Solve Max Area Isoceles Triangle Inscribed in Circle of Radius 4cm

  • Thread starter Thread starter dontdisturbmycircles
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the dimensions of an isosceles triangle inscribed in a circle with a radius of 4 cm, using derivatives to maximize the area. The user sets half the base to x and the height to h, deriving an area function and its derivative. A key concern arises about multiplying both sides of an equation by a variable when zero is present, prompting a broader inquiry into when such multiplication is valid. Participants emphasize the importance of considering critical points where the derivative is zero, undefined, or at the boundaries of the interval for accurate maximum area determination. The conversation highlights the need for careful analysis of assumptions regarding the height of the triangle within the constraints of the inscribed circle.
dontdisturbmycircles
Messages
592
Reaction score
3
Hi,

I am trying to use derivatives to find the dimensions of the isoceles triangle which covers the most area inscribed in a circle of radius 4cm.

So I set the 1/2 the bottom of the triangle to x, the height of the triangle to h, and draw the radius of the circle, 4, connecting the center of the circle and the endpoint of one side of the base.

1/2 the base = x
height of isoceles triangle = h
height of triangle drawn at bottom of isoceles triangle = y = h-4


So I get to a point where I have gotten my derivative of the area function, and am trying to find a point where it = 0 so that I can find out whether that point is a max and solve the problem.

I get \frac{dA}{dh}=h*\frac{1}{2}(8h-h^{2})^{-1/2}(8-2h)+(8h-h^{2})^{1/2}=0

Then I simplify it to \frac{8h-2h^{2}+2(8h-h^{2})}{2(8h-h^{2})^{1/2}}=0

At this point can I multiply both sides by 2(8h-h^{2})^{1/2} to get

8h-2h^{2}+16h-2h^{2}=0?

I am usually hesitant to multiply by a variable when there is a 0 sitting on the other side, but I am thinking that since h must be > 0, I can do it. Am I wrong in this assumption?

I guess my broader question is when is it okay to multiply by a variable when there is a 0 on the other side?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The only danger of multiplying is that you might be introducing extra solutions.

If you're worried, think back to what you know about rational numbers:

a/b = 0

if and only if

a = 0 and b \neq 0

(If b = 0, then you've done something wrong when deriving a/b=0)


Incidentally, somewhere along the line you assumed that h was neither 0 nor 8. Was that intentional?
 
Last edited:
Ah okay, that makes sense.

What do you mean I assumed it was not 8?
 
(foreward: your work is good, I don't mean to imply otherwise. I'm just bringing up some things to make you aware of them! So hopefully you won't be tricked in later problems where they matter)


In your expression for A, notice that you assumed that

0 <= h <= 8.

That's a good assumption to make, because your triangle is supposed to be inscribed in your circle. But, your expression for A is not differentiable at h=0 and h=8. So, the analysis you've presented is only valid for the range

0 < h < 8.


Remember that, to find the maximum of a continuous function over a closed interval, you need to consider three kinds of points:
(1) Points where the derivative is zero
(2) Points where the derivative does not exist
(3) Boundary points.

(remember that "critical point" includes points of type (1) and type (2))


So far, you've only considered points of type (1), and haven't looked at points of type (2) or type (3), so you're not quite done. Fortunately, those points are easy to handle. :smile:
 
Last edited:
Ahhh that is very true. No worries I took no offense and didn't think you were being offensive, I was genuinely interested :smile: . I actually forgot that critical points include undefined derivatives so thanks alot. I appreciate it.
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top