What is x , in meters?
The cue ball starts 0.25 m below the top wall and 0.25 m right of the left wall. Assume that the ball and pocket are of point size and have no width, and that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection when the ball hits the wall.
Note: Iranian mathematician and Fields medalist Maryam Mirzakhani passed away on July 14, 2017 after a long battle with cancer. This is a tribute to her outstanding work in geometry and billiards dynamics.
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.
Geometry always comes in handy for billiards :) And yes she was! Her body of work and especially thesis are very impressive, and she'll be an inspiration for generations of women in STEM.
I've also made a problem in memory of her! Thanks for the nice problem :)
And nice solution @Michael Huang :)
what is not explained in the explanation is how the south wall of the imaginary table's length comes out to be 1m? Or is it too obvious?
How did you know the ball ended up in the south-middle pocket? Did I miss something really obvious?
There is an unfortunate placement of the markings on the sides that make it look like the 1m and 2m marks are half the distance of a table whose dimensions are 2x4m. This, by the way, yields x = 14/23.
I = angle of incidence
R = angle of reflection
As from the figure we can see that both triangles are similar.
Hence,
0 . 7 5 1 = 0 . 7 5 − x x
0.75 - x = 1.75x
2.75x = 0.75
x = 1 1 3
Here's my solution-
Since angles of incidence and reflection are equal, their respective complementary pair angles will also be equal (as each angle to both sides of point of incidence with the normal inside the table is a RIGHT angle).
Therefore the sides (of two apparent triangles on both sides of normal inside the table) are proportional.
It follows that,
x/1 = (0.75 - x)/1.75
i.e. x = (3 - 4x)/7
i.e. 7x = 3 - 4x
i.e. 11x = 3
i.e. x = 3/11
Since the angles of the smaller and the bigger triangle (turned down to the left smaller triangle gave us a bigger triangle) are the same and both are right-angled, we can use the Tangent.
Dividing 2 , 7 5 0 , 7 5 = Tan(15,2551187)
tan(15,2551187) * 1 m = 0,272727... = 1 1 3
can't you just simplify 0.75/2.75 to just 3/11? Why do you have to bring the tangent function into the mix?
Log in to reply
You're right. I started to think about the Problem with trigonometry, so I had'nt seen, that they mustn't be used.
I found this one surprisingly tough until I looked at it the right way.
I drew a line up from the side pocket and realized, from the top down, that 4 1 plus 4 3 x plus 2 x equals 1.
Cue traveled total of 11/4m in x while traveling 3/4m in y (falling into the pocket). Therefore to travel 1m in x, it will have to travel 1*(3/4)/(11/4)=3/11m
Drawing a perpendicular line from the ball to the other side of the rectangle we get 3 segments x, y and .25 x+y=1-.25=.75 Also tan(f)=y/1.75 and also tan(f)=x/1 Solving we find that x=.27 or 3/11 f is the angle of the incidence of the ball when it hits the rectangle's short side.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Oh, billiards dynamics. This quite reminds me of playing the world's billiard game 8 Ball Pool by Miniclip . This really comes to my mind when I perform bank and kick shots for the tough matches. ;)
Here is my solution...
By the given, the ball is 4 7 meters away from the east wall and 4 3 meters away from the south wall.
Since the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence, we can draw another billiard table to the right, where there is no change in angle of the ball's path after passing through the east wall.
In that case, the ball travels 4 1 1 meters east and 4 3 meters south. Thus, by similarity of triangles, left to right top to bottom = 4 1 1 4 3 x = 1 x = 1 1 3 where m + n = 3 + 1 1 = 1 4 .
I really appreciate Maryam Mirzakhani's work in billiards. She was a brilliant mathematician! :)