MHB Find the exact shaded area of the region in 4 overlapping circles

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the exact shaded area of a region formed by four overlapping circles and understanding the geometry involved. It is established that each part of the intersection corresponds to one-quarter of the circumference of the circles. The area of the shaded region is derived as A = 2(π - 2), while the area of the non-shaded region in each circle is calculated to be 2r², leading to a total non-shaded area of 8r² for all four circles. The final result intriguingly does not include π, highlighting the unique nature of the problem. The conversation emphasizes the need for clearer explanations of the geometric principles at play.
Zekes
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
So, say you got 4 circles intersecting this way:

View attachment 9061

Now, I am looking for two things:


  1. A proof that each part of the circle which is in an intersection is 1/4 the size of the whole circle's circumference

  • The exact area of the non-shaded region.

Now, in my search to finding the answer to this, I stumbled upon this Circle-Circle Intersection -- from Wolfram MathWorld. The only problem? I have no idea what this article is trying to say, and how it can help me. I did find the equation to get the area of the shaded region ( it's $$A=2(\pi-2)$$ ) which I can use in Part 2 but I still don't understand how the solution got to there, and how to do Part 1. Please help me in learning what is trying to be said here in simpler terms! Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • YmbI3.png
    YmbI3.png
    9.3 KB · Views: 159
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi Zekes.

Let the radius of each circle be $r$; let P, Q, R, S be the centres of the cirlces and O, A, B, C, D the points of intersections marked as follows:

View attachment 9063

Now PQRS is a square with diagonal $2r$ and so the length of each side is $r\sqrt2$, i.e. $|\mathrm{PQ}|=r\sqrt2$. So the “thickness” of each light-blue lens-shaped region of overlap between circles is $(2-\sqrt2)r$. if T is the point of intersection of the line segments AO and PQ, then

$$|\mathrm{PT}|\ =\ r-\frac{2-\sqrt2}2r\ =\ \frac r{\sqrt2}.$$

Hence $\angle\mathrm{APT}\ =\ \arccos\frac1{\sqrt2}\ =\ 45^\circ$; i.e. $\angle\mathrm{APO}=90^\circ$. That is to say, each circular arc drawn from O is one-quarter the circumference of each circle.

Now:

  • area of quadrant APO = $\dfrac{\pi r^2}4$
    ;
  • are of triangle APO = $\dfrac12r^2$
    ;
  • therefore area of each light-blue shaded region = $2\times\left(\dfrac{\pi r^2}4-\dfrac12r^2\right)=\dfrac{(\pi-2)r^2}2$
    ;
  • therefore area of non-shaded region in each circle = $\pi r^2-2\times\dfrac{(\pi-2)r^2}2=2r^2$
    ;
  • therefore total non-shaded area = $4\times2r^2=8r^2$.

Interesting to note that the final answer does not contain $\pi$.
 

Attachments

  • 4Circles.png
    4Circles.png
    9.6 KB · Views: 135
Last edited:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top