MHB Rectangles & Squares - Finding a Numerical Measure

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yankel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Squares
AI Thread Summary
A numerical measure to determine how close a rectangle is to a square can be based on the ratio of its sides, with a ratio of 1 indicating a square. This measure is effective as it maintains consistency for similar rectangles. For parallelograms, the formula 4A/(a+b)² can be used, yielding a value of 1 for squares and less than 1 for non-square parallelograms. Additionally, angles can be incorporated into a measure that combines the deviation from 90 degrees and the difference between the longest and shortest sides. These methods provide a way to quantify the similarity of rectangles and parallelograms to squares.
Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Hello

I am looking for a mathematical measure, that will tell me, numerically, how far is any rectangle from a being a square.
One obvious measure is the ratio between the sides of the rectangle. If the ratio is 1, it is a square. This measure is good, as it preserves a very important characteristic, which is, for similar rectangles, we will get the same measure.

I am looking for other measures such as the ratio, that will allow me to sort rectangles by how close they are to the form of a square, while preserving this characteristic of similar rectangles gets the same numerical value. In addition, is there such a measure for parallelograms ? That will tell me how far are they from a square?

Thank you in advance.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Yankel said:
Hello

I am looking for a mathematical measure, that will tell me, numerically, how far is any rectangle from a being a square.
One obvious measure is the ratio between the sides of the rectangle. If the ratio is 1, it is a square. This measure is good, as it preserves a very important characteristic, which is, for similar rectangles, we will get the same measure.

I am looking for other measures such as the ratio, that will allow me to sort rectangles by how close they are to the form of a square, while preserving this characteristic of similar rectangles gets the same numerical value. In addition, is there such a measure for parallelograms ? That will tell me how far are they from a square?

Thank you in advance.
For a parallelogram with sides $a$ and $b$ and area $A$, you could use the measure $\dfrac{4A}{(a+b)^2}$. That will be $1$ if the parallelogram is a square, but smaller than $1$ for any nonsquare parallelogram. Also, it will give the same measure for similar parallelograms.
 
Thank you, great idea !

Can I also use angles for this purpose ?
 
Yankel said:
Thank you, great idea !

Can I also use angles for this purpose ?

Sure.
To make a parallellogram a square, we need both square angles and equal sides.
We can combine that in one measure with for instance:
$$ (\text{any angle} - 90^\circ)^2 + (\text{longest side} - \text{shortest side})^2$$
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
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...
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