RMS and the Pythagorean Theorem

Click For Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between the root mean square (RMS) of the legs of a right triangle and the Pythagorean theorem, suggesting that the RMS equals the leg of a square with the hypotenuse as its diagonal. It highlights that the RMS of two legs can be expressed as c/√2, where c is the hypotenuse, and connects this to the geometry of a 45-45-90 triangle. Participants express curiosity about the implications of this relationship, particularly in higher dimensions and its potential applications in vector components. There is also speculation on whether standard deviation can be visualized similarly, raising questions about its mathematical significance. The conversation emphasizes the perceived importance of this connection, noting a lack of existing literature on the topic.
kotreny
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Today I was thinking about the root mean square, and I figured out a definite relationship with the Pythagorean theorem. Specifically, the root mean square of the legs of a right triangle is equal to the "average leg," i.e. the leg of a square with the hypotenuse as it's diagonal. It appears to me that this is a fairly interesting and important connection, certainly applying to distance on Cartesian coordinates and maybe explaining the usefulness of the RMS. However, when I googled it, nothing came up! I'm trying to see if this relationship has any meaning whatsoever, which I believe it should, and if so, what it means. I'm pretty sure my math isn't wrong.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org

Attachments

  • Pythagoreanmeans.jpg
    Pythagoreanmeans.jpg
    16.2 KB · Views: 732
Thanks for the attachment, but there seems to be something wrong. I tried substituting a=4 and b=3. The RMS is then 5/\sqrt{2}. But the line labeled RMS in the figure should be of length 7/\sqrt{2}, right? It looks like the diagonal of a square with side A--or the arithmetic mean, which would be 7/2--and the diagonal is always equal to side*\sqrt{2}. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks again!
 
kotreny said:
Today I was thinking about the root mean square, and I figured out a definite relationship with the Pythagorean theorem. Specifically, the root mean square of the legs of a right triangle is equal to the "average leg," i.e. the leg of a square with the hypotenuse as it's diagonal.

I should clarify exactly what I mean.

Let's say you have a right triangle with legs a and b and hypotenuse c.
The Pythagorean Theorem says that a2 + b2 = c2.
Now, the root mean square of the two legs is \sqrt{(a^2 + b^2)/2}. But wait! Combine the two equations to get,

RMS of a and b = \sqrt{c^2/2} = c /\sqrt{2}

Now imagine a 45-45-90 triangle with legs equal to c /\sqrt{2}. The length of the hypotenuse would then be
c /\sqrt{2} * \sqrt{2}, which is equal to c. The conclusion is that the RMS of legs a and b gives you the leg of a 45-45-90 triangle with the same hypotenuse c. A little extra work shows that it applies to 3 or more dimensions too.

I'll bet this is used to find average vector components, or something, though they probably don't take the time to mention the connection with the RMS. I dunno.

Does standard deviation have something to do with this?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Geometric_interpretation"

This is essentially what I'm talking about, although worded differently. Seems strange that nowhere else mentions it; you'd think this is an important fact!

So can standard deviation really, formally be visualized like this? If you take a data set, can each data point's deviation be considered as inhabiting its own "dimension"? Does it have mathematical significance at all?

I'd love to get some answers, opinions, and especially corrections! Any feedback would be appreciated. Please comment, and thanks very much! :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K