Japanese Temple Problem From 1844












62














I recently learnt a Japanese geometry temple problem.



The problem is the following:



Five squares are arranged as the image shows. Prove that the area of triangle T and the area of square S are equal.





This is problem 6 in this article.
I am thinking about law of cosines, but I have not been able to prove the theorem. Any hints would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    If you like this kind of problems I cannot recommend enough the book "Sacred Mathematics - Japanese Temple Geometry" by Fukagawa Hidetoshi and Tony Rothman. It also includes a couple of "relatives" to this problem.
    – mickep
    Nov 24 at 14:03










  • I checked it out. A great book indeed, thank you.
    – Larry
    Nov 24 at 14:22










  • The shapes $S,T$ share a vertex $A$ where $6$ angles meet, $3$ of them right angles. Thus the other $3$ angles sum to $pi/2$. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles and the right angle between them from $S$ sum to $pi-theta$. As $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$ where $BA,AC$ are sides of the upper squares. The challenge then is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
    – TheSimpliFire
    Nov 24 at 14:24






  • 1




    ^ From J.G.'s answer.
    – TheSimpliFire
    Nov 24 at 14:26
















62














I recently learnt a Japanese geometry temple problem.



The problem is the following:



Five squares are arranged as the image shows. Prove that the area of triangle T and the area of square S are equal.





This is problem 6 in this article.
I am thinking about law of cosines, but I have not been able to prove the theorem. Any hints would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    If you like this kind of problems I cannot recommend enough the book "Sacred Mathematics - Japanese Temple Geometry" by Fukagawa Hidetoshi and Tony Rothman. It also includes a couple of "relatives" to this problem.
    – mickep
    Nov 24 at 14:03










  • I checked it out. A great book indeed, thank you.
    – Larry
    Nov 24 at 14:22










  • The shapes $S,T$ share a vertex $A$ where $6$ angles meet, $3$ of them right angles. Thus the other $3$ angles sum to $pi/2$. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles and the right angle between them from $S$ sum to $pi-theta$. As $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$ where $BA,AC$ are sides of the upper squares. The challenge then is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
    – TheSimpliFire
    Nov 24 at 14:24






  • 1




    ^ From J.G.'s answer.
    – TheSimpliFire
    Nov 24 at 14:26














62












62








62


44





I recently learnt a Japanese geometry temple problem.



The problem is the following:



Five squares are arranged as the image shows. Prove that the area of triangle T and the area of square S are equal.





This is problem 6 in this article.
I am thinking about law of cosines, but I have not been able to prove the theorem. Any hints would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question















I recently learnt a Japanese geometry temple problem.



The problem is the following:



Five squares are arranged as the image shows. Prove that the area of triangle T and the area of square S are equal.





This is problem 6 in this article.
I am thinking about law of cosines, but I have not been able to prove the theorem. Any hints would be appreciated.







geometry sangaku






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 22 at 20:49









Jean-Claude Arbaut

14.7k63464




14.7k63464










asked Nov 22 at 20:40









Larry

1,4642722




1,4642722








  • 2




    If you like this kind of problems I cannot recommend enough the book "Sacred Mathematics - Japanese Temple Geometry" by Fukagawa Hidetoshi and Tony Rothman. It also includes a couple of "relatives" to this problem.
    – mickep
    Nov 24 at 14:03










  • I checked it out. A great book indeed, thank you.
    – Larry
    Nov 24 at 14:22










  • The shapes $S,T$ share a vertex $A$ where $6$ angles meet, $3$ of them right angles. Thus the other $3$ angles sum to $pi/2$. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles and the right angle between them from $S$ sum to $pi-theta$. As $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$ where $BA,AC$ are sides of the upper squares. The challenge then is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
    – TheSimpliFire
    Nov 24 at 14:24






  • 1




    ^ From J.G.'s answer.
    – TheSimpliFire
    Nov 24 at 14:26














  • 2




    If you like this kind of problems I cannot recommend enough the book "Sacred Mathematics - Japanese Temple Geometry" by Fukagawa Hidetoshi and Tony Rothman. It also includes a couple of "relatives" to this problem.
    – mickep
    Nov 24 at 14:03










