MHB What is the tv screen area in square inches of a

loukatz
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Assume that the ratio of a big screen TV is 16:9. TVs are advertised by their diagonal (sp?) length. What is the screen area in square inches of a:

a) 40 inch TV

b) 60 inch TV

c) 65 inch TV

d) 80 inch TV

e) 86 inch TV

Show the formula (equation) that you used.

Thank you
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Let's let $x$ be the width of the screen and $y$ be the height, and so we have:

$$\frac{x}{y}=\frac{16}{9}\implies y=\frac{9}{16}x$$

Let $d$ be the diagonal measure of the screen...by Pythagoras we have:

$$x^2+y^2=d^2$$

Substituting for $y$, we have:

$$x^2+\frac{81}{256}x^2=d^2$$

$$\frac{337}{256}x^2=d^2\implies x^2=\frac{256}{337}d^2$$

Now, the area $A$ of the screen is:

$$A=xy=\frac{9}{16}x^2=\frac{144}{337}d^2$$

Now you have a formula to find the area as a function of the diagonal. :)
 
I'm amazed by this forum. How do you know all that?
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top