Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Integer Triangles and Diophantine Equations?
The following question, asked recently:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsnFL...
reminded me an old similar problem I have almost forgotten about: in triangle ABC the angle A is 3 times greater than angle B and all side lengths are integers (unlike the most well-known example with angles 30°, 60° and 90°, all of its sides can not be integers).
Find all such triangles (or, at least , some of them).
The solution involves a 3rd degree Diophantine equation - the most interesting point.
Excellent achievement, Falzoon, congratulations!
This is the way exactly - eliminating A from
a/sin(A) = b/sin(3A) = c/sin(4A)
we reach the Diophantine equation:
(1) ac² = (a + b)(b - a)²
/Yours is with exchanged a and b/
It has infinitely many solutions indeed, just to mention 2 of them Your program has missed:
a = 216, b = 384, c = 280 /similar to (27, 48, 35)/;
a = 216, b = 510, c = 539 /primitive/
Try to solve (1) analytically now, I have an expression set, giving all primitive solutions as I suppose, I'll publish it later, the side a is a perfect cube indeed.
Such triangle can be neither right, nor isosceles, but can be ALMOST ISOSCELES - (125, 280, 279) - special congratulations for finding it!
My fault, I wanted it to be
angle(B) = 3*angle(A)
You are quite right, Falzoon, thanks for pointing it out.
You have done a very good work again in EDIT 3.
Dividing (1) by a³ /in my notations/ and denoting x = b/a, y = c/a we obtain
(2) y² = (x + 1)(x - 1)²
Solving (1) in integers is equivalent to find rational points on the cubic curve (2) - it is looking similarly to # 8 below:
http://staff.jccc.net/swilson/planecurves/cubics.h...
exactly as finding the Pythagorean triples is equivalent to find the rational points on the unit circle x² + y² = 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_triples
Using the Euler's secant method we can start with an obvious rational point - the node x=1, y=0 and try rational values of the the secant's slope k in x=1+t, y=kt. That leads to the rational parameterization of (2):
x = z² - 1, y = z(z² - 2), and taking z=m/n back to (1) finally:
(3) a = n³;
(4) b = n(m² - n²);
(5) c = m(m² - 2n²)
Exactly these expressions (only notations differ) are in Falzoon's answer. Here m, n are co-prime naturals, satisfying
(6) n√2 < m < 2n
I suppose (3) - (6) to give all primitive solutions /GCD(a, b, c) = 1/ but this is a conjecture. Can anybody prove/disprove that? The proof may turn out difficult, that's the reason I asked the question.
I also don't know whether the almost isosceles triangles like (125, 280, 279) are infinitely many or not (e.g. the Pythagorean triples where the legs differ by 1 are infinitely many).
The time for answering is about to expire.
I kindly ask everybody who will have more about this intriguing problem, to let me know.
1 Answer
- falzoonLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
I did it a different way.
a/sin(3x) = b/sin(x) = c/sin(4x)
Taking a/sin(3x) = b/sin(x) gives :
a/b = sin(3x)/sin(x)
= [3sin(x) - 4sin^3(x)] / (sin(x)
= 3 - 4sin^2(x)
from which we get : sin(x) = (1/2)sqrt[(3b - a)/b]
so, cos(x) = (1/2)sqrt[(a + b)/b] using sin^2(A) + cos^2(A) = 1
Taking b/sin(x) = c/sin(4x) gives :
c/b = sin(4x)/sin(x)
= [4sin(x)cos(x) - 8sin^3(x)cos(x)] / sin(x)
= 4cos(x) - 8sin^2(x)cos(x)
= 4cos(x) - 8[1 - cos^2(x)]cos(x)
= 8cos^3(x) - 4cos(x)
Substituting cos(x) = (1/2)sqrt[(a + b)/b] gives :
c/b = [(a + b)/b]sqrt[(a + b)/b] - 2sqrt[(a + b)/b]
Multiplying by b and simplifying gives :
c = (a - b)sqrt[(a + b)/b]
From here, I cheated a little by running a program to find
relevant a's and b's that would yield integer c's and got
this table of values for a, b, c :
10, 8, 3
48, 27, 35
132, 64, 119
195, 125, 112
280, 125, 279
270, 216, 81
357, 343, 20
and stopped there, but I'm sure there are more.
The set 270, 216, 81 is a multiple of 10, 8, 3 so it's a bit
superfluous, and of course, there are many multiples I
didn't include, but the interesting thing is that b seems
to be always a cube. I haven't resolved that yet, meaning
I haven't come up with a generating formula and I'm not
sure if I will, but I'll keep plugging away for a while.
EDIT: I mean, b is a cube, except for the multiples.
