What is the proof for minimizing the sum of distances on a sliced rectangle?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on minimizing the sum of distances in a geometric context involving a rectangle ABCD and a line EF. The user has established that minimizing the square of distances AX and XM leads to minimizing the distances themselves. They seek clarification on whether proving the relationship between the sum of squares and the sum of distances is necessary, as they have already shown that the square root of a sum does not equal the sum of square roots. Another participant clarifies the notation used, explaining that AX represents the distance between points A and X, and that the minimum distance occurs when point X is on line segment AM. The conversation emphasizes the geometric principles underlying distance minimization in this scenario.
melkorthefoul
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hi guys,

I'm doing a rather long math modelling task. As part of the task, I have to investigate the following argument:

There is a rectangle ABCD. It is sliced by the line EF, such that EF is parallel to AD and BC. M is the midpoint of BC. X is a point on the line EF (the position of X, which is denoted as x, is the variable in this investigation).

If, for a given value of x, the square of the distance AX is minimized, then for this value of x the distance AX is also minimized (proved that). Then, if, for a given value of x, the square of the distance XM is minimized, then for this value of x the distance XM is also minimized (Proved that the same way). Therefore, if the sum of the squares of the distances AX and XM are minimized for a given value of x, then the sum of the distances (AX+XM) is also minimized (Need just a bit of advice here)

Homework Equations



AX2=f(x)
XM2=g(x)
AX2+XM2=h(x)
AX+XM=i(x)

The Attempt at a Solution



I've kinda proved the last bit as well, by saying that the square root of (a+b) does not equal the square root of a plus the square root of b, as the argument assumes that the square root of h(x) = i(x) . However, I just wanted to clarify something: would saying just this be enough, or do I have to prove it? And how would I go about doing that?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
melkorthefoul said:

Homework Statement



Hi guys,

I'm doing a rather long math modelling task. As part of the task, I have to investigate the following argument:

There is a rectangle ABCD. It is sliced by the line EF, such that EF is parallel to AD and BC. M is the midpoint of BC. X is a point on the line EF (the position of X, which is denoted as x, is the variable in this investigation)

If, for a given value of x, AX2 is minimized, then for this value of x AX is also minimized (proved that). Then, if, for a given value of x, XM2 is minimized, then for this value of x XM is also minimized (Proved that the same way). Therefore, if (AX2+XM2) is minimized for a given value of x, then (AX+XM) is also minimized (Need just a bit of advice here)

Homework Equations



AX2=f(x)
XM2=g(x)
AX2+XM2=h(x)
AX+XM=i(x)
This is all very confusing. A, B, C, D, X and M are the names of points. What are AX and XM supposed to represent? Is AX the line segment between A and X? Is AX2 the square of the magnitude of AX?
melkorthefoul said:

The Attempt at a Solution



I've kinda proved the last bit as well, by saying that the square root of (a+b) does not equal the square root of a plus the square root of b, as the argument assumes that the square root of h(x) = i(x) . However, I just wanted to clarify something: would saying just this be enough, or do I have to prove it? And how would I go about doing that?
 
Mark44 said:
This is all very confusing. A, B, C, D, X and M are the names of points. What are AX and XM supposed to represent? Is AX the line segment between A and X? Is AX2 the square of the magnitude of AX?
Yeah, I found it confusing too, but it's a convention used in high-school geometry. The line segment between two points A and X is denoted \overline{AX} whereas its length is denoted AX, without the overline.
 
Whoops... clarified what AX and XM stand for. My bad :D
 
The minimum value of AX + XM is attained when the point X is on the line segment AM. In that case, AX + XM = AM. If X is not on the line AM, AX + MX > AM.
 
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