MHB How Can the Area of a Quadrilateral Be Bounded by Its Side Lengths?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Albert1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Area
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the inequality \(4S \leq (a+b)(x+y)\) for quadrilateral ABCD, where \(S\) is the area and \(a, b, x, y\) are the lengths of its sides. The participants clarify that both sides of the inequality are numerical values, not vectors, and suggest using the product notation \((a+b)(x+y)\) for clarity. The area \(S\) is expressed as the sum of the areas of triangles formed within the quadrilateral, leading to the conclusion that \(4S\) can be bounded by the sum of the products of the sides. It is noted that the proof holds for convex quadrilaterals, with a caveat regarding re-entrant shapes. The discussion effectively establishes a mathematical relationship between the side lengths and the area of a quadrilateral.
Albert1
Messages
1,221
Reaction score
0
Quadrilateral ABCD

given :$\overline{AB}=a ,\overline{BC}=y ,\overline{CD}=b

\,\, and \,\, \overline{AD}=x$

prove :

$4S \leq (a+b)\times(x+y)$

(where S is the area of ABCD)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I can tell already this is not possible, as the LHS is a number while the RHS is a vector...
 
Prove It said:
I can tell already this is not possible, as the LHS is a number while the RHS is a vector...
a,b,x,y are all numbers
(they are the length of respective segment)
the RHS is also a number
here $"\times"$
consider it as (a+b) multiplied by (x+y)
 
Albert said:
a,b,x,y are all numbers
(they are the length of respective segment)
the RHS is also a number
here $"\times"$
consider it as (a+b) multiplied by (x+y)

Albert, I would reserve usage of the $\LaTeX$ \times command for scientific notation (between the mantissa and radix) and for the vectorial cross-product to avoid potential confusion in the future. I would write either:

$$(a+b)(x+y)$$ (preferred)

or

$$(a+b)\cdot(x+y)$$
 
Albert said:
Quadrilateral ABCD

given :$\overline{AB}=a ,\overline{BC}=y ,\overline{CD}=b

\,\, and \,\, \overline{AD}=x$

prove :

$4S \leq (a+b)(x+y)$

(where S is the area of ABCD)
[sp]Write $\theta,\phi,\alpha,\beta$ for the angles $ABC,CDA,DAB,BCD$ respectively. Then $$S = \text{area of triangle } ABC + \text{area of triangle } ACD = \tfrac12ay\sin\theta + \tfrac12bx\sin\phi,$$ and also $$S = \text{area of triangle } ABD + \text{area of triangle } BCD = \tfrac12ax\sin\alpha + \tfrac12by\sin\beta.$$ Add those equations to get $$4S = ay\sin\theta + bx\sin\phi + ax\sin\alpha + by\sin\beta.$$ But each of those sines lies between 0 and 1, and so $$4s \leqslant ay + bx + ax + by = (a+b)(x+y).$$ Afterthought: Strictly speaking, that proof only works if the quadrilateral is convex. But a re-entrant quadrilateral obviously has smaller area than the quadrilateral obtained by pushing the re-entrant part out so as to form a convex quadrilateral with the same sides.[/sp]
 
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...
Back
Top