Can area of rectangle be greater than the square of its diagonal? [closed]
up vote
37
down vote
favorite
Q: A wall, rectangular in shape, has a perimeter of 72 m. If the length of its diagonal is 18 m, what is the area of the wall ?
The answer given to me is area of 486 m2. This is the explanation given to me
Is it possible to have a rectangle of diagonal 18 m and area greater than the area of a square of side 18 m ?
geometry area
closed as off-topic by user21820, John B, Holo, TheSimpliFire, Parcly Taxel Nov 18 at 2:54
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, John B, Holo, TheSimpliFire, Parcly Taxel
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
|
show 9 more comments
up vote
37
down vote
favorite
Q: A wall, rectangular in shape, has a perimeter of 72 m. If the length of its diagonal is 18 m, what is the area of the wall ?
The answer given to me is area of 486 m2. This is the explanation given to me
Is it possible to have a rectangle of diagonal 18 m and area greater than the area of a square of side 18 m ?
geometry area
closed as off-topic by user21820, John B, Holo, TheSimpliFire, Parcly Taxel Nov 18 at 2:54
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, John B, Holo, TheSimpliFire, Parcly Taxel
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
22
The given solution is preposterous. (Note that for a rectangle with fixed perimeter, the diagonal is shortest when the rectangle is a square. Therefore the diagonal must be at least $18sqrt2 textrm m$ long.) On the bright side, perhaps you are better off not working for a company that won't listen to reason.
– Théophile
Nov 15 at 19:09
8
The area of the wall is $144h$ m${}^2$, where $h$ is the height of the wall. (Note, trick question alert - the wall has two sides so the answer is not $72h$.) Oh, you mean you want the area enclosed by the wall? Then why didn't you say so???
– alephzero
Nov 15 at 20:16
7
In fairness, they do say "if the length of the diagonal is 18...". Given that this premise P is false (the diagonal cannot be 18!), any statement of the form "if P then X" is true, so they are right that the area may as well be 486!
– amalloy
Nov 15 at 22:37
7
The problem with the question is that if you solve for the side lengths you get complex numbers.
– 1123581321
Nov 15 at 22:53
8
@1123581321 Specifically, $l$ and $b$ are $18pm9isqrt2$.
– Teepeemm
Nov 16 at 2:10
|
show 9 more comments
up vote
37
down vote
favorite
up vote
37
down vote
favorite
Q: A wall, rectangular in shape, has a perimeter of 72 m. If the length of its diagonal is 18 m, what is the area of the wall ?
The answer given to me is area of 486 m2. This is the explanation given to me
Is it possible to have a rectangle of diagonal 18 m and area greater than the area of a square of side 18 m ?
geometry area
Q: A wall, rectangular in shape, has a perimeter of 72 m. If the length of its diagonal is 18 m, what is the area of the wall ?
The answer given to me is area of 486 m2. This is the explanation given to me
Is it possible to have a rectangle of diagonal 18 m and area greater than the area of a square of side 18 m ?
geometry area
geometry area
edited Nov 15 at 18:28
asked Nov 15 at 17:49
user17838
19326
19326
closed as off-topic by user21820, John B, Holo, TheSimpliFire, Parcly Taxel Nov 18 at 2:54
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, John B, Holo, TheSimpliFire, Parcly Taxel
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as off-topic by user21820, John B, Holo, TheSimpliFire, Parcly Taxel Nov 18 at 2:54
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, John B, Holo, TheSimpliFire, Parcly Taxel
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
22
The given solution is preposterous. (Note that for a rectangle with fixed perimeter, the diagonal is shortest when the rectangle is a square. Therefore the diagonal must be at least $18sqrt2 textrm m$ long.) On the bright side, perhaps you are better off not working for a company that won't listen to reason.
– Théophile
Nov 15 at 19:09
8
The area of the wall is $144h$ m${}^2$, where $h$ is the height of the wall. (Note, trick question alert - the wall has two sides so the answer is not $72h$.) Oh, you mean you want the area enclosed by the wall? Then why didn't you say so???
– alephzero
Nov 15 at 20:16
7
In fairness, they do say "if the length of the diagonal is 18...". Given that this premise P is false (the diagonal cannot be 18!), any statement of the form "if P then X" is true, so they are right that the area may as well be 486!
– amalloy
Nov 15 at 22:37
7
The problem with the question is that if you solve for the side lengths you get complex numbers.
– 1123581321
Nov 15 at 22:53
8
@1123581321 Specifically, $l$ and $b$ are $18pm9isqrt2$.
– Teepeemm
Nov 16 at 2:10
|
show 9 more comments
22
The given solution is preposterous. (Note that for a rectangle with fixed perimeter, the diagonal is shortest when the rectangle is a square. Therefore the diagonal must be at least $18sqrt2 textrm m$ long.) On the bright side, perhaps you are better off not working for a company that won't listen to reason.
– Théophile
Nov 15 at 19:09
8
The area of the wall is $144h$ m${}^2$, where $h$ is the height of the wall. (Note, trick question alert - the wall has two sides so the answer is not $72h$.) Oh, you mean you want the area enclosed by the wall? Then why didn't you say so???
– alephzero
Nov 15 at 20:16
7
In fairness, they do say "if the length of the diagonal is 18...". Given that this premise P is false (the diagonal cannot be 18!), any statement of the form "if P then X" is true, so they are right that the area may as well be 486!
– amalloy
Nov 15 at 22:37
7
The problem with the question is that if you solve for the side lengths you get complex numbers.
– 1123581321
Nov 15 at 22:53
8
@1123581321 Specifically, $l$ and $b$ are $18pm9isqrt2$.
– Teepeemm
Nov 16 at 2:10
22
22
The given solution is preposterous. (Note that for a rectangle with fixed perimeter, the diagonal is shortest when the rectangle is a square. Therefore the diagonal must be at least $18sqrt2 textrm m$ long.) On the bright side, perhaps you are better off not working for a company that won't listen to reason.