EDIT 2: Will look into it in a day or two. At the moment, must
find some sleep time. My program didn't miss those values.
I did, in my rush to publish. I didn't eliminate multiples in the
program, so had to search and eliminate using rather
tired eyes.
EDIT 3: Just a small point - shouldn't my first equation at
least be in the correct format, by the way you've worded the
question? And if I replace my x with B, then the correct
equation really should be : a/sin(3B) = b/sin(B) = c/sin(4B).
My middle name is 'Pedantic', by the way.
Anyway, the last couple of hours haven't proved very
fruitful in completely solving the Diophantine equation,
but I did make a little progress.
Starting with bc^2 = (a + b)(a - b)^2, I expanded RHS to get
bc^2 = a^3 - a^2b - ab^2 + b^3 and then dividing by b gives
c^2 = a^3/b - a^2 - ab + b^2.
Now I assume that b is a cube, i.e. b = p^3 (no proof, just
observation). Thus, c^2 = a^3/p^3 - a^2 - ap^3 + p^6. Now,
a^3/p^3 = (a/p)^3, so a/p must be an integer, so let a/p = J.
So, a = Jp.
Substituting a = Jp gives c^2 = J^3 - J^2p^2 - Jp^4 + p^6.
Factorising : c^2 = J^2(J - p^2) - p^4(J - p^2)
so, c^2 = (J - p^2)(J^2 - p^4) = (J - p^2)(J - p^2)(J + p^2)
Therefore, finally, c = (J - p^2)*sqrt(J + p^2), which is not a
lot different from the original, but it got rid of that pesky b.
This is where I felt I wouldn't be doing a perfect job, so I
settled on a partial one and looked for patterns in 'J'.
Some of the first few values of J nicely fitted the equation
J = 3(p - 1)^2 + 2(p - 1), simplified as J = 3p^2 - 4p + 1.
Substituting back gives :
a = 3p^3 - 4p^2 + p
b = p^3
c = (2p^2 - 4p + 1)*(2p - 1)
Letting p = 2 to 10 gives this table for a, b, c :
p = 2 : 10, 8, 3
p = 3 : 48, 27, 35
p = 4 : 132, 64, 119
p = 5 : 280, 125, 279
p = 6 : 510, 216, 539
p = 7 : 840, 343, 923
p = 8 : 1288, 512, 1455
p = 9 : 1872, 729, 2159
p = 10: 2610, 1000, 3059
Looks like an infinite number of triangles can be made,
but not quite as big as the infinity of all the possibilities.
Oh! well, now I'm ready to see the answer.
Thanks for your comments, Duke, and for an interesting
question, and hopefully, for a "how to solve this problem".
EDIT 4: The crux of the matter is finding a general formula
that makes sqrt(J + p^2) an integer. Not even Dickson's
Theory of Numbers Vol II helped me, although the answer
may be in there somewhere. Still going around in circles!
Have just seen your hint - will get back.
EDIT 5:
bc^2 = (a + b)(a - b)^2 = a^3 - a^2b - ab^2 + b^3
Dividing by b^3 gives c^2/b^2 = a^3/b^3 - a^2/b^2 - a/b + 1
Let y = c/b and z = a/b, then
y^2 = z^3 - z^2 - z + 1
y^2 = z^2(z - 1) - (z - 1)
y^2 = (z - 1)(z^2 - 1)
y^2 = (z + 1)(z - 1)^2
so, y = (z - 1)*sqrt(z + 1)
Now it looks easy if we let z = n^2 - 1
Plugging back gives :
y = n(n^2 - 2)
So now, given b, we have :
a = b(n^2 - 1)
c = bn(n^2 - 2)
n is obviously > sqrt(2) and it may be fractional,
so let n = u/v.
Then, a = b(u^2 - v^2) / v^2
and, c = bu(u^2 - 2v^2) / v^3
The denominators disappear if we let b = v^3. We get :
a = v(u^2 - v^2)
b = v^3
c = u(u^2 - 2v^2)
Now, b ≠ 1, because there are no integral side triangles
with all sides unequal, such that one side has length 1.
Thus, v ≠ 1, so v ≥ 2. Which means u ≥ 3.
Those equations are pretty general, but I don't know how
to fiddle with them, so that only primitive solutions turn up.
We also have to make sure that in any triangle, a + b > c
AND a + c > b AND b + c > a. I think however, that those
equations do contain all the solutions, unfortunately,
together with a lot of superfluous multiples, as well as
a lot of impossible triangles. I'm not sure how to fix that yet.
Maybe I'll come back to it later.
EDIT 6: Ah! ... co-primes - the penny's dropped - if it can
be proved, of course, but that definitely won't be by me.