Proving that larger side corresponds to larger angle

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deviousfred
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angle
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the largest side of a triangle corresponds to the largest angle using the Law of Sines. Participants explore the relationship between the angles and their sine values, noting that if one angle is larger, its sine must also be larger, but caution is raised regarding angles greater than 90 degrees. Suggestions include using geometric properties, such as drawing a circumcircle, to strengthen the proof. The conversation emphasizes the need for a clear, non-numerical justification for why the sine of a larger angle exceeds that of a smaller angle. Overall, the participants are collaboratively refining their understanding of the proof's requirements.
Deviousfred
Messages
19
Reaction score
1
I was asked by one of my professors to prove for the class why the largest side of the tringle corresponds to the largest angle of that triangle.

I was thinking of using law of sines to do so. Please let me know if I am wrong so that I do not look like a fool in front of class.

My triangle is ABC with vertices/angles a,b, and c respectively.

I am saying that angle a is the largest in that triangle, so;

Quick notes: L is my representation for angle.
mLa > mLb > mLc.

Law of Sines:

sin(a)/BC = sin(b)/AC = sin(c)/AB

therefore;

AC*sin(a)=BC*sin(b),
AC*sin(c)=AB*sin(b),
AB*sin(a)=BC*sin(c).

so;

AC/BC = sin(b)/sin(a),
AC/AB = sin(b)/sin(c),
AB/BC = sin(c)/sin(a).

once again;

mLa > mLb > mLc.

therefore;

sin(a) > sin(b) > sin(c)

so if;

AC/BC = sin(b)/sin(a),
AC/AB = sin(b)/sin(c),
AB/BC = sin(c)/sin(a).

then;

AC < BC
AC > AB
AB < BC

so;

BC > AC > AB

I don't know if I need to write anything more down from here. Take it easy on my, I threw this together last night while ignoring my mother-in-law's boring story.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Deviousfred! :smile:

I'm not sure, but I think you've assumed that if A > B, then sinA > sinB, which isn't necessarily true if one of them is > 90º …

how will you deal with that case?

However, this sine theorem assumes rather a lot of prior geometry …

how about a proof involving drawing a circle through the three vertices of the triangle? :wink:
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi Deviousfred! :smile:

I'm not sure, but I think you've assumed that if A > B, then sinA > sinB, which isn't necessarily true if one of them is > 90º …

how will you deal with that case?

However, this sine theorem assumes rather a lot of prior geometry …

how about a proof involving drawing a circle through the three vertices of the triangle? :wink:

I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday but I came to this conclusion:

In a triangle all three sides add up to 180 degrees. If we were to have a triangle and let's say the largest angle is 120 degrees then the second largest angle could only be 60-1=59 degrees.

sin (120) > sin (59)

I did several other conditions with 170, 160, 150, 140, 130, 120, 110, and 100 degrees and all resulted in the same manner.

I came to the conclusion that in the case of a triangle, the sin of the largest angle will always be greater than the sin of both other angles (individually of course.) I'm sure there is a better way to say/show this but I do not know it yet.

I am very interested in your idea though. Before I ask you to show me let me take a stab at it.
 
Hi Deviousfred! :smile:
Deviousfred said:
In a triangle all three sides add up to 180 degrees. If we were to have a triangle and let's say the largest angle is 120 degrees then the second largest angle could only be 60-1=59 degrees.

sin (120) > sin (59)

I did several other conditions with 170, 160, 150, 140, 130, 120, 110, and 100 degrees and all resulted in the same manner.

I came to the conclusion that in the case of a triangle, the sin of the largest angle will always be greater than the sin of both other angles (individually of course.) …

Yes … but why is sin (120) > sin (59)? … why is sin (170) > sin (9)? … etc …

you'll need a snappy reason to put before the class! :wink:
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi Deviousfred! :smile:


Yes … but why is sin (120) > sin (59)? … why is sin (170) > sin (9)? … etc …

you'll need a snappy reason to put before the class! :wink:

I know, I'm trying right now to find a way to prove that without values.
 
Deviousfred said:
I know, I'm trying right now to find a way to prove that without values.

I know you know :biggrin:

I'm just encouraging you! :wink:
 
So I guess my new proof is:

Triangle ABC

If;
mLA > mLB > mLC

Prove;
sin A > sin B > sin C
 
I'm stumped.
 
ok … why, for example, is sin (120) > sin (59)?

because we chose 59 to be less than 180 - 120.

But sin120 = sin(180 - 120),

so all you have to prove is that if 59 < 180 - 120 then sin(59) < sin(180 - 120) :wink:
 
  • #10
ok, I was ablt to prove it by other means using isoceles triangle and exterior angle inequality, but I'm hellbent on proving it this way.
 
Back
Top