⎩ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎧ x = y 2 − 1 6 1 + z 2 − 1 6 1 y = z 2 − 2 5 1 + x 2 − 2 5 1 z = x 2 − 3 6 1 + y 2 − 3 6 1
Let x , y and z be real numbers satisfying the system of equations above. If the value of x + y + z can be expressed as n m , where m and n are positive integers with n square-free, find m + n .
This problem is from AIME 2006.
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.
@Shaun Leong This is how to fill in the existence of the triangle.
Log in to reply
Thank you. I didn't know how to prove it and usually my solutions lack such mathematical rigour.
However, could there be other solutions to the system of equations? Your solution starts with an acute triangle which exists and shows that the sides satisfy the system. The condition that x 2 + y 2 > z 2 came from the triangle and not the equations. However could there be an obtuse triangle whose sides satisfy the system?
I originally tried to construct right triangles with hypotenuse x and altitude 1/6, and a triangle with hypotenuse y and altitude 1/6. Since we cannot have conplex roots, we know that x ≥ 5 1 , y ≥ 4 1 , z ≥ 4 1 . This ensures that x and y are allowed to be the hypotenuses. These can be "connected" to form a larger triangle. By third equation, the third side is necessarily equal to z. Similarly, we can construct a second triangle with sides x,y,z and altitude 1/5, and a third triangle with sides x,y,z and altitude 1/4. By SSS these 3 triangles must be congruent and thus we can construct a triangle with sides x,y,z and altitudes 1/4,1/5,1/6.
Log in to reply
I built the triangle by connecting right triangles together as well. Let x = x 1 + x 2 , where x 1 is the first square root in the sum for x and x 2 is the second, and similarly let y = y 1 + y 2 and z = z 1 + z 2 . The formulas for x 1 , … , z 2 correspond to six right triangles with hypotenuses x , y , and z . For example, one has legs of length x 1 and 1 / 4 and hypotenuse y . By joining the two right triangles with legs of length 1 / 4 at that leg with the legs of length x 1 and x 2 abreast, we create a triangle with sides length x 1 + x 2 = x , y , and z . Performing the same operation with the pairs of triangles with legs of length 1 / 5 and 1 / 6 yields the same triangle, which therefore has altitudes 1 / 4 , 1 / 5 , and 1 / 6 .
Log in to reply
@William Allbritain – That's a good way to think about it :)
For completeness, we have to verify that such a triangle exists, before we can apply the geometric properties. Do you see how to fix that gap? Can you post this as a separate solution?
IE The approach that I took was to independently verify that such a triangle can exist, before I used the properties to solve the system of equations.
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – I'm not sure how rigorous my approach is; it's mostly based on geometric intuition. The right triangles of height 1/4, 1/5, and 1/6 exist by the Pythagorean theorem ( x 1 2 + ( 1 / 4 ) 2 = y 2 , etc.), and joining them pairwise (alternately constructing them on either side of a line of length 1/4, e.g.) creates the required triangle, but I couldn't say whether such a construction is logically justifiable.
I might have a compass-and-straightedge style construction of the triangle; if I can come up with a good way to present it I'll post it as a solution.
Log in to reply
@William Allbritain – Well, to verify that such a triangle exists, we just need to show that the triangle inequality holds. Do you see why this follows from they system?
Here is the suggested proof approach in your case:
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – I've uploaded my solution. It involves a purely geometric construction of the required triangle, along with an alternative to Heron's formula that gives the area of the triangle in terms of its altitudes.
I feel weird about having to read two solutions to essentially get a complete solution (this one in particular doesn't explain where 1/4, 1/5, or 1/6 and why we're using a triangle, Shaun refers to this one for the existence proof). I would prefer either one or the other be made complete. I actually had to swap between reading the two solutions four times before I fully understood what was going on.
Let x 1 = y 2 − 1 6 1 , x 2 = z 2 − 1 6 1 , y 1 = z 2 − 2 5 1 , y 2 = x 2 − 2 5 1 , z 1 = x 2 − 3 6 1 , z 2 = y 2 − 3 6 1 . Thus x = x 1 + x 2 , y = y 1 + y 2 , z = z 1 + z 2 , all of which are positive real numbers. Draw a line segment A B of length x , and locate D on A B such that A D = x 1 and D B = x 2 . Construct a perpendicular C D to A B of length 4 1 , then draw line segments A C and B C .