– Théophile
Nov 15 at 19:09
The given solution is preposterous. (Note that for a rectangle with fixed perimeter, the diagonal is shortest when the rectangle is a square. Therefore the diagonal must be at least $18sqrt2 textrm m$ long.) On the bright side, perhaps you are better off not working for a company that won't listen to reason.
– Théophile
Nov 15 at 19:09
8
8
The area of the wall is $144h$ m${}^2$, where $h$ is the height of the wall. (Note, trick question alert - the wall has two sides so the answer is not $72h$.) Oh, you mean you want the area enclosed by the wall? Then why didn't you say so???
– alephzero
Nov 15 at 20:16
The area of the wall is $144h$ m${}^2$, where $h$ is the height of the wall. (Note, trick question alert - the wall has two sides so the answer is not $72h$.) Oh, you mean you want the area enclosed by the wall? Then why didn't you say so???
– alephzero
Nov 15 at 20:16
7
7
In fairness, they do say "if the length of the diagonal is 18...". Given that this premise P is false (the diagonal cannot be 18!), any statement of the form "if P then X" is true, so they are right that the area may as well be 486!
– amalloy
Nov 15 at 22:37
In fairness, they do say "if the length of the diagonal is 18...". Given that this premise P is false (the diagonal cannot be 18!), any statement of the form "if P then X" is true, so they are right that the area may as well be 486!
– amalloy
Nov 15 at 22:37
7
7
The problem with the question is that if you solve for the side lengths you get complex numbers.
– 1123581321
Nov 15 at 22:53
The problem with the question is that if you solve for the side lengths you get complex numbers.
– 1123581321
Nov 15 at 22:53
8
8
@1123581321 Specifically, $l$ and $b$ are $18pm9isqrt2$.
– Teepeemm
Nov 16 at 2:10
@1123581321 Specifically, $l$ and $b$ are $18pm9isqrt2$.
– Teepeemm
Nov 16 at 2:10
|
show 9 more comments
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
up vote
76
down vote
accepted
The area of the square built on the diagonal must be at least twice the area of the rectangle:
$hskip 4 cm$
add a comment |
up vote
69
down vote
Another proof without words, at the suggestion of Semiclassical:
The dark rectangle has some fixed diagonal $d$. The large square has area $d^2$.
+1 It is often useful to consider the extremes, similar to "annulus" type problems. there is no solution for the perimeter between l=0 and l=18, therefore the perimeter or the diagonal has been misstated. A graph of the length vs perimeter would show the same.
– mckenzm
Nov 15 at 23:26
1
Here is a more dynamic, animated version of the same picture.
– Xander Henderson
Nov 16 at 4:44
add a comment |
up vote
29
down vote
A simple explanation without proof or pictures:
The diagonal of a rectangle is at least as long as each of its sides, so the square of the diagonal must be at least the product of the sides.
Great explanation, but that “it's” is jarring...
– DaG
Nov 17 at 9:34
Sorry! This is my number 1 typo, and I miss it all the time in proofreading. Fixed now, thanks!
– AlexanderJ93
Nov 17 at 9:35
+1 Thank you for the one-line proof!
– DaG
Nov 17 at 10:01
add a comment |
up vote
20
down vote
In fact, the squared diagonal must be at least twice the area, i.e. $a^2+b^2ge 2ab$ if orthogonal sides' lengths are $a,,b$. Why? Because the difference is $(a-b)^2ge 0$.
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
You can prove that no such rectangle exists as follows:
Let $l ge b$ (one side of the rectangle has to be the longest). Since $2l+2b=72$ you have $2lge l+b= 36$ so $l ge 18$
Then the diagonal of a right-angled triangle is the longest side so $dgt lge 18$ for a non-degenerate triangle, and the only degenerate case which arises is with $l=36, b=0, d=36$.
The answer given, though arithmetically correct does not represent a real wall.
I am not sure what the question means, though, as it is curiously phrased. The question asks for "the area of the wall" and not "the area of the rectangle bounded by the wall" and had the answer not been set out, I might have been thinking of a wall of uniform thickness and external perimeter $72$ and an internal diagonal of $18$ to make any sense of it.
To address your comment at the end, I'm pretty sure they mean "a wall" as in "one of the (usually) four walls of a room", not as in "a wall surrounding an area of land". So the wall itself is a rectangular surface, with width $ell$ and height $b$.
– Ilmari Karonen
Nov 15 at 21:39
1
@IlmariKaronen Just goes to show how careful one has to be reading and interpreting (and setting) questions.
– Mark Bennet
Nov 16 at 8:40
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Another PWW (noted by AlexanderJ93 and others):
$hspace{5cm}$
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
No. As others have said.
What this looks like to me (as someone who has taught HS Chem & Physics for years and has helped write middle school math content) is a question written trying to get someone to put together the solution as shown, but without checking whether the numbers given make any real-world sense. I have certainly made this mistake myself, even though I try really hard to catch it.
If this is a standardized test question (or one from a textbook, practice book, online resource, etc.), fair play, we've caught a poorly written question.
If this is a question you are writing yourself, and you want to improve it, you could change the parameters this way:
Total perimeter: 70
Diagonal: 25 (I don't think you'll find any nice whole numbers - aka pythagorean triples - using a perimeter of 72.)
This should now give the solution of:
- $I^2 + B^2 = 25^2 = 625 $
- $2I + 2B = 70 $
- $I + B = 35 $
- $I^2 + 2IB + B^2 = 1,225 $
- $2IB = 600 $
$IB = 300$ ,
which makes sense, given that I used a (3,4,5) right triangle (scaled by 5) in my setup. (Which means that I = 15 and B = 20, for a hypotenuse of 25.)
Hope that helps!
