You are not logged in.
Hi bobbym
After your 'Introductions' comment "No, not me. I hate resting. But if you must then..." I thought I had proof that you never sleep.
But I finally managed to get in a reply before you by 78 seconds!
For me, this is a small (and very petty) triumph.
Hi Haftakhan,
A kite has two pairs of adjacent (next to) sides equal so SR must be 6.9 as well.
The line QS must be a line of symmetry and the diagonals cross at 90 degrees.
(i) Start by drawing a line and mark Q at one end. (see diagram)
(ii) Measure with a protractor 62 degrees each side of this line and measure 3.6 to mark P and R.
(iii) Set a compass to 6.9 and with centre P draw an arc to cut the first line at S.
If your questioner wants a measured answer for the diagonals, that's now straight forward.
If you want a calculated answer, call the point where the diagonals cross T.
Use trigonometry PT/PQ = sine 62 to calculate PT and double it to get PR.
Then calculate QT ( = PQ x cosine62).
And TS by Pythagoras (you know PS and PT now).
Add QT + TS to get QS.
Bob
Hi MathsIsFun
I think these are great for students needing to practise. I'm guessing they're randomly generated so placing the labels is bound to be tricky.
Am I being thick? I didn't see a link to the answers.
Bob
Hi
4 points? Very much doubt it ... all to do with 60 and 90 degree symmetries. I haven't got a rigorous proof though.
Bob
Here's a non concentric, 3-point contact.
Sorry jk22,
I cannot see these pictures at all. What I do is (i) screen shot of the pic (ii) paste into 'Paint' and edit (iii) save as a jpg file (iv) upload using the forum upload facility.
I can give more details if any of these steps is unclear to you.
Bob
hi Heirot and jk22,
Firstly, to jk22, any chance of a diagram to go with this. You have 'equality' so, I'm assuming this is a limiting case. But which?
And now to my own attempt at your question.
Whenever, mathematicians try to model a 'real life' problem from engineering (or science ...), they should consider and state their assumptions.
Here are mine.
(i) I've assumed the centre of the square is the same as the centre of the hexagon.
(ii) I've assumed the two polygons are perfectly regular (all sides and angles equal for each) and that the polygons don't have rounded vertices.
(iii) See first diagram. I'm assuming that if the hexagon is rotated anticlockwise the point marked x will cause the square to rotate too (no slippage).
Diagram two shows the upper limit for the hexagon. The distance to x from the centre to the square is a maximum and this is the largest hexagon I can make that 'just touches'. So if 'b' is any bigger there will be no contact at all.
Use Pythagoras to calculate the distances. (If you want help with this, let me know).
Square: centre to x is a.root2/2
Hexagon: centre to x is b.root3/2
Thus b.root3/2 < a.root2/2 ... => b < a.root(2/3)
Diagram three is, I think, the lower limit for the size of the hexagon. The top and bottom sides of the hex are parallel to the top and bottom sides of the square. Any smaller and parts of the hexagon overlap the space of the square.
Angle POX = 60 - 45 = 15
b.cos15 > a.root2/2 (using trigonometry, again ask if you need help with this)
so b > aroot2/(2.cos15)
Together 0.732a < b < 0.816a
hope this helps,
Bob
Draw square BCED and circle, centre B, radius BD (=BC).
Construct line DA so that angle EDA = 15, and A lies on the circle.
ADB = 90 15 = 75
Triangle ADB is isosceles as AB = BD = radius.
So, BDA = BAD = 75, and therefore ABD = 30.
Therefore, ABC = 60.
But BA = BC (= radius) so triangle BAC is isosceles,
So BAC = BCA = (180-60)/2 = 60
So triangle BAC is equilateral.
Draw a line of symmetry through A, parallel to DB,
CAE is another isosceles triangle (75,75,30)
So ADE is the 15, 15 150 triangle.
Actually, I don't think there's any harm studying 'false' proofs as long as you're aware that there is something wrong with the proof.
That way you learn something about what is allowable in a proof and what isn't.
In the example that started this thread, for example, you should learn that dividing by zero is not acceptable in algebra.
hi
For the rotations question, combinations are made by matrix multiplication. I find myself confused by your use of the term 'linear combination'.
I think, if a and b are vectors then pa + qb is a linear combination (p and q scalars).
What do you think a linear combination of two matrices would be like?
Meanwhile, for your second question:
I am assuming you are looking at 2x2 matrices that square to give
-1 0
0 -1
Let such a matrix be
a b
c d
Then squaring and setting equal to the above gives
a^2 + bc = -1 and d^2 + bc = -1 => a = + or - d
and replacing one a with -d gives
-ad +bc = -1 => ad - bc = 1 so the determinant is always 1.
A generator for all such matrices is
a b
(-1 -a^2)/b -a -a
for all a and b (would you allow complex values here?)
Thus the following examples:
(i) 3 5
-2 -3
(ii) i 0
0 i
(iii) 1 + i 2i
(-1-2i)/2i -1 -i
Since you can choose my real valued matrix and also yours as I1 and I2 you cannot generate any complex values from these.
Is that what you are after?
Bob
Hi,
"the concept of dimension, but I don't know how to find it, it should of course be <=9."
Not sure what you mean by 'dimension'. It's used such a lot in maths in different contexts.
I'm guessing you mean the minimum number of elements that will generate the whole group.
I think this would be 3. Less than 3 and you won't get into 3D.
but X, rotate 90 around the x axis, Y rotate 90 around the y axis and Z, rotate 90 around the z axis will generate the whole group, I'm sure. Again the 24 element table would prove it by inspecting what comes from {X, Y, Z}.
