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

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a mathematical modeling task involving a rectangle ABCD, which is sliced by a line EF. The focus is on minimizing the sum of distances AX and XM, where X is a point on line EF and M is the midpoint of BC. The participants explore the relationship between the distances and their squared counterparts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of minimizing the squared distances AX² and XM², and how this relates to minimizing the actual distances AX and XM. Questions arise regarding the definitions of AX and XM, and whether further proof is necessary for certain assertions.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided clarifications regarding the notation used for distances and segments. There is an ongoing exploration of the conditions under which the minimum value of AX + XM is achieved, with different interpretations being considered.

Contextual Notes

Participants note confusion regarding the notation and definitions of the distances involved, which may affect their understanding of the problem. The discussion reflects a need for clarity on the geometric relationships and assumptions made in the task.

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 [tex]\overline{AX}[/tex] 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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
18K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
14K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K