-Van
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
No, use the Pythagorean Theorem.
$$c^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$c$ is the length of the diagonal. It divides the rectangle into two congruent right triangles with hypotenuse $c$. $a$ and $b$ are the pairs of sides of the rectangle (and the other two sides of each congruent right triangle).
Recall for any real number, its square must be non-negative.
$$(a-b)^2 geq 0 implies a^2-2ab+b^2 geq 0 implies color{blue}{a^2+b^2 geq 2ab}$$
The area of the rectangle is $ab$, but $c^2 geq 2ab$, so the square of the diagonal is at least twice the area of the rectangle.
Now, to find the area itself.
For the diagonal:
$$c^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$$implies 18^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$$color{blue}{324 = a^2+b^2} tag{1}$$
For the perimeter:
$$2(a+b) = 72$$
$$a+b = 36$$
Now, define one variable in terms of the other.
$$color{purple}{a = 36-b} tag{2}$$
Combine $(1)$ and $(2)$.
$$324 = a^2+b^2 implies 324 = (36-b)^2+b^2$$
$$324 = 36^2-2(36)b+b^2+b^2 implies 324 = 1296-72b+2b^2 implies 2b^2-72b+972 = 0$$
But $$Delta = b^2-4ac$$
$$Delta = 72^2-4(2)(972) = -2592$$
$$implies Delta < 0$$
Thus, there is no solution. (No such rectangle exists.)
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
No. Using Pythagoras and a simple inequality we get
$$d^2=a^2+b^2geq 2abgeq ab$$
If $a,b$ are the sides and $d$ the diagonal
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Adjusted the PWW given by farruhota (and ripping off their very image) to improve by a factor of $2$ (cf. also Théophile's answer):
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
$A=lw$
$P=2(l+w)$
$d=sqrt{l^2+w^2}$
Can $A>d^2$?
Can $lw>l^2+w^2$?
$-lw>l^2-2wl+w^2=(l-w)^2$
Width and length are necessarily positive. The square of their difference also must be positive.
So we have a negative number that must be greater than a positive number. A contradiction.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
A wall has a thickness.
Let's say the rectangle of the wall has width a and length b on the outside, so 2a + 2b = 72 or a + b = 36.
Assume the wall has a uniform thickness t. Then we can calculate the length of the diagonal as $(a - 2t)^2 + (b - 2t)^2 = d^2$. Given that d = 18, this lets us calculate t based on d, and the area of the wall is (2a + 2b - 4t) * t or (72 - 4t) * t.
The solution is $t = 9 ± (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$. For a solution to exist, we need $9a - a^2/4 - 40.5 ≥ 0$ or $162^{1/2} ≥ |a - 18|$ or $18 - 162^{1/2} ≤ a ≤18 + 162^{1/2}$, so a is roughly between 5 and 31.
We can exclude the solution $t = 9 + (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$ - the walls cannot be more than 9 thick. Therefore $t = 9 - (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$. We can show that the calculated thickness is always ≥ 0.
This t can be used to calculate the area of the wall as (72 - 4t) * t.
Alternatively, if the wall has zero thickness, then the diagonal is not 18. Everything follows from a false statement, so the wall can have any area.
add a comment |
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
76
down vote
accepted
The area of the square built on the diagonal must be at least twice the area of the rectangle:
$hskip 4 cm$
add a comment |
up vote
76
down vote
accepted
The area of the square built on the diagonal must be at least twice the area of the rectangle:
$hskip 4 cm$
add a comment |
up vote
76
down vote
accepted
up vote
76
down vote
accepted
The area of the square built on the diagonal must be at least twice the area of the rectangle:
$hskip 4 cm$
The area of the square built on the diagonal must be at least twice the area of the rectangle:
$hskip 4 cm$
answered Nov 15 at 18:04
Théophile
19.2k12946
19.2k12946
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
69
down vote
Another proof without words, at the suggestion of Semiclassical:
The dark rectangle has some fixed diagonal $d$. The large square has area $d^2$.
+1 It is often useful to consider the extremes, similar to "annulus" type problems. there is no solution for the perimeter between l=0 and l=18, therefore the perimeter or the diagonal has been misstated. A graph of the length vs perimeter would show the same.
– mckenzm
Nov 15 at 23:26
1
Here is a more dynamic, animated version of the same picture.
– Xander Henderson
Nov 16 at 4:44
add a comment |
up vote
69
down vote
Another proof without words, at the suggestion of Semiclassical:
The dark rectangle has some fixed diagonal $d$. The large square has area $d^2$.
+1 It is often useful to consider the extremes, similar to "annulus" type problems. there is no solution for the perimeter between l=0 and l=18, therefore the perimeter or the diagonal has been misstated. A graph of the length vs perimeter would show the same.
– mckenzm
Nov 15 at 23:26
1
Here is a more dynamic, animated version of the same picture.
– Xander Henderson
Nov 16 at 4:44
add a comment |
up vote
69
down vote
up vote
69
down vote
Another proof without words, at the suggestion of Semiclassical:
The dark rectangle has some fixed diagonal $d$. The large square has area $d^2$.
Another proof without words, at the suggestion of Semiclassical:
The dark rectangle has some fixed diagonal $d$. The large square has area $d^2$.
answered Nov 15 at 19:01
community wiki
Xander Henderson
+1 It is often useful to consider the extremes, similar to "annulus" type problems. there is no solution for the perimeter between l=0 and l=18, therefore the perimeter or the diagonal has been misstated. A graph of the length vs perimeter would show the same.
– mckenzm
Nov 15 at 23:26
1
Here is a more dynamic, animated version of the same picture.
– Xander Henderson
Nov 16 at 4:44
add a comment |
+1 It is often useful to consider the extremes, similar to "annulus" type problems. there is no solution for the perimeter between l=0 and l=18, therefore the perimeter or the diagonal has been misstated. A graph of the length vs perimeter would show the same.