By the above equations ( A C ) 2 = x 1 2 + 1 6 1 = y 2 ⟹ A C = y , and ( B C ) 2 = x 2 2 + 1 6 1 = z 2 ⟹ B C = z . Therefore Δ A B C has sides of length x , y , and z . Furthermore, ∠ A B C and ∠ B A C are acute. By a symmetrical construction, we can create triangles of base y and altitude 5 1 , and of base z and altitude 6 1 , whose sides are of length x , y , and z , which by S S S are congruent. In each case the angles adjacent to the base are acute, so Δ A B C is acute with altitudes 4 1 , 5 1 , and 6 1 .
To determine the values of x , y , and z , we may proceed as in Calvin Lin's proof by using Heron's formula to find the area of Δ A B C in terms of x , etc., but here is an alternative method. There is a formula that is similar to Heron's which gives the area of a triangle in terms of its altitudes instead of its sides. Let A be the area of the triangle, h a , h b , h c the altitudes, and H = 2 1 ( h a − 1 + h b − 1 + h c − 1 ) . Then
A − 1 = 4 H ( H − h a − 1 ) ( H − h b − 1 ) ( H − h c − 1 ) .
For our triangle, let h a = 4 1 , h b = 5 1 , h c = 6 1 . Thus H = 2 1 ( 4 + 5 + 6 ) = 2 1 5 and
A − 1 = 4 2 1 5 ⋅ 2 7 ⋅ 2 5 ⋅ 2 3 = 1 5 7 ⟹ A = 1 5 7 1 = 1 0 5 7 .
Finally, computing the area of the triangle via the formula A = 2 1 b h using each side in turn as the base gives us x , y , and z :
1 0 5 7 = 2 1 x 4 1 = 8 x ⟹ x = 1 0 5 8 7
1 0 5 7 = 2 1 y 5 1 = 1 0 y ⟹ y = 1 0 5 1 0 7
1 0 5 7 = 2 1 z 6 1 = 1 2 x ⟹ z = 1 0 5 1 2 7
∴ x + y + z = 1 0 5 3 0 7 = 7 2 7 = 7 2 □
For completeness,
You are missing the step of explaining why we can form such a triangle in the first place. That is why the triangle inequality comes in, and we simply show that x < y + z (with similar inequalities).
We also then need to explain why the triangle that is formed is acute, in order to justify "Yes this is how the various (unsigned) lengths work out".
Log in to reply
We certainly can construct a line segment of length x = x 1 + x 2 and a perpendicular line segment of length 4 1 x 1 units from one end of that line. The triangle that results from connecting the other end of the perpendicular to the two ends of the line segment automatically has all the required properties by basic geometry and the Pythagorean theorem. That is to say, the proof the triangle exists is that we are able to construct it without assuming any of its properties ahead of time. The existence of the numbers x 1 , … , z 2 comes from the assumed existence of solutions to the original system of equations. The triangle is acute because the angles adjacent to the base are components of right triangles, the opposite leg being the altitude in both cases. Because the construction results in the same triangle regardless of whether x , y , or z is chosen for the length of the initial side, all three angles must be acute.
Log in to reply
We are in agreement about what has to be done. Where we disagree, is the extent to which this subtle detail has been clarified / elaborated in the solution.
I agree that we could go about existence of the triangle in the manner that you have done of constructing a triangle with side length x = x 1 + x 2 and altitude 4 1 .
In each square root, we have a difference of 2 squares. This would motivate us to find a geometric interpretation of the problem, using Pythagoras' Theorem to help us.
Image taken from GeoGebra .
