Home > #MTBoS, Assessment, Colin gets it wrong, Maths, Pedagogy, Teaching > An excellent puzzle – alternate methods

## An excellent puzzle – alternate methods

Yesterday I wrote this post looking at a nice puzzle I’d seen and how I solved it.

The puzzle again: Lovely, isn’t It?

After I published my previous post I wondered if I may have been better using a vector approach or a coordinate geometry approach. So I gave them a try.

Coordinate Geometry

I started by sketching the figure against an axis. I place the origin at the centre of the circle, worked out the equation if the circle and the right leg of the triangle and solved simultaneously for x. Giving x =1 and x=1/3. These x values correspond to half the base of each triangle, which shows the scale factor from the large triangle to the small one is 1/3. As the area of the large one is rt2 this gives the area of the small as rt2/9.

I like this method, probably a little better than the one prior to it.

Vectors

First I sketched it out and reasoned I could work it out easy enough with 4 vectors. I saw that I could write AC as a sum of two others: I knew that the length of AC was 1 so I used Pythagoras’s Theorem to calculate mu. It left me with the exact same quadratic to solve. This time mu was the fraction of DB needed so was automatically the length scale factor. The rest falls out as it did before.

As well as this, Colin Beveridge (@icecolbeveridge), maths god and general legend, tweeted a couple of 1 tweet solutions. First he used trig identities:

Trig Identities I assumed this was right, but checked it through to ensure I knew why was going on: We can see beta is 2 x alpha and as such the tan value is correct. The cos value (although it is missing a negative sign that I’m sure Colin missed to test me) follows from Pythagoras’s Theorem: This is again the scale factor as it is half the base of the small triangle and the base if large triangle is 2.

Complex Numbers

Then Colin tweeted this: At first I wasn’t totally sure I followed so I asked for further clarification: I had a moment of stupidity: And then saw where Colin was going. I tried to work it through, by way of explaining here in a better manner.

I sketched it out and reasoned the direction of lines: Then I normalised that and equated imaginary parts to get the same scale factor: I am happy that is is valid, and that it shows Colin is right, but I’m not entirely sure this as the exact method Colin was meaning. He has promised a blog on the subject so I will add a link when it comes.

I like all these methods. I dontvthink I would have though of Colin’s methods myself though. I’d love to hear another methods you see.

1. July 19, 2017 at 3:21 pm

Nearly what I had in mind – I was using that the x-coordinate of the intersection was -1/3, so the base of the small triangle is 1/3 as long as the base of the large one.

• July 19, 2017 at 3:37 pm

Ah yes. I am with you now!