– mckenzm
Nov 15 at 23:26
1
Here is a more dynamic, animated version of the same picture.
– Xander Henderson
Nov 16 at 4:44
+1 It is often useful to consider the extremes, similar to "annulus" type problems. there is no solution for the perimeter between l=0 and l=18, therefore the perimeter or the diagonal has been misstated. A graph of the length vs perimeter would show the same.
– mckenzm
Nov 15 at 23:26
+1 It is often useful to consider the extremes, similar to "annulus" type problems. there is no solution for the perimeter between l=0 and l=18, therefore the perimeter or the diagonal has been misstated. A graph of the length vs perimeter would show the same.
– mckenzm
Nov 15 at 23:26
1
1
Here is a more dynamic, animated version of the same picture.
– Xander Henderson
Nov 16 at 4:44
Here is a more dynamic, animated version of the same picture.
– Xander Henderson
Nov 16 at 4:44
add a comment |
up vote
29
down vote
A simple explanation without proof or pictures:
The diagonal of a rectangle is at least as long as each of its sides, so the square of the diagonal must be at least the product of the sides.
Great explanation, but that “it's” is jarring...
– DaG
Nov 17 at 9:34
Sorry! This is my number 1 typo, and I miss it all the time in proofreading. Fixed now, thanks!
– AlexanderJ93
Nov 17 at 9:35
+1 Thank you for the one-line proof!
– DaG
Nov 17 at 10:01
add a comment |
up vote
29
down vote
A simple explanation without proof or pictures:
The diagonal of a rectangle is at least as long as each of its sides, so the square of the diagonal must be at least the product of the sides.
Great explanation, but that “it's” is jarring...
– DaG
Nov 17 at 9:34
Sorry! This is my number 1 typo, and I miss it all the time in proofreading. Fixed now, thanks!
– AlexanderJ93
Nov 17 at 9:35
+1 Thank you for the one-line proof!
– DaG
Nov 17 at 10:01
add a comment |
up vote
29
down vote
up vote
29
down vote
A simple explanation without proof or pictures:
The diagonal of a rectangle is at least as long as each of its sides, so the square of the diagonal must be at least the product of the sides.
A simple explanation without proof or pictures:
The diagonal of a rectangle is at least as long as each of its sides, so the square of the diagonal must be at least the product of the sides.
edited Nov 17 at 9:34
answered Nov 15 at 20:21
AlexanderJ93
5,217522
5,217522
Great explanation, but that “it's” is jarring...
– DaG
Nov 17 at 9:34
Sorry! This is my number 1 typo, and I miss it all the time in proofreading. Fixed now, thanks!
– AlexanderJ93
Nov 17 at 9:35
+1 Thank you for the one-line proof!
– DaG
Nov 17 at 10:01
add a comment |
Great explanation, but that “it's” is jarring...
– DaG
Nov 17 at 9:34
Sorry! This is my number 1 typo, and I miss it all the time in proofreading. Fixed now, thanks!
– AlexanderJ93
Nov 17 at 9:35
+1 Thank you for the one-line proof!
– DaG
Nov 17 at 10:01
Great explanation, but that “it's” is jarring...
– DaG
Nov 17 at 9:34
Great explanation, but that “it's” is jarring...
– DaG
Nov 17 at 9:34
Sorry! This is my number 1 typo, and I miss it all the time in proofreading. Fixed now, thanks!
– AlexanderJ93
Nov 17 at 9:35
Sorry! This is my number 1 typo, and I miss it all the time in proofreading. Fixed now, thanks!
– AlexanderJ93
Nov 17 at 9:35
+1 Thank you for the one-line proof!
– DaG
Nov 17 at 10:01
+1 Thank you for the one-line proof!
– DaG
Nov 17 at 10:01
add a comment |
up vote
20
down vote
In fact, the squared diagonal must be at least twice the area, i.e. $a^2+b^2ge 2ab$ if orthogonal sides' lengths are $a,,b$. Why? Because the difference is $(a-b)^2ge 0$.
add a comment |
up vote
20
down vote
In fact, the squared diagonal must be at least twice the area, i.e. $a^2+b^2ge 2ab$ if orthogonal sides' lengths are $a,,b$. Why? Because the difference is $(a-b)^2ge 0$.
add a comment |
up vote
20
down vote
up vote
20
down vote
In fact, the squared diagonal must be at least twice the area, i.e. $a^2+b^2ge 2ab$ if orthogonal sides' lengths are $a,,b$. Why? Because the difference is $(a-b)^2ge 0$.
In fact, the squared diagonal must be at least twice the area, i.e. $a^2+b^2ge 2ab$ if orthogonal sides' lengths are $a,,b$. Why? Because the difference is $(a-b)^2ge 0$.
answered Nov 15 at 17:55
J.G.
18.5k21932
18.5k21932
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
You can prove that no such rectangle exists as follows:
Let $l ge b$ (one side of the rectangle has to be the longest). Since $2l+2b=72$ you have $2lge l+b= 36$ so $l ge 18$
Then the diagonal of a right-angled triangle is the longest side so $dgt lge 18$ for a non-degenerate triangle, and the only degenerate case which arises is with $l=36, b=0, d=36$.
The answer given, though arithmetically correct does not represent a real wall.
I am not sure what the question means, though, as it is curiously phrased. The question asks for "the area of the wall" and not "the area of the rectangle bounded by the wall" and had the answer not been set out, I might have been thinking of a wall of uniform thickness and external perimeter $72$ and an internal diagonal of $18$ to make any sense of it.
To address your comment at the end, I'm pretty sure they mean "a wall" as in "one of the (usually) four walls of a room", not as in "a wall surrounding an area of land". So the wall itself is a rectangular surface, with width $ell$ and height $b$.
– Ilmari Karonen
Nov 15 at 21:39
1
@IlmariKaronen Just goes to show how careful one has to be reading and interpreting (and setting) questions.
