MHB How Can You Calculate the Area of Shaded Regions in Complex Geometric Figures?

  • Thread starter Thread starter anemone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Area
AI Thread Summary
Calculating the area of shaded regions in complex geometric figures involves deriving equations from the areas of the square, circle, and semicircles. The total area of the square is given as 144 cm², leading to the equation 2w + x + y + z = 36. The area of the circle provides another equation, x + y = 9π, while the semicircle yields 2w + x + 2y + 2z = 18π. A fourth equation is established by calculating the area between the circle and a semicircle, resulting in x + 2y = 24π - 18√3. The final values for the areas w, x, y, and z are derived, with a correction noted for the value of y.
anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
115
Hello all!

It is so embarrassing to ask because I would think there is a trick to solve this problem without going through the trigonometric formulas like sine rule for example (because this is a primary math problem) but for some reason, I can't see through it...if you can solve it without using any of the trigonometric formulas, can you please enlighten me? Many thanks!

The figure is made up of a circle, identical semicircles and a square of side 12 cm. What is the area of the regions with all those number labels?
[TIKZ]
\draw (0,-3) rectangle (6,3);
\begin{scope}
\draw (3,0) circle(3);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\draw (0,-3) arc (-90:90:3cm);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\draw (6,-3) arc (-90:-270:3cm);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\draw (0,3) arc (-180:0:3cm);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\draw (6,-3) arc (0:180:3cm);
\end{scope}
\coordinate[label=above: 1] (1) at (0.15,-1.8);
\coordinate[label=above: 1] (1) at (1.5,2.6);
\coordinate[label=above: 1] (1) at (4.5,2.6);
\coordinate[label=above: 1] (1) at (5.8,1.3);
\coordinate[label=above: 1] (1) at (5.8,-1.7);
\coordinate[label=above: 2] (2) at (3,2);
\coordinate[label=above: 2] (2) at (5,-0.3);
\coordinate[label=above: 3] (3) at (4.2,0.8);
\coordinate[label=above: 4] (4) at (5.5,2.3);
[/TIKZ]
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Use the notation $w = $ area of region 1, $x = $ area of region 2, $y = $ area of region 3, $z =$ are of region 4.

We want four equations for these four unknowns, and it's easy to get three equations:

Area of the whole square gives $8w + 4x + 4y + 4z = 144$, so $2w+x+y+z = 36$;
Area of the whole circle gives $4x+4y = 36\pi$, so $x+y=9\pi$;
Area of one of the semicircles gives $2w+x+2y+2z = 18\pi$.

But we need a fourth equation, and that is less obvious. I think the best route is to calculate the area between the whole circle and one of the semicircles. The triangle whose vertices are the centre of the semicircle, the centre of the whole circle, and one of their points of intersection, is equilateral with side $6$ (the red triangle in the diagram below). So its angles are $60^\circ$. The sector of the semicircle between the blue and red radii is therefore one-third of a whole circle and so has area $12\pi$. The triangle with vertices at the centre of the semicircle and the two points of intersection with the whole circle (with two blue sides and one red side in the diagram) has area $9\sqrt3$. Subtracting that from the area of the sector, and multiplying by $2$, you see that the area between the semicircle and the whole circle is $24\pi - 18\sqrt3$. That gives you the fourth equation, $x+2y = 24\pi - 18\sqrt3$.

Now all you have to do is to solve the four equations. I got the answers as
$w = 36 - 9\sqrt3 - 6\pi$,
$x = 18\sqrt3 - 6\pi$,
$y = 15\pi - 19\sqrt3$,
$z = 3\pi - 18(2-\sqrt3)$.
But I haven't checked those calculations so I may well have made errors.

[TIKZ]\draw (0,-3) rectangle (6,3);
\begin{scope}
\draw (3,0) circle(3);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\draw (0,-3) arc (-90:90:3cm);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\draw (6,-3) arc (-90:-270:3cm);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\draw (0,3) arc (-180:0:3cm);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\draw (6,-3) arc (0:180:3cm);
\end{scope}
\draw[red] (0,0) -- (1.5,2.6) -- (3,0) -- cycle ;
\draw[blue] (1.5,2.6) -- (1.5,-2.6) -- (0,0) ;
\coordinate[label=above: 1] (1) at (0.15,-1.8);
\coordinate[label=above: 1] (1) at (1.5,2.6);
\coordinate[label=above: 1] (1) at (4.5,2.6);
\coordinate[label=above: 1] (1) at (5.8,1.3);
\coordinate[label=above: 1] (1) at (5.8,-1.7);
\coordinate[label=above: 2] (2) at (3,2);
\coordinate[label=above: 2] (2) at (5,-0.3);
\coordinate[label=above: 3] (3) at (4.2,0.8);
\coordinate[label=above: 4] (4) at (5.5,2.3);[/TIKZ]
 
Awesome, Opalg! (Cool) Thanks for the insightful solution, and your answers for $w,\,x$ and $z$ are correct, but I believe you made a typo in the value for $y$, the $-19\sqrt{3}$ should be $-18\sqrt{3}$.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top