Maximizing Parallelogram Area: A Mathematical Approach

  • Thread starter Thread starter travishillier
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The problem involves finding the area of a parallelogram with a base of 12 cm and an unknown height. To increase the area by 54 cm², the base is increased by 2 cm and the height by 3 cm. By setting up the equations for the original and new areas, it is determined that the original height is 6 cm, resulting in an area of 72 cm². The calculations confirm that the new area is 126 cm², validating the increase of 54 cm². This approach effectively demonstrates the use of algebra in solving geometric problems.
travishillier
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Need some serious math help ...

Heres teh question ...

A Parallelogram has a base length of 12cm. In order to increse teh area of teh paralleogram by 54cm(squared), the length of the base is increased by 2cm and the height is incresed by 3cm . Find the area of the original parallelogram.

The solution requires me to use fully defined variables, formula(s), all steps shown using good math form and concluding statements with appropriate units .

Any help is greatly appreaciated ... PLMK what ui can do to help me ...
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
area of a parallelogram = b*h

area of "old" p-gram = b*h = 12h cm
area of "new" p-gram = (b+2 cm)(h+3 cm) = (12 cm + 2 cm)(h+3 cm) = (14 cm)(h+3 cm) = 14h cm + 42 cm^2

So, the area increased by 54 cm^2, so:

(area "new" p-gram) - (area "old" p-gram) = 54cm^2

14h cm + 42 cm^2 - 12h cm = 54cm^2
2h cm + 42 cm^2 = 54cm^2
2h cm = 12 cm^2
h = 6 cm

So, the original height is 6 cm.

Original formula: A=b*h=(12 cm)(6 cm) = 72 cm^2

And, just to check with the new area...

A=(b+2)(h+3)=(12 cm +2 cm)(6 cm + 3 cm)=(14 cm)(9 cm) = 126 cm^2

And make sure the difference is 54: 126 cm^2 - 72 cm^2 = 54cm^2
 
hey, thanks a lot for teh info on this question .. you could not of helped me any more ... thanks a mill
 
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...
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...
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...
Back
Top