– Mark Bennet
Nov 16 at 8:40
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
You can prove that no such rectangle exists as follows:
Let $l ge b$ (one side of the rectangle has to be the longest). Since $2l+2b=72$ you have $2lge l+b= 36$ so $l ge 18$
Then the diagonal of a right-angled triangle is the longest side so $dgt lge 18$ for a non-degenerate triangle, and the only degenerate case which arises is with $l=36, b=0, d=36$.
The answer given, though arithmetically correct does not represent a real wall.
I am not sure what the question means, though, as it is curiously phrased. The question asks for "the area of the wall" and not "the area of the rectangle bounded by the wall" and had the answer not been set out, I might have been thinking of a wall of uniform thickness and external perimeter $72$ and an internal diagonal of $18$ to make any sense of it.
To address your comment at the end, I'm pretty sure they mean "a wall" as in "one of the (usually) four walls of a room", not as in "a wall surrounding an area of land". So the wall itself is a rectangular surface, with width $ell$ and height $b$.
– Ilmari Karonen
Nov 15 at 21:39
1
@IlmariKaronen Just goes to show how careful one has to be reading and interpreting (and setting) questions.
– Mark Bennet
Nov 16 at 8:40
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
You can prove that no such rectangle exists as follows:
Let $l ge b$ (one side of the rectangle has to be the longest). Since $2l+2b=72$ you have $2lge l+b= 36$ so $l ge 18$
Then the diagonal of a right-angled triangle is the longest side so $dgt lge 18$ for a non-degenerate triangle, and the only degenerate case which arises is with $l=36, b=0, d=36$.
The answer given, though arithmetically correct does not represent a real wall.
I am not sure what the question means, though, as it is curiously phrased. The question asks for "the area of the wall" and not "the area of the rectangle bounded by the wall" and had the answer not been set out, I might have been thinking of a wall of uniform thickness and external perimeter $72$ and an internal diagonal of $18$ to make any sense of it.
You can prove that no such rectangle exists as follows:
Let $l ge b$ (one side of the rectangle has to be the longest). Since $2l+2b=72$ you have $2lge l+b= 36$ so $l ge 18$
Then the diagonal of a right-angled triangle is the longest side so $dgt lge 18$ for a non-degenerate triangle, and the only degenerate case which arises is with $l=36, b=0, d=36$.
The answer given, though arithmetically correct does not represent a real wall.
I am not sure what the question means, though, as it is curiously phrased. The question asks for "the area of the wall" and not "the area of the rectangle bounded by the wall" and had the answer not been set out, I might have been thinking of a wall of uniform thickness and external perimeter $72$ and an internal diagonal of $18$ to make any sense of it.
answered Nov 15 at 19:15
Mark Bennet
79.6k978177
79.6k978177
To address your comment at the end, I'm pretty sure they mean "a wall" as in "one of the (usually) four walls of a room", not as in "a wall surrounding an area of land". So the wall itself is a rectangular surface, with width $ell$ and height $b$.
– Ilmari Karonen
Nov 15 at 21:39
1
@IlmariKaronen Just goes to show how careful one has to be reading and interpreting (and setting) questions.
– Mark Bennet
Nov 16 at 8:40
add a comment |
To address your comment at the end, I'm pretty sure they mean "a wall" as in "one of the (usually) four walls of a room", not as in "a wall surrounding an area of land". So the wall itself is a rectangular surface, with width $ell$ and height $b$.
– Ilmari Karonen
Nov 15 at 21:39
1
@IlmariKaronen Just goes to show how careful one has to be reading and interpreting (and setting) questions.
– Mark Bennet
Nov 16 at 8:40
To address your comment at the end, I'm pretty sure they mean "a wall" as in "one of the (usually) four walls of a room", not as in "a wall surrounding an area of land". So the wall itself is a rectangular surface, with width $ell$ and height $b$.
– Ilmari Karonen
Nov 15 at 21:39
To address your comment at the end, I'm pretty sure they mean "a wall" as in "one of the (usually) four walls of a room", not as in "a wall surrounding an area of land". So the wall itself is a rectangular surface, with width $ell$ and height $b$.
– Ilmari Karonen
Nov 15 at 21:39
1
1
@IlmariKaronen Just goes to show how careful one has to be reading and interpreting (and setting) questions.
– Mark Bennet
Nov 16 at 8:40
@IlmariKaronen Just goes to show how careful one has to be reading and interpreting (and setting) questions.
– Mark Bennet
Nov 16 at 8:40
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Another PWW (noted by AlexanderJ93 and others):
$hspace{5cm}$
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Another PWW (noted by AlexanderJ93 and others):
$hspace{5cm}$
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
Another PWW (noted by AlexanderJ93 and others):
$hspace{5cm}$
Another PWW (noted by AlexanderJ93 and others):
$hspace{5cm}$
answered Nov 17 at 10:14
farruhota
17.6k2736
17.6k2736
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
No. As others have said.
What this looks like to me (as someone who has taught HS Chem & Physics for years and has helped write middle school math content) is a question written trying to get someone to put together the solution as shown, but without checking whether the numbers given make any real-world sense. I have certainly made this mistake myself, even though I try really hard to catch it.
If this is a standardized test question (or one from a textbook, practice book, online resource, etc.), fair play, we've caught a poorly written question.
If this is a question you are writing yourself, and you want to improve it, you could change the parameters this way:
Total perimeter: 70
Diagonal: 25 (I don't think you'll find any nice whole numbers - aka pythagorean triples - using a perimeter of 72.)
This should now give the solution of:
- $I^2 + B^2 = 25^2 = 625 $
- $2I + 2B = 70 $
- $I + B = 35 $
- $I^2 + 2IB + B^2 = 1,225 $
- $2IB = 600 $
$IB = 300$ ,
which makes sense, given that I used a (3,4,5) right triangle (scaled by 5) in my setup. (Which means that I = 15 and B = 20, for a hypotenuse of 25.)
