Prove that a triangle with lattice points cannot be equilateral

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion proves that a triangle with vertices at lattice points cannot be equilateral. The user demonstrates this by assuming three points P1 = (a, c), P2 = (c, d), and P3 = (b, e) and applying the distance formula. The resulting equations lead to the conclusion that for the triangle to exist, a must equal c, which contradicts the definition of a triangle. Additionally, the user explores the implications of using the distance squared method, ultimately confirming that an equilateral triangle cannot be formed with lattice points.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the distance formula in Euclidean geometry
  • Familiarity with lattice points in a 2D coordinate system
  • Basic knowledge of algebraic manipulation and equations
  • Concept of equilateral triangles and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of lattice points in geometry
  • Learn about the implications of the distance formula in triangle classification
  • Explore algebraic proofs in geometry, particularly involving triangles
  • Investigate the relationship between lattice points and number theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, geometry enthusiasts, students preparing for advanced calculus, and anyone interested in the properties of triangles and lattice points.

JoeAllen
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
I assumed three points for a triangle P1 = (a, c), P2 = (c, d), P3 = (b, e)

and of course:
a, b, c, d, e∈Z
Using the distance formula between each of the points and setting them equal:
\sqrt { (b - a)^2 + (e - d)^2 } = \sqrt { (c - a)^2 + (d - d)^2 } = \sqrt { (b - c)^2 + (e - d)^2 }(e+d)2 = (c-a)2 - (b-a)2
(e+d)2 = (c-a)2 - (b-c)2

c2 - 2ac - b2 +2ab = -2ac + a2 - b2 + 2bc
c2 + 2ab = a2 + 2bc
c(c - 2b) = a(a - 2b)

Thus, for this to be true, a = c. But in this example, the distance between a and c would be 0. Thus, not a triangle and certainly not an equilateral triangle.

Where did I go wrong here? I'm bored waiting for Calculus II in the Fall and I'm going through Courant's Differential and Integral Calculus on my free time until then (Fall term probably starting in August/September, so I'm not worried if it takes a few months to get comfortable with Courant - Calculus I has been a breeze since I already knew most of the content before taking it).
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
As for 2D lattice we can make one of the lattice points is (0,0) without losing generality.
Say other points are ##(n_1,n_2),(m_1,m_2)##
n_1^2+n_2^2=A
m_1^2+m_2^2=A
(n_1-m_1)^2+(n_2-m_2)^2=A
where A is square of the side length. You will find contradiction in this set of formla.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JoeAllen

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 125 ·
5
Replies
125
Views
20K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K