Why is my equation not working for finding the angles of a triangle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LogarithmLuke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
AI Thread Summary
The equation set up to find the angles of a triangle is incorrect because it leads to a tautology, resulting in x's canceling out. The problem arises from having three variables (the angles) but only two equations, creating an underdetermined system. To solve for the angles, additional information or constraints are necessary to establish a unique solution. The relationship between the angles must be defined more clearly to avoid redundancy in the equations. Without further constraints, the angles cannot be determined accurately.
LogarithmLuke
Messages
82
Reaction score
3
So given a problem where you have a triangle. One angle in the triangle is 4 times larger than another angle. How big are each of the angles?

So i set up the equation 4x+x+180-5x=180

One angle is 4 times large than another, hence 4x. The angles must add up to 180 because it's a triangle. The last one has to be 180 minus the the two others(4x+x). I see that the equation won't work because the x's cancel out, but i don't understand why this is not correct. I feel like I am missing out on something very basic and obvious but i can't seem to figure out what it is. Could someone help me out?

Btw i wasnt sure whether to put this here or in the homework section, Perhaps you mods could move it if it doesen't belong here?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It is because you don't have enough information.
You could have (1, 4, 175), (2, 8, 170), etc.
 
To better explain, you have what is called an underdetermined system.
## \left\{ \begin{array}{l l } x + y + z = 180 \\ 4x - y = 0 \end{array} \right. ##
Note that you have 3 variables and only two equations.
You can narrow down the possibilities, by constraining x, y, z to be positive values. Then you have 0< x < 36, giving 0 < y < 144, but still unless you know something else about the system, you will not find an answer.

In your equation that you built, you essentially used the same constraint equation twice. This gave you a tautological (always true) equation, 180 = 180.
Using x + y + z = 180 to define z = 180-x - y, and then substituting back into the same equation gives x + y + 180 - x -y = 180, just like you found. If you could find another relationship, you could hope to solve for one, and thus all, of the angles.
 
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
59
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top