Hope that helps!
-Van
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
No. As others have said.
What this looks like to me (as someone who has taught HS Chem & Physics for years and has helped write middle school math content) is a question written trying to get someone to put together the solution as shown, but without checking whether the numbers given make any real-world sense. I have certainly made this mistake myself, even though I try really hard to catch it.
If this is a standardized test question (or one from a textbook, practice book, online resource, etc.), fair play, we've caught a poorly written question.
If this is a question you are writing yourself, and you want to improve it, you could change the parameters this way:
Total perimeter: 70
Diagonal: 25 (I don't think you'll find any nice whole numbers - aka pythagorean triples - using a perimeter of 72.)
This should now give the solution of:
- $I^2 + B^2 = 25^2 = 625 $
- $2I + 2B = 70 $
- $I + B = 35 $
- $I^2 + 2IB + B^2 = 1,225 $
- $2IB = 600 $
$IB = 300$ ,
which makes sense, given that I used a (3,4,5) right triangle (scaled by 5) in my setup. (Which means that I = 15 and B = 20, for a hypotenuse of 25.)
Hope that helps!
-Van
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
No. As others have said.
What this looks like to me (as someone who has taught HS Chem & Physics for years and has helped write middle school math content) is a question written trying to get someone to put together the solution as shown, but without checking whether the numbers given make any real-world sense. I have certainly made this mistake myself, even though I try really hard to catch it.
If this is a standardized test question (or one from a textbook, practice book, online resource, etc.), fair play, we've caught a poorly written question.
If this is a question you are writing yourself, and you want to improve it, you could change the parameters this way:
Total perimeter: 70
Diagonal: 25 (I don't think you'll find any nice whole numbers - aka pythagorean triples - using a perimeter of 72.)
This should now give the solution of:
- $I^2 + B^2 = 25^2 = 625 $
- $2I + 2B = 70 $
- $I + B = 35 $
- $I^2 + 2IB + B^2 = 1,225 $
- $2IB = 600 $
$IB = 300$ ,
which makes sense, given that I used a (3,4,5) right triangle (scaled by 5) in my setup. (Which means that I = 15 and B = 20, for a hypotenuse of 25.)
Hope that helps!
-Van
New contributor
No. As others have said.
What this looks like to me (as someone who has taught HS Chem & Physics for years and has helped write middle school math content) is a question written trying to get someone to put together the solution as shown, but without checking whether the numbers given make any real-world sense. I have certainly made this mistake myself, even though I try really hard to catch it.
If this is a standardized test question (or one from a textbook, practice book, online resource, etc.), fair play, we've caught a poorly written question.
If this is a question you are writing yourself, and you want to improve it, you could change the parameters this way:
Total perimeter: 70
Diagonal: 25 (I don't think you'll find any nice whole numbers - aka pythagorean triples - using a perimeter of 72.)
This should now give the solution of:
- $I^2 + B^2 = 25^2 = 625 $
- $2I + 2B = 70 $
- $I + B = 35 $
- $I^2 + 2IB + B^2 = 1,225 $
- $2IB = 600 $
$IB = 300$ ,
which makes sense, given that I used a (3,4,5) right triangle (scaled by 5) in my setup. (Which means that I = 15 and B = 20, for a hypotenuse of 25.)
Hope that helps!
-Van
New contributor
New contributor
answered Nov 16 at 19:02
Van
413
413
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
No, use the Pythagorean Theorem.
$$c^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$c$ is the length of the diagonal. It divides the rectangle into two congruent right triangles with hypotenuse $c$. $a$ and $b$ are the pairs of sides of the rectangle (and the other two sides of each congruent right triangle).
Recall for any real number, its square must be non-negative.
$$(a-b)^2 geq 0 implies a^2-2ab+b^2 geq 0 implies color{blue}{a^2+b^2 geq 2ab}$$
The area of the rectangle is $ab$, but $c^2 geq 2ab$, so the square of the diagonal is at least twice the area of the rectangle.
Now, to find the area itself.
For the diagonal:
$$c^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$$implies 18^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$$color{blue}{324 = a^2+b^2} tag{1}$$
For the perimeter:
$$2(a+b) = 72$$
$$a+b = 36$$
Now, define one variable in terms of the other.
$$color{purple}{a = 36-b} tag{2}$$
Combine $(1)$ and $(2)$.
$$324 = a^2+b^2 implies 324 = (36-b)^2+b^2$$
$$324 = 36^2-2(36)b+b^2+b^2 implies 324 = 1296-72b+2b^2 implies 2b^2-72b+972 = 0$$
But $$Delta = b^2-4ac$$
$$Delta = 72^2-4(2)(972) = -2592$$
$$implies Delta < 0$$
Thus, there is no solution. (No such rectangle exists.)
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
No, use the Pythagorean Theorem.
$$c^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$c$ is the length of the diagonal. It divides the rectangle into two congruent right triangles with hypotenuse $c$. $a$ and $b$ are the pairs of sides of the rectangle (and the other two sides of each congruent right triangle).
Recall for any real number, its square must be non-negative.
$$(a-b)^2 geq 0 implies a^2-2ab+b^2 geq 0 implies color{blue}{a^2+b^2 geq 2ab}$$
The area of the rectangle is $ab$, but $c^2 geq 2ab$, so the square of the diagonal is at least twice the area of the rectangle.
Now, to find the area itself.
For the diagonal:
$$c^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$$implies 18^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$$color{blue}{324 = a^2+b^2} tag{1}$$
For the perimeter:
$$2(a+b) = 72$$
$$a+b = 36$$
Now, define one variable in terms of the other.
$$color{purple}{a = 36-b} tag{2}$$
Combine $(1)$ and $(2)$.
$$324 = a^2+b^2 implies 324 = (36-b)^2+b^2$$
$$324 = 36^2-2(36)b+b^2+b^2 implies 324 = 1296-72b+2b^2 implies 2b^2-72b+972 = 0$$
But $$Delta = b^2-4ac$$
$$Delta = 72^2-4(2)(972) = -2592$$
$$implies Delta < 0$$
Thus, there is no solution. (No such rectangle exists.)
