RonPurewal Wrote:the solution is beautiful, but it also relies on the fortuitous fact that the lines QP and PR are perpendicular. you didn't explicitly acknowledge this fact in your otherwise wonderfully detailed solution, so i'm not sure you're aware of it; the only reason that the formula (1/2)(b)(h) works in this case is because PQ just so happens to be perpendicular to PR.
for instance, if you move R from (7, 4) to (8, 3), then your green triangle would still be 3-4-5, but in that case the formula (1/2)(5)(5) would yield the wrong area.
here's a much more universally applicable way to find the area of triangles like these:
surround the triangle with a rectangle, and then subtract out the unwanted area.
this will always work, regardless of the shape of your triangle, because the unwanted parts of the rectangle will always be either rectangles or right triangles with sides perpendicular to the axes (both of which have areas that are extremely easy to calculate).
in this problem:
surround the triangle with a rectangle whose vertices lie at O(0, 0), A(7, 0), R, and B(0, 4).
the area of the rectangle is (7)(4) = 28.
the area of unwanted triangle QBR is (1/2)(1)(7) = 3.5.
the area of unwanted triangle RAP is (1/2)(3)(4) = 6.
the area of unwanted triangle POQ is (1/2)(4)(3) = 6.
28 - 3.5 - 6 - 6 = 12.5
RonPurewal Wrote:the solution is beautiful, but it also relies on the fortuitous fact that the lines QP and PR are perpendicular. you didn't explicitly acknowledge this fact in your otherwise wonderfully detailed solution, so i'm not sure you're aware of it; the only reason that the formula (1/2)(b)(h) works in this case is because PQ just so happens to be perpendicular to PR.
for instance, if you move R from (7, 4) to (8, 3), then your green triangle would still be 3-4-5, but in that case the formula (1/2)(5)(5) would yield the wrong area.
here's a much more universally applicable way to find the area of triangles like these:
surround the triangle with a rectangle, and then subtract out the unwanted area.
this will always work, regardless of the shape of your triangle, because the unwanted parts of the rectangle will always be either rectangles or right triangles with sides perpendicular to the axes (both of which have areas that are extremely easy to calculate).
in this problem:
surround the triangle with a rectangle whose vertices lie at O(0, 0), A(7, 0), R, and B(0, 4).
the area of the rectangle is (7)(4) = 28.
the area of unwanted triangle QBR is (1/2)(1)(7) = 3.5.
the area of unwanted triangle RAP is (1/2)(3)(4) = 6.
the area of unwanted triangle POQ is (1/2)(4)(3) = 6.
28 - 3.5 - 6 - 6 = 12.5
rchitta Wrote:I think Ron's solution could be simplified even more. Ron's solution considers a rectangle but it would be simpler to consider a trapezium.
Let's say we draw a perpendicular line to x -axis from R and that intersects x-axis at M.
Then all we need to calculate is:
A(Trapezium OQRM) - A(Right Triangle OQP) - A(Right Triangle PRM)
Area of Trapezium OQRM = 1/2* (b1 + b2) * h = 1/2* (3 + 4) * 7 = 1/2 * 49
Area of right triangle OQP = 1/2 * b * h = 1/2 * 4 * 3 = 1/2 * 12
Area of right triangle PRM = 1/2 * b * h = 1/2 * 3 * 4 = 1/2 * 12
Area of Tri'gle PQR = 1/2 (49 - 12 - 12) = 12.5 sq units
RonPurewal Wrote:rchitta Wrote:I think Ron's solution could be simplified even more. Ron's solution considers a rectangle but it would be simpler to consider a trapezium.
Let's say we draw a perpendicular line to x -axis from R and that intersects x-axis at M.
Then all we need to calculate is:
A(Trapezium OQRM) - A(Right Triangle OQP) - A(Right Triangle PRM)
Area of Trapezium OQRM = 1/2* (b1 + b2) * h = 1/2* (3 + 4) * 7 = 1/2 * 49
Area of right triangle OQP = 1/2 * b * h = 1/2 * 4 * 3 = 1/2 * 12
Area of right triangle PRM = 1/2 * b * h = 1/2 * 3 * 4 = 1/2 * 12
Area of Tri'gle PQR = 1/2 (49 - 12 - 12) = 12.5 sq units
you can also do that, sure.
i'm not sure whether that qualifies as "simpler", since the additional work involved in computing the area of a trapezoid (vs. a rectangle) pretty much cancels out the time savings of having one fewer triangle.
but the point is, yeah, there are lots of ways to do problems like this one. nice job.
salman30 Wrote:Very useful thread - thanks Ron.