I'll try come back to question 2, after a longer think. If a few days go by, don't worry, I haven't forgotten you.
Bob
If the area scale factor is x N then the length scale factor is x (root N)
Did it work?
Apparently it did, thanks!
hi jk22,
'the cardinality of the group of rotation of 90 around xyz which i suppose to be 48'
Unit vectors along the axes would be:
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 1
The origin is invariant so any transformation of these axes will have the form
x1 y1 z1
x2 y2 z2
x3 y3 z3
where
one of the xs is either 1 or -1 and the rest are zeros and similarly for the ys and the zs.
eg one transformation would be
1 0 0
0 0 -1
0 1 0
This is a rotation around the x axis of +90.
So how many such transformations are there?
Choose one from x1, x2, x3 (3 choices) and then whether it's +1 or -1 (2 choices)
Then choose from only two out of y1, y2, y3. (You cannot choose from the row that you chose your x from) (2 choices) and the whether it's +1 or -1. (2 choices).
Finally you have no choice about which of z1, z2, z3 since you must pick from the row that hasn't been chosen yet but you may chose from +1 and -1 (2 choices).
Altogether this gives 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 1 x 2 choices = 48.
The above rotation is one example.
But, another would be
-1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 1
and this isn't a rotation; it's a reflection in the YZ plane.
I suspect that half the 48 are rotations and half are reflections.
So the cardinality for rotations alone would be 24.
You can prove it by making a 24 x 24 'multiplication' table of all the elements.
Here's a start:
I X X^2 Y
______________________________
I I X X^2 Y
X X X^2 X^3 P
X^2 X^2 X^3 I
Y Y
where P is
0 0 1
1 0 0
0 1 0
You're going to need a large piece of paper and be prepared for lots of matrix multiplication.
Warning. It isn't generally commutative ( XY not = YX )
If you find 24 elements in a closed set (ie. no more elements generated by those 24 in any combination) you've got your result.
Good luck.
ps. Not sure what your subsequent question means. Can you provide one example of such a 2 x 2 matrix?
Bob
hi lakeheadca
I was just browsing for unanswered posts and found this. So I thought about it, sorry it's been a long wait.
Not sure what you mean by 'triangle PQR ~ TUV'
See diagram below. Any answer is possible if the midpoint and ratio constraints are the only ones.
But if 'triangle PQR ~ TUV' means the triangles are similar then it becomes possible.
The areas of PQR and TUV will be in the ratio (3/5) squared.
As area of any triangle is half base x height, the line up from the midpoint will bisect the area (same height but base is half as long for each half).
So, if PQR : TUV = 9 : 25 then PSR : TUV = 4.5 : 25 = 9 : 50
hth
Are you sure the question didn't say
x = n times pi where n is an odd integer
sin x is then zero and cos x = -1
then dy/dx = pi ln x.
Thought: maybe the 'pi's have gone missing from this question.
I agree!!
But, is it possible there is some arrangement between MIF and indiasocraticforum ?
hi Carisma
hhmmmm. me too. I assumed that n is a constant and that sinxlnx means sinx times logbase e of x.
Here's what I did:
xy/n + sinxlnx = cosx + 1 => y/n = [cosx + 1 sinxlnx]/x
diff. wrt x
y/n + (x/n) .dy/dx + (sinx)/x + cosxlnx = -sinx + 0
dy/dx = [-sinx (sinx)/x cosxlnx y/n].n/x
if x = n
dy/dx = [-sinx (sinx)/x cosxlnx (cosx)/x 1/x (sinxlnx)/x].1
I cannot see a way of making that become lnx (the .../x and trig bits just don't cancel).
So I'm suspecting I'm mis-interpreting the problem.
Any chance you could copy the original exactly (screen shot or reference if it's off the web)?
Bob
hi sk
Or the sine rule:
a/sinA = b/sinB = c/sinC
to write sinC in terms of sinA.
[note the shortest side will be opposite the smallest angle and the longest side opposite the largest angle]
[also you may asssume the sides are actually 8cm, 10cm and 12cm rather than just in that ratio, as the sine rule will work properly with triangles that are enlarged by a scale factor]
Bob
Hi John,
The rotation of angle B looks to me to be counter to the Y -> Z sense so the minus seems ok.
Further, as COS (-B) = COS (B) it shouldn't affect angle D.
Your last post has C measured agreeing with C chosen for lots of trials, so does that mean the search is over?
Meanwhile, I re-worked the problem using vector equations for the plane PQR, the normal to the plane and a vector equation for the line ST.
Then I checked that the rotations gave the plane as lying parallel to XY, the normal lying in the Z direction and the value of E (for the line).
All came out with the previous values, adding another confirmation of the formulas.
I think they're good (athough I wouldn't risk putting a man on the moon using them).
Best wishes for happy milling,
Bob
Hi jk
I'll think about it.
B
Have a look at Wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_matrix#Three_dimensions.
Is this what you're after?
Bob
Hi Mukesh,
When you joined you asked about modulus inequalities.
Do you still want help on this?
Post an example if you do.
Bob
Hi Yehoram
Put all '3 to the power' terms on one side and '2 to the power' on the other.
Factorise 3^x and the bracket is a number. Similarly with 2^x.
Make (3/2)^x the subject and take logs.
Hope that helps
Bob
Whoops. "Altogether this gives 6 x 9 bits of information about which cubes are blue and which are clear."
Obviously, I meant 3 x 9 since opposite 'faces' have the same information.
Embarrassed smily begs forgiveness.