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
No, use the Pythagorean Theorem.
$$c^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$c$ is the length of the diagonal. It divides the rectangle into two congruent right triangles with hypotenuse $c$. $a$ and $b$ are the pairs of sides of the rectangle (and the other two sides of each congruent right triangle).
Recall for any real number, its square must be non-negative.
$$(a-b)^2 geq 0 implies a^2-2ab+b^2 geq 0 implies color{blue}{a^2+b^2 geq 2ab}$$
The area of the rectangle is $ab$, but $c^2 geq 2ab$, so the square of the diagonal is at least twice the area of the rectangle.
Now, to find the area itself.
For the diagonal:
$$c^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$$implies 18^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$$color{blue}{324 = a^2+b^2} tag{1}$$
For the perimeter:
$$2(a+b) = 72$$
$$a+b = 36$$
Now, define one variable in terms of the other.
$$color{purple}{a = 36-b} tag{2}$$
Combine $(1)$ and $(2)$.
$$324 = a^2+b^2 implies 324 = (36-b)^2+b^2$$
$$324 = 36^2-2(36)b+b^2+b^2 implies 324 = 1296-72b+2b^2 implies 2b^2-72b+972 = 0$$
But $$Delta = b^2-4ac$$
$$Delta = 72^2-4(2)(972) = -2592$$
$$implies Delta < 0$$
Thus, there is no solution. (No such rectangle exists.)
No, use the Pythagorean Theorem.
$$c^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$c$ is the length of the diagonal. It divides the rectangle into two congruent right triangles with hypotenuse $c$. $a$ and $b$ are the pairs of sides of the rectangle (and the other two sides of each congruent right triangle).
Recall for any real number, its square must be non-negative.
$$(a-b)^2 geq 0 implies a^2-2ab+b^2 geq 0 implies color{blue}{a^2+b^2 geq 2ab}$$
The area of the rectangle is $ab$, but $c^2 geq 2ab$, so the square of the diagonal is at least twice the area of the rectangle.
Now, to find the area itself.
For the diagonal:
$$c^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$$implies 18^2 = a^2+b^2$$
$$color{blue}{324 = a^2+b^2} tag{1}$$
For the perimeter:
$$2(a+b) = 72$$
$$a+b = 36$$
Now, define one variable in terms of the other.
$$color{purple}{a = 36-b} tag{2}$$
Combine $(1)$ and $(2)$.
$$324 = a^2+b^2 implies 324 = (36-b)^2+b^2$$
$$324 = 36^2-2(36)b+b^2+b^2 implies 324 = 1296-72b+2b^2 implies 2b^2-72b+972 = 0$$
But $$Delta = b^2-4ac$$
$$Delta = 72^2-4(2)(972) = -2592$$
$$implies Delta < 0$$
Thus, there is no solution. (No such rectangle exists.)
edited Nov 15 at 19:32
answered Nov 15 at 18:10
KM101
1,976313
1,976313
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
No. Using Pythagoras and a simple inequality we get
$$d^2=a^2+b^2geq 2abgeq ab$$
If $a,b$ are the sides and $d$ the diagonal
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
No. Using Pythagoras and a simple inequality we get
$$d^2=a^2+b^2geq 2abgeq ab$$
If $a,b$ are the sides and $d$ the diagonal
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
No. Using Pythagoras and a simple inequality we get
$$d^2=a^2+b^2geq 2abgeq ab$$
If $a,b$ are the sides and $d$ the diagonal
No. Using Pythagoras and a simple inequality we get
$$d^2=a^2+b^2geq 2abgeq ab$$
If $a,b$ are the sides and $d$ the diagonal
answered Nov 15 at 17:55
b00n heT
10.2k12134
10.2k12134
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Adjusted the PWW given by farruhota (and ripping off their very image) to improve by a factor of $2$ (cf. also Théophile's answer):
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Adjusted the PWW given by farruhota (and ripping off their very image) to improve by a factor of $2$ (cf. also Théophile's answer):
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Adjusted the PWW given by farruhota (and ripping off their very image) to improve by a factor of $2$ (cf. also Théophile's answer):
Adjusted the PWW given by farruhota (and ripping off their very image) to improve by a factor of $2$ (cf. also Théophile's answer):
answered Nov 17 at 21:18
Hagen von Eitzen
274k21266494
274k21266494
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
$A=lw$
$P=2(l+w)$
$d=sqrt{l^2+w^2}$
Can $A>d^2$?
Can $lw>l^2+w^2$?
$-lw>l^2-2wl+w^2=(l-w)^2$
Width and length are necessarily positive. The square of their difference also must be positive.
So we have a negative number that must be greater than a positive number. A contradiction.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
$A=lw$
$P=2(l+w)$
$d=sqrt{l^2+w^2}$
Can $A>d^2$?
Can $lw>l^2+w^2$?
$-lw>l^2-2wl+w^2=(l-w)^2$
Width and length are necessarily positive. The square of their difference also must be positive.
So we have a negative number that must be greater than a positive number. A contradiction.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
$A=lw$
$P=2(l+w)$
$d=sqrt{l^2+w^2}$
Can $A>d^2$?
Can $lw>l^2+w^2$?
$-lw>l^2-2wl+w^2=(l-w)^2$
Width and length are necessarily positive. The square of their difference also must be positive.
So we have a negative number that must be greater than a positive number. A contradiction.
$A=lw$
$P=2(l+w)$
$d=sqrt{l^2+w^2}$
Can $A>d^2$?
Can $lw>l^2+w^2$?
