Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ] 

fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

22 Jan 2010, 9:54 pm

I was looking at the formula for isosceles right triangles and wondered if there was a more general one. here it is:

c^2=a^2+b^2
factor a^2
c^2=a^2(1+b^2/a^2)
sqrt
c=a*sqrt(1+b^2/a^2)
simplify
c=a*sqrt(1+(b/a)^2)

It looks a lot neater when you write it out. Basically, an a to b ratio of 1:1 is a*sqrt(2), 1:2 is a*sqrt(5), 1:3 is a*sqrt(10) and so on.
this isn't the most interesting part. If the quantity under the radical is rational then a and b are the sides of a Pythagorean triple. Although this is interesting I have to admit it's pretty much useless.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


Dhp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 538

23 Jan 2010, 12:34 am

Actually, there is. The Pythagorean Theorem is a special case of the Law of Cosines. For any triangle:

c^2 = a^2 + b^2 - 2abcosC

where C is the angle opposite of the length c.

When C = 90 degrees, you have a right triangle, and cos C = 0; therefore,

c^2 = a^2 + b^2.



lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,798
Location: Somerset UK

23 Jan 2010, 8:04 am

fidelis wrote:
... isosceles right triangles ...

Other than trivial scaling, etc, there are but two such beasts: (1, 1, √2) and (1, 1, 0), with the latter somewhat indeterminate.

Also, your formula has some unnecessary problems when a=0.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

23 Jan 2010, 10:52 pm

Context. It only applies to right triangles. If what you say applies then tan(A)=b/0. This formula applies in in the same context as the tangent function. Other than the uselessness of it, it's a valid formula. You won't have a triangle with side a=0 ever , except possibly to prove something wrong. Although, I remember that all the way back in algebra I, they made me define the domain of c given a and b. I believe it came out to a+b>c>|a-b|. If a=0 then b>c>b, which should be clearly impossible. no triangle exists with side a=0, so I don't think we have to worry about the fraction.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,798
Location: Somerset UK

24 Jan 2010, 8:35 am

fidelis wrote:
Context. It only applies to right triangles. ...

Context?

Anyway, I was mainly pointing out that one needs to be aware of degenerate cases. If I had not mentioned the second form of isosceles right triangle, someone else would have complained.

In practical terms, the degenerate (or near-degenerate) case is extremely important. In topological terms, it is also a crucial part of the game.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Jan 2010, 9:12 am

fidelis wrote:
I was looking at the formula for isosceles right triangles and wondered if there was a more general one. here it is:

c^2=a^2+b^2
factor a^2
c^2=a^2(1+b^2/a^2)
sqrt
c=a*sqrt(1+b^2/a^2)
simplify
c=a*sqrt(1+(b/a)^2)

It looks a lot neater when you write it out. Basically, an a to b ratio of 1:1 is a*sqrt(2), 1:2 is a*sqrt(5), 1:3 is a*sqrt(10) and so on.
this isn't the most interesting part. If the quantity under the radical is rational then a and b are the sides of a Pythagorean triple. Although this is interesting I have to admit it's pretty much useless.


This rewrite does not produce useful results when we go to spaces with three or more dimensions.

ruveyn