MHB Prove $\frac{1}{3}\le \frac{u}{v} \le \frac{1}{2}$ with Triangle Sides

  • Thread starter Thread starter anemone
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the inequality $\frac{1}{3} \le \frac{u}{v} \le \frac{1}{2}$, where $u = a^2 + b^2 + c^2$ and $v = (a + b + c)^2$ for triangle sides $a$, $b$, and $c$. Participants emphasize the need to demonstrate that the upper limit of $\frac{1}{2}$ cannot be replaced by a smaller number. There is a correction noted regarding a typo in the previous messages. The conversation also highlights the importance of addressing all parts of the question for a complete solution. The thread ultimately seeks clarity on the proof and its implications for triangle side lengths.
anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
115
Let $a,\,b$ and $b$ be the lengths of the sides of a triangle. Suppose that $u=a^2+b^2+c^2$ and $v=(a+b+c)^2$.

Prove that $\dfrac{1}{3}\le\dfrac{u}{v}\le\dfrac{1}{2}$ and that the fraction $\dfrac{1}{2}$ on the right cannot be replaced by a smaller number.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
we have $(a-b)^2 + (b-c)^2 + (c-a)^2 = a^2-2ab + b^2 + b^2-2bc + c^2 + c^2 -2ac + a^2$
$=(2(a^2+b^2+c^2 - ab + bc + ca) >=0$

or $a^2 + b^2 + c^2 >= ab + bc + ac \cdots(1)$

Now as a, b, c are sides of triangle we have

$a <= b + c$ or $a^2 <= ab + ac\cdots(2)$

similarly $b^2 <= ab + bc\cdots(3)$

and $c^2 <= bc + ac\cdots(4)$

adding (2) ,(3) , (4) we get $a^2 + b^2 + c^2 <= 2ab + 2bc + 2ca\cdots(2)$

Now we have $v = (a+b+c)^2 = (a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + 2(ab+bc+ca) <= (a^2+b^2+c^2) + 2(a^2+b^2+c^2$

or $ v <= 3(a^2+b^2+ c^2$

or $ v<=3u$

or $\frac{1}{3} < = \frac{u}{v}\cdots(5)$

Now for the 2nd part

$2u= u + u = (a^2+b^2+c^2) + (a^2 + b^2 + c^2 ) <= (a^2+b^2+c^2) + 2(ab+bc+ca)$ using (2)

or $2u <= (a+b+c)^2$ or $2u <= v\cdots(6)$

from (5) and (6) we get the result
 
Last edited:
Hi kaliprasad, thanks for participating! But I was wondering if you have somehow missed out the solution to the very last part of the question...
 
anemone said:
Hi kaliprasad, thanks for participating! But I was wondering if you have somehow missed out the solution to the very last part of the question...
There was a typo in 2nd last line it is corrected

I could not complete the part that fraction on the right cannot be replaced by a smaller number

other wise solution is complete
 
About the last part of the question...
If $a=b$ and $c=0$ then $u=2a^2$ and $v=4a^2$. So $\frac uv = \frac12.$ Of course, you cannot have a triangle with one side zero. But suppose you take an isosceles triangle with sides $a$, $a$ and $\varepsilon$. Then $$2u - v = 4a^2 + 2\varepsilon^2 - (2a + \varepsilon)^2 = \varepsilon(4a - \varepsilon),$$ which you can make as small as you like by taking $\varepsilon$ small enough. So $v$ can be made arbitrarily close to $2u$ and thus $\frac uv$ can be made arbitrarily close to $\frac12.$
 
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