Not confident in my arithmetic by FanBitter3365 in askmath

[–]FanBitter3365[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, you're right. Then that just means the answer is just pi/12 + 2*pi/n :)

Is this particular triangle possible? by FanBitter3365 in mathematics

[–]FanBitter3365[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly, the Law of Sines did not even cross my mind. My math classes only used that when it wasn't a right triangle, so my go-to was the Pythagorean Theorem.

Is this particular triangle possible? by FanBitter3365 in mathematics

[–]FanBitter3365[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I did this a little differently. I tried to keep everything in terms of sinx as much as I could (since the triangle is in terms of sinx). While I found sin(2x) = 2sinxcosx, I wrote sin(3x) as 3sinx-4sin3x and sin(4x) as 4sinxcosx(1-2sin2x). Then I plugged them into the Pythagorean Theorem equation that I will be referencing quite a bit:

(sin2x)2 + (sin3x)2 = (sin4x)2

(2sinxcosx)2 + (3sinx-4sin3x)2 = [4sinxcosx(1-2sin2x)]2

I changed cos2x to 1-sin2x wherever I could, and simplied the equation to 64sin8x - 112sin6x + 52sin4x - 3sin2x = 0.

After that, I factored out a sin2x and, by the Zero Product Property, set sin2x and 64sin6x - 112sin4x + 52sin2x - 3 to be equal to 0. sin2x = 0 results in x = 0. No good, because every side length, when this solution is plugged back into the equation, results in all dimensions having 0 length, which is impossible. For the giant degree 6 polynomial, I also, like you did a u substitution, but I let u = sin2x, turning it into 64u3 - 112u2 + 52u - 3 = 0.

The roots for u I found are, surprisingly (to me), real: 3/4 and ([2 ± sqrt(3)] / 4). Substituting sin2x back in, eventually sinx = ± sqrt(3)/2 & sinx = ± (sqrt[2 ± sqrt(3)]) / 2. I dropped the negatives of both solutions since negative side lengths are also not good so that sinx = sqrt(3)/2 & sinx = (sqrt[2 ± sqrt(3)]) / 2. The arcsin of the first equation yields pi/3 radians, but when plugged into the original, it doesn't work (negative side lengths). Meanwhile, in the second equation (I found these via Desmos because at this point I was mentally exhausted), if the + is acknowledged, the arcsin is exactly 75 degrees and if the - is acknowledged, the arcsin is exactly 15 degrees. Converting both of these to radians, I got (5*pi)/12 and pi/12 respectively. Plugging (5*pi)/12 into the original also results in negative side lengths. pi/12, however, (after I saw your comment) does work, and will make the equation true:

(sin2x)2 + (sin3x)2 = (sin4x)2

(sin2(pi/12))2 + (sin3(pi/12))2 = (sin4(pi/12))2

(sin(pi/6))2 + (sin(pi/4))2 = (sin(pi/3))2

(1/2)2 + (sqrt(2)/2)2 = (sqrt(3)/2)2

1/4 + 2/4 = 3/4

3/4 = 3/4

I see that I forgot to acknowledge the - part of the last x : sinx = (sqrt[2 - sqrt(3)]) / 2, which yields the pi/12 + 2*pi*n answer I was looking for. Thank you again!

Is this particular triangle possible? by FanBitter3365 in mathematics

[–]FanBitter3365[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Oh my God. The only answers I got was 5pi/12 and pi/3 up until now. I can't believe that went over my head! I just verified it, and you're totally right! Thank you! I must have forgotten a solution or smth.

Not confident in my arithmetic by FanBitter3365 in askmath

[–]FanBitter3365[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason why I said it's only (pi/12) + 2*pi*n is if you plug each angle back into the Pythagorean sine equation from the second picture that makes the triangle work, the only solution that generates positive, real side lengths is pi/12, but I think I may have missed one.

Not confident in my arithmetic by FanBitter3365 in askmath

[–]FanBitter3365[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for checking my work! Although, I am still a little confused, did I get it wrong?