Indeed, consider an acute triangle with sides x , y , z . If we let H k denote the length of the altitude from a vertex to the side with length k , what can we say about its altitudes H x , H y , H z ? From the equations, we can tell that H x = 4 1 , H y = 5 1 , H z = 6 1
Area = 2 1 ( 4 1 ) ( x ) = 2 1 ( 5 1 ) ( y ) = 2 1 ( 6 1 ) ( z )
⇒ y = 4 5 x and z = 2 3 x
Substitute this into the first equation x = ( 4 5 x ) 2 − 1 6 1 + ( 2 3 x ) 2 − 1 6 1 4 x = 2 5 x 2 − 1 + 3 6 x 2 − 1 4 x − 2 5 x 2 − 1 = 3 6 x 2 − 1 4 1 x 2 − 1 − 8 x 2 5 x 2 − 1 = 3 6 x 2 − 1 5 x 2 = 8 x 2 5 x 2 − 1 x = 0 is an extraneous solution. Dividing by x and squaring both sides, 2 5 x 2 = 1 6 0 0 x 2 − 6 4 x 2 = 1 5 7 5 6 4 x = 1 5 7 8 x + y + z = 4 1 5 x = 7 2
I love the geometric interpretation here! However, care has to be taken to justify that this triangle exists. Specifically,
Otherwise, you are just adding these assumptions (which do not yet seem reasonable).
Do you see how to fix these issues?
Typo, H y = 5 1
H y means height of the triangle from base y right ?
Log in to reply
Yes, sorry for the notation - I was typing it on my phone. I'll add it in.
Log in to reply
Something that interest me is that if z is the hypotenuse, and x and y is the other side of triangle, it does make sense the height of triangle with base of z is 6 1 , but it works perfectly for x and y , even if we don't know which one is larger for hypotenuse. Can you explain why ?
Or i think i can't picture it XD
Log in to reply
@Jason Chrysoprase – Sorry I don't really get your question? The triangle is acute-angled but not necessarily right-angled.
Log in to reply
@Shaun Leong – Ohh now i see it, thx. I think it must be necessarily right angle ( My bad )
This is an AIME 2006 problem.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Looking at the terms in the system of equations, y 2 − 1 6 1 remind us of calculating the length of the opposite of a right angled triangle with adjacent side 4 1 and hypotenuse y . Combined with the other term z 2 − 1 6 1 , this induces us to think placing 2 right triangle with a common base of 4 1 together as in the figure on the right. Then, the equation states the the sum of the opposite sides will be x . Notice that in this triangle, the altitude is 4 1 .
Using this as inspiration, let's consider a triangle with altitudes 4 1 , 5 1 and 6 1 . For now, let's assume that 1) the triangle exists and 2) the triangle is acute. Proofs of these assumptions are given at the end.
Claim: The side lengths of this triangle will satisfy the given system of equations.
Proof: Let the perpendicular from A meet B C at D . Since the triangle is acute, hence D lies between B and C . As such,
a = B C = B D + D C = B A 2 − A D 2 + C A 2 − A D 2 = c 2 − 1 6 1 + b 2 − 1 6 1
Similarly, the other sides yield the corresponding equations. □
Now, let's determine the sides of the triangle. By considering it's area both in terms of 1/2 (base) (height) and heron's formula , we get that
Area = 8 x = 1 0 y = 1 2 z = 4 1 ( x + y + z ) ( x + y − z ) ( x − y + z ) ( − x + y + z )
Substituting y = 4 5 x , z = 4 6 x , we get that
8 x = 4 1 x 4 ( 1 + 4 5 + 4 6 ) ( 1 + 4 5 − 4 6 ) ( 1 − 4 5 + 4 6 ) ( − 1 + 4 5 + 4 6 ) = 6 4 1 5 7 x 2
Since x = 0 , thus x = 1 5 7 8 and so x + y + z = 4 1 5 x = 7 2 .
We now prove the 2 assumptions
Assumption 1: Such a triangle exists.
Proof: To show that the triangle exists, we simply need to show that the sides satisfy the triangle inequality. Let the sides corresponding to the altitude of 4 1 , 5 1 and 3 6 1 be a , b and c . We know that "side * altitude = area / 2", hence we conclude that a : b : c = 5 × 6 : 4 × 6 : 4 × 5 . Now, since 2 4 + 2 0 > 3 0 , hence the values satisfy the triangle inequality. □
Assumption 2: Such a triangle is acute.
Proof: Similarly, from cosine rule , we need to show that a 2 + b 2 > c 2 . This is true since 2 4 2 + 2 0 2 > 3 0 2 . □