely you can see that of these two halves, the resulting white triangles each make up 1/4 of these halves, so 1/8 of the entire rectangle's area.

Since there will be two of these triangles, the white region is 1/4 of the rectangle's area.

Compared to the remaining area of the rectangle (3/4), this gives a ratio of 1/4 : 3/4, or simply 1:3.

It is (or at least was) not immediately apparent (to me) that the four triangles of each half of the entire rectangle all have the same area. It turns out that they do, because the formula (in terms of the sides of the "half-rectangles"), namely what I have called:

$\dfrac{ab}{4}$

is symmetric in $a$ and $b$ (on the top versus the sides, the two "swap places", $a$ is the base of one pair, and $b$ is twice the height, while on the other pair $b$ is the base, and $a$ is twice the height).

The reason I stress this, is because if $a$ and $b$ were *very* different (and not so close as they are for this diagram), it would be even less clear that all 8 triangles we can make all have the same area (although each pair of 4 clearly do).

This, in my opinion, is one of the "boons" of mathematics: it allows us to discover we knew more than we thought we did.
 
Deveno said:
It is (or at least was) not immediately apparent (to me) that the four triangles of each half of the entire rectangle all have the same area. It turns out that they do, because the formula (in terms of the sides of the "half-rectangles"), namely what I have called:

$\dfrac{ab}{4}$

is symmetric in $a$ and $b$ (on the top versus the sides, the two "swap places", $a$ is the base of one pair, and $b$ is twice the height, while on the other pair $b$ is the base, and $a$ is twice the height).

The reason I stress this, is because if $a$ and $b$ were *very* different (and not so close as they are for this diagram), it would be even less clear that all 8 triangles we can make all have the same area (although each pair of 4 clearly do).

This, in my opinion, is one of the "boons" of mathematics: it allows us to discover we knew more than we thought we did.

It IS immediately apparent when you are told that the points given are midpoints of the given sides...
 
Prove It said:
It IS immediately apparent when you are told that the points given are midpoints of the given sides...
With all due respect, I beg to differ. It may well be obvious to you, it was not obvious to me (I had to spend about a minute thinking about it).

Imagine I ask you "why it is obvious?". The two types of triangles are not congruent. How would you answer such a question?

There is nothing "harder" about what I posted, than what you suggested, in fact, they are in essence the same approach. I just filled in "more blanks" to make what I said transparent.

I suppose I could have just said: it is obvious the answer is 1:3, by similar reasoning as yours. In my mind, however, that seems a tad unhelpful.
 
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...
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...
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