Rectangular pegs in a round hole .....

Calculus Level 4

What is the maximum fractional coverage of the area of a circle by three, non-overlapping rectangles, all of which lie internal to the circle? (The rectangles can be of different sizes.)

If the maximum is S S , then enter 1000 S \lceil 1000*S \rceil as your answer.


The answer is 787.

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.

1 solution

Ujjwal Rane
Oct 7, 2014

By symmetry the three rectangles to be found can be assumed to form a symmetric ‘cross’ as shown.

Imgur Imgur

It can be entirely defined by a single angle (theta) shown.

Instead of three non overlapping rectangles we can take them to be two identical but overlapping rectangles. Their dimensions and area can be seen to be 2 R sin ( θ ) × 2 R cos ( θ ) = 2 R 2 sin ( 2 θ ) 2R \sin(\theta) \times 2R \cos(\theta) = 2 R^{2} \sin(2 \theta) while their overlapping area would be 4 R 2 sin 2 ( θ ) 4 R^2 \sin^{2}(\theta) Thus the area of the cross = 2 R 2 s i n ( 2 θ ) 4 R 2 s i n 2 ( θ ) 2R^{2}sin(2\theta) - 4R^{2}sin^{2}(\theta) Differentiating and equating it to zero we get, 2 cos ( 2 θ ) = sin ( 2 θ ) 2 \cos(2\theta) = \sin(2\theta) that is, tan ( 2 θ ) = 2 \tan(2\theta) = 2 Giving θ = 31.72 ° \theta = 31.72° and the fraction of circle’s area covered by the cross = 0.787

I made an interactive if anyone wants to play before theorizing. https://www.geogebra.org/m/TmdehssA

John Golden - 4 years ago

Log in to reply

Thank you so much for creating this! Hands on math always bring more intuitions.

Ujjwal Rane - 4 years ago

Another elegant solution, Ujjwal. Thank you for posting it; I had kept meaning to write up a solution but never got around to it, which is probably a good thing since your method of looking at two identical but overlapping rectangles was more efficient than mine.

Brian Charlesworth - 6 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

Thank you Brian! It was a stimulating problem! I must admit that I had a couple of false starts (foolhardy assumptions and wrong 'hunches' :-)) and I actually got it wrong before this dawned on me. I exhausted my three chances in the process. So sent the solution to Brilliant and Calvin (Lin) was kind enough to post it for me.

Ujjwal Rane - 6 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

Thanks for making the extra effort to get your solution posted. That was good of Calvin to do that; I didn't know that was even an option, but I guess Calvin can do pretty much anything. :)

Brian Charlesworth - 6 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Brian Charlesworth Almost, but not quite. Even Math is not all powerful

Calvin Lin Staff - 6 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Calvin Lin Haha. I didn't actually expect you to see that comment. I should have known that you're omnipresent as well. :)

Brian Charlesworth - 6 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Brian Charlesworth Ahh, well, I thought the maximum was when one rectangle was a square. Spent a lot of time on it and wasn't able to solve it but it's not going to waste as this problem has inspired a problem that I am currently working on and will post soon. Nice problem btw.

Trevor Arashiro - 6 years, 6 months ago

Hm, can you explain why "By symmetry the three rectangles to be found can be assumed to form a symmetric ‘cross’ "

I think you will have to deal with the "2 stacked on top of a third" case separately.

Calvin Lin Staff - 6 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

When I posted this question I had assumed a symmetric solution, but was a little worried that someone would find an asymmetric configuration with greater coverage. No one came up with one so I breathed a sigh of relief, but now you have me wondering.

Brian Charlesworth - 6 years, 7 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...