$-lw>l^2-2wl+w^2=(l-w)^2$
Width and length are necessarily positive. The square of their difference also must be positive.
So we have a negative number that must be greater than a positive number. A contradiction.
answered Nov 15 at 20:05
TurlocTheRed
60819
60819
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
A wall has a thickness.
Let's say the rectangle of the wall has width a and length b on the outside, so 2a + 2b = 72 or a + b = 36.
Assume the wall has a uniform thickness t. Then we can calculate the length of the diagonal as $(a - 2t)^2 + (b - 2t)^2 = d^2$. Given that d = 18, this lets us calculate t based on d, and the area of the wall is (2a + 2b - 4t) * t or (72 - 4t) * t.
The solution is $t = 9 ± (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$. For a solution to exist, we need $9a - a^2/4 - 40.5 ≥ 0$ or $162^{1/2} ≥ |a - 18|$ or $18 - 162^{1/2} ≤ a ≤18 + 162^{1/2}$, so a is roughly between 5 and 31.
We can exclude the solution $t = 9 + (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$ - the walls cannot be more than 9 thick. Therefore $t = 9 - (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$. We can show that the calculated thickness is always ≥ 0.
This t can be used to calculate the area of the wall as (72 - 4t) * t.
Alternatively, if the wall has zero thickness, then the diagonal is not 18. Everything follows from a false statement, so the wall can have any area.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
A wall has a thickness.
Let's say the rectangle of the wall has width a and length b on the outside, so 2a + 2b = 72 or a + b = 36.
Assume the wall has a uniform thickness t. Then we can calculate the length of the diagonal as $(a - 2t)^2 + (b - 2t)^2 = d^2$. Given that d = 18, this lets us calculate t based on d, and the area of the wall is (2a + 2b - 4t) * t or (72 - 4t) * t.
The solution is $t = 9 ± (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$. For a solution to exist, we need $9a - a^2/4 - 40.5 ≥ 0$ or $162^{1/2} ≥ |a - 18|$ or $18 - 162^{1/2} ≤ a ≤18 + 162^{1/2}$, so a is roughly between 5 and 31.
We can exclude the solution $t = 9 + (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$ - the walls cannot be more than 9 thick. Therefore $t = 9 - (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$. We can show that the calculated thickness is always ≥ 0.
This t can be used to calculate the area of the wall as (72 - 4t) * t.
Alternatively, if the wall has zero thickness, then the diagonal is not 18. Everything follows from a false statement, so the wall can have any area.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
A wall has a thickness.
Let's say the rectangle of the wall has width a and length b on the outside, so 2a + 2b = 72 or a + b = 36.
Assume the wall has a uniform thickness t. Then we can calculate the length of the diagonal as $(a - 2t)^2 + (b - 2t)^2 = d^2$. Given that d = 18, this lets us calculate t based on d, and the area of the wall is (2a + 2b - 4t) * t or (72 - 4t) * t.
The solution is $t = 9 ± (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$. For a solution to exist, we need $9a - a^2/4 - 40.5 ≥ 0$ or $162^{1/2} ≥ |a - 18|$ or $18 - 162^{1/2} ≤ a ≤18 + 162^{1/2}$, so a is roughly between 5 and 31.
We can exclude the solution $t = 9 + (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$ - the walls cannot be more than 9 thick. Therefore $t = 9 - (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$. We can show that the calculated thickness is always ≥ 0.
This t can be used to calculate the area of the wall as (72 - 4t) * t.
Alternatively, if the wall has zero thickness, then the diagonal is not 18. Everything follows from a false statement, so the wall can have any area.
A wall has a thickness.
Let's say the rectangle of the wall has width a and length b on the outside, so 2a + 2b = 72 or a + b = 36.
Assume the wall has a uniform thickness t. Then we can calculate the length of the diagonal as $(a - 2t)^2 + (b - 2t)^2 = d^2$. Given that d = 18, this lets us calculate t based on d, and the area of the wall is (2a + 2b - 4t) * t or (72 - 4t) * t.
The solution is $t = 9 ± (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$. For a solution to exist, we need $9a - a^2/4 - 40.5 ≥ 0$ or $162^{1/2} ≥ |a - 18|$ or $18 - 162^{1/2} ≤ a ≤18 + 162^{1/2}$, so a is roughly between 5 and 31.
We can exclude the solution $t = 9 + (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$ - the walls cannot be more than 9 thick. Therefore $t = 9 - (9a - a^2/4 - 40.5)^{1/2}$. We can show that the calculated thickness is always ≥ 0.
This t can be used to calculate the area of the wall as (72 - 4t) * t.
Alternatively, if the wall has zero thickness, then the diagonal is not 18. Everything follows from a false statement, so the wall can have any area.
answered Nov 16 at 23:28
gnasher729
5,9411028
5,9411028
add a comment |
add a comment |
22
The given solution is preposterous. (Note that for a rectangle with fixed perimeter, the diagonal is shortest when the rectangle is a square. Therefore the diagonal must be at least $18sqrt2 textrm m$ long.) On the bright side, perhaps you are better off not working for a company that won't listen to reason.
– Théophile
Nov 15 at 19:09
8
The area of the wall is $144h$ m${}^2$, where $h$ is the height of the wall. (Note, trick question alert - the wall has two sides so the answer is not $72h$.) Oh, you mean you want the area enclosed by the wall? Then why didn't you say so???
– alephzero
Nov 15 at 20:16
7
In fairness, they do say "if the length of the diagonal is 18...". Given that this premise P is false (the diagonal cannot be 18!), any statement of the form "if P then X" is true, so they are right that the area may as well be 486!
– amalloy
Nov 15 at 22:37
7
The problem with the question is that if you solve for the side lengths you get complex numbers.
– 1123581321
Nov 15 at 22:53
8
@1123581321 Specifically, $l$ and $b$ are $18pm9isqrt2$.
– Teepeemm
Nov 16 at 2:10