The answer is 0.8.

**
This section requires Javascript.
**

You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.

How was mu=lambda/(3lambda-1) determined?

Sean Chen
- 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

We want $\tfrac13(\mathbf{a} + \mathbf{b}) - \lambda \mathbf{a}$ and $\mu\mathbf{b} - \lambda\mathbf{a}$ to be parallel, so that one is a multiple of the other. Thus $\tfrac13 - \lambda \; = \; -\xi\lambda \hspace{2cm} \tfrac13 \; = \; \xi\mu$ Eliminating $\xi$ from these equations gives us the answer.

Mark Hennings
- 3 years, 6 months ago

How did you minimize in the last step?!

Mohamed Osama
- 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Look for a turning point by differentiating the function of $\lambda$ .

Mark Hennings
- 3 years, 6 months ago

If the line division is not parallel to the third side, then the yellow section below the parallel and the green section above the parallel can be switched by a 180° rotation (as pictured below), giving a yellow area larger than a yellow area of a parallel line division.

Therefore, a minimum yellow area (and a minimum yellow to green ratio) must occur when the line through the centroid is parallel to the third side of the triangle.

Since all centroids divide a median in a 2:1 proportion, a second parallel line can be drawn through the yellow section halfway up, and 1 of its 2 parts would be equal to 1 of the 4 parts along the parallel line through the centroid, and 1 of the 6 parts along the base. The triangle can then be subdivided into congruent parallelograms using the base and the median though the base as guidelines (as pictured below), and the each of triangular parts can be matched with a matching triangular part through a 180° rotation to form more congruent parallelograms (also pictured below).

After all the transformations, there are 9 congruent parallelograms – 4 yellow and 5 green, for a ratio of 4/5 or 0.8.
12 Helpful
0 Interesting
0 Brilliant
0 Confused

i think your solution was the best !!

Relue Tamref
- 3 years, 6 months ago

2 Helpful
0 Interesting
0 Brilliant
0 Confused

But why should we assume that the triangle is right-angled?

Mark Hennings
- 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

I did it for simplicity, since the x and y axis intersect at a right angle, I let that be one of the angles in my triangle. In general, it does not have to be right angled, but the ratio would remain the same. Imagine you have a right triangle and that line, creating the minimum ratio. Now, imagine putting this into some photo editing software, and dragging one of the vertices where ever, forming a completely different triangle. The lines move to adjust to that change, and as a result, keep the ratio.

Kevin Tong
- 3 years, 6 months ago

How area of triangle generalize to a rectangle explain plz

Roy Satyam
- 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

If we were to use the area of a triangle, it would 1/2 of that of a rectangle of the same base times height. Since we're finding the ratio of the triangle to itself again, the 1/2 term would cancel out, thus removing the need to have it in there.

Kevin Tong
- 3 years, 6 months ago

It must be 1/2*x intercept *y intercept

Roy Satyam
- 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

In the problem, I stated that I would generalize it to a rectangle so that I would not have to multiply it by 1/2. You can do it that way, but in the end, the 1/2 would cross out in the ratio.

Kevin Tong
- 3 years, 6 months ago

Looking at the first two samples, the ratios won't be changed if the top point is moved. So the triangle may as well be equilateral. As the line slants left or right towards a corner, the ratio approaches 1. So the ratio is minimized when the line is horizontal.

The centroid is 1/3 of the way up. So the horizontal line makes a yellow triangle 2/3 of size, or 4/9 the area of the whole triangle. So the quadrilateral is the other 5/9. The ratio between them is 4/5 = 0.8

1 Helpful
0 Interesting
0 Brilliant
0 Confused

That isn't a solution.

Parth Sindhu
- 3 years, 6 months ago

Actually this can be turned into a solution.

First notice that there is a linear area preserving transformation which sends your triangle to an equilateral triangle. To do so either use a ( infinite number of) shear transformations or write out explicitly the constraints on 2x2 matrices with determinant one. (You can assume one vertex is at the origin, you have two constraints to bring the vertices where you want and one constraint for the fact the the determinant is one).

The symmetry argument is also mostly fine. As the line which splits the triangle turns around the center there are moments where the triangle is split into two equal triangles. The ratio is then 1 which is the only possible [aboslute] maximum. Somewhere in between there has to be a [absolute] minimum (unless the ratio is constant, which the actual calculation show it isn't). Since there is a minimum, this has to happen when the drawn line is parallel to the bottom side (by symmetry).

So the only catch is that there could be 2 [absolute] minima between the "obvious" maxima. I don't see an easy argument for that yet, but this seems very implausible.

Antoine G
- 3 years, 6 months ago

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

Suppose that the origin lies at the triangle vertex that is one of the three vertices of the yellow triangle, and let the other two triangle vertices have position vectors $\mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ with respect to the origin. If the endpoints of the line that defines the yellow triangle have position vectors $\lambda\mathbf{a}$ and $\mu\mathbf{b}$ for some $0 < \lambda,\mu < 1$ , then the yellow triangle has area $\tfrac12\lambda\mu|\mathbf{a}\times\mathbf{b}|$ , while the whole triangle has area $\tfrac12|\mathbf{a}\times\mathbf{b}|$ . Thus the ratio of the yellow and green areas is $\frac{\lambda\mu}{1-\lambda\mu}$ .

The centroid of the triangle has position vector $\tfrac13(\mathbf{a}+\mathbf{b})$ , and the three points with position vectors $\lambda\mathbf{a}$ , $\tfrac13(\mathbf{a}+\mathbf{b})$ and $\mu\mathbf{b}$ must be collinear, which implies that $\mu = \frac{\lambda}{3\lambda - 1}$ . For this to be consistent with the fact that both $\lambda$ and $\mu$ lie between $0$ and $1$ , we deduce that in fact $\tfrac12 < \lambda,\mu < 1$ .

Thus we need to minimize $\frac{\lambda\mu}{1 - \lambda\mu} = \frac{\lambda^2}{3\lambda - 1 - \lambda^2}$ over the range $\tfrac12 < \lambda < 1$ . This happens when $\lambda = \mu = \tfrac23$ . The minimum ratio is $\boxed{\tfrac45}$ .