Is it possible for an equilateral triangle to be placed in the coordinate plane so that all of its vertices at integer coordinates?
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.
The question does not state rectilinear coordinates, surely we can construct a coordinate system which would make this true?
Log in to reply
To answer, I concluded that if 2 of the vertices lay on interger coordinates then the third coordinate will always be irrational in one axis. Having said this, I think that a coordinate system in which we can construct this, would require renaming irrationals into intergers in one axis. Anyways, the set of irrationals is bigger than the set of intergers so there might be a problem. Hahaha! Just wondering...
i do not understand how you write the first area,,can you write it in a better way please??
Let
ω
=
2
1
+
2
3
i
represent the rotation of 60 degrees.
The question is equivalent to 'is there any complex number
z
such that both
z
and
ω
z
are Gaussian Integer?' which the answer is obviously no due to the
3
in
ω
.
In fact, the answer is still no even if we are asking about rational coordinates.
Using contradiction the result can be easily proved not only for integral vertices but also for rational vertices..M-1: Use the determinant form of area of triangle using coordinates of vertices and equate it with popular formula for area of equilateral triangle.Without evaluating anything further,it can be observed that we are trying to equate a rational number with an irrational number which contradicts the supposition that the triangle is equilateral. M-2:Use the fact that slope of a line connecting two integral points must be rational and hence if we find tangent of the angle included between two such lines,it should be rational,but tan(60) is irrational.Hence proved.
If the two bottom points are on lattice points, then they are integer distance apart. For the the third point, the top, to also be on a lattice point, the triangle must have an integer height. However, if the side length of an equilateral triangle is an integer, it's height is not, since the relation of height to side length s is h = 2 3 × s . Since an equilateral triangle has rotational symmetry, this thought process proves that if any two vertices of an equilateral triangle are on lattice points, the third will not be. Thus, all three vertices will never be simultaneously on lattice points.
Saying that distance between two integral points is integral or rational is not always valid as the distance formula involves square root finally.Rather square of the distance between two integral points is integer.Similarly square of the distance between two rational points will also be rational but not the distance necessarily.
Log in to reply
I neglected to say that they have one component the same, i.e., they are on the same vertical or horizontal line.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Suppose a triangle has vertices
(x,y), (a,b) and (p,q), where
x,y,a,b,p,q are all integers.
Then its area
| 1 x y |
| 1 a b | • (1/2) .................................. (1)
| 1 p q |
is a Rational Number.
But if this is an equilateral triangle,
then its area will also be = (√3 / 4 )·s²
where s is its side. Since s² is rational,
then this area, due to the presence of √3,
is irrational.
Thus, there is a contradiction as a Rational
Number equals an Irrational Number.
Hence, co-ordinates of vertices of an equilateral
triangle cannot be all integers. ..................................... Q.E.D.