This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.
Markdown
Appears as
*italics* or _italics_
italics
**bold** or __bold__
bold
- bulleted - list
bulleted
list
1. numbered 2. list
numbered
list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.
print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.
print "hello world"
Math
Appears as
Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3
2×3
2^{34}
234
a_{i-1}
ai−1
\frac{2}{3}
32
\sqrt{2}
2
\sum_{i=1}^3
∑i=13
\sin \theta
sinθ
\boxed{123}
123
Comments
Spoiler alert ..... Don't scroll down until you've given up looking for your own proof ...
The answer is 7. Wallace Manheimer came up with the proof back in 1960. Briefly, if we were to draw a line from the vertex at the obtuse angle to the opposite side then either we'd end end up with two right triangles, or one of the partitioned triangles would be obtuse. So then we would have either one or two triangles to dissect into acute triangles, which would result in a non-minimal dissection of the original triangle. So in order to find a minimal solution, the line from vertex at the obtuse angle cannot go all the way to the opposite side.
Now from the endpoint of this abbreviated line must emanate a minimum of 5 lines, (inclusive of the first line from the obtuse vertex), since otherwise not all of the angles at this vertex would be acute. The points where these additional 4 lines intersect the sides of the original triangle can then be joined, resulting in an inner pentagon composed of 5 triangles plus 2 "outer" triangles for a total of 7 acute triangles formed.
Here is a diagram of the minimal dissection "template".
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Spoiler alert ..... Don't scroll down until you've given up looking for your own proof ...
The answer is 7. Wallace Manheimer came up with the proof back in 1960. Briefly, if we were to draw a line from the vertex at the obtuse angle to the opposite side then either we'd end end up with two right triangles, or one of the partitioned triangles would be obtuse. So then we would have either one or two triangles to dissect into acute triangles, which would result in a non-minimal dissection of the original triangle. So in order to find a minimal solution, the line from vertex at the obtuse angle cannot go all the way to the opposite side.
Now from the endpoint of this abbreviated line must emanate a minimum of 5 lines, (inclusive of the first line from the obtuse vertex), since otherwise not all of the angles at this vertex would be acute. The points where these additional 4 lines intersect the sides of the original triangle can then be joined, resulting in an inner pentagon composed of 5 triangles plus 2 "outer" triangles for a total of 7 acute triangles formed.
Here is a diagram of the minimal dissection "template".
Log in to reply
NICE! The inspiration must have gave it away ahah!
Follow-up question:
Prove that an obtuse triangle ca be dissected into a minimum of 8 acute isosceles triangles.
@Pi Han Goh How do I create a vertical "spoiler gap" in LaTeX?
Log in to reply
Edited it in for you. Essentially you have to tell it to "leave several empty rows", and also force the rows to not be collapsed.
Log in to reply
7