  • I checked it out. A great book indeed, thank you.
    – Larry
    Nov 24 at 14:22










  • The shapes $S,T$ share a vertex $A$ where $6$ angles meet, $3$ of them right angles. Thus the other $3$ angles sum to $pi/2$. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles and the right angle between them from $S$ sum to $pi-theta$. As $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$ where $BA,AC$ are sides of the upper squares. The challenge then is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
    – TheSimpliFire
    Nov 24 at 14:24






  • 1




    ^ From J.G.'s answer.
    – TheSimpliFire
    Nov 24 at 14:26








2




2




If you like this kind of problems I cannot recommend enough the book "Sacred Mathematics - Japanese Temple Geometry" by Fukagawa Hidetoshi and Tony Rothman. It also includes a couple of "relatives" to this problem.
– mickep
Nov 24 at 14:03




If you like this kind of problems I cannot recommend enough the book "Sacred Mathematics - Japanese Temple Geometry" by Fukagawa Hidetoshi and Tony Rothman. It also includes a couple of "relatives" to this problem.
– mickep
Nov 24 at 14:03












I checked it out. A great book indeed, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 24 at 14:22




I checked it out. A great book indeed, thank you.
– Larry
Nov 24 at 14:22












The shapes $S,T$ share a vertex $A$ where $6$ angles meet, $3$ of them right angles. Thus the other $3$ angles sum to $pi/2$. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles and the right angle between them from $S$ sum to $pi-theta$. As $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$ where $BA,AC$ are sides of the upper squares. The challenge then is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:24




The shapes $S,T$ share a vertex $A$ where $6$ angles meet, $3$ of them right angles. Thus the other $3$ angles sum to $pi/2$. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles and the right angle between them from $S$ sum to $pi-theta$. As $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$ where $BA,AC$ are sides of the upper squares. The challenge then is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:24




1




1




^ From J.G.'s answer.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:26




^ From J.G.'s answer.
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 24 at 14:26










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















42














We will, first of all, prove a very interesting property




$mathbf{Lemma;1}$



Given two squares PQRS and PTUV (as shown on the picture), the triangles $Delta STP$ and $Delta PVQ$ have equal area.




$mathbf {Proof}$



enter image description here



Denote by $alpha$ the angle SPT and by $[...]$ the area of the polygon "...". Hence
$$[Delta STP]=frac{overline {PS}cdotoverline {PT}cdot sin(alpha)}{2}$$ $$[Delta PVQ]=frac{overline {QP}*overline {PV}cdotsinBigl(360°-(90°+90+alpha)Bigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsinBigl(180°-alphaBigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsin(alpha)}{2}$$



Since $overline {PS}=overline {PQ}$ and $overline {PT}=overline {PV}$ $$[Delta STP]=[Delta PVQ]$$



Now, back to the problem



enter image description here
Let $overline {AB}=a$ and $overline {IJ}=b$. Note first of all that $$Delta BEC cong Delta EIF$$
See why? $mathbf {Hint:}$




It is obvious that $overline {CE}=overline {EF}$. Use the properties of right triangles in order to show that all angles are equal.




Thus $${(overline{CE})^2}={a^2}+{b^2}=S$$



Note furthermore that $$[Delta BEC]=[Delta EIF]=frac{ab}{2}$$
By Lemma 1:
$$[Delta DCG]=[Delta BEC]=frac{ab}{2}=[Delta EIF]=[Delta GFK]$$
The area of the polygon AJKGD is thus
$$[AJKGD]=[ABCD]+[CEFG]+[FIJK]+4[Delta DCG]=2Bigl({a^2}+{b^2}Bigr)+2ab$$



The area of the trapezoid AJKD is moreover
$$[AJKD]=frac{(a+b)(2a+2b)}{2}={a^2}+2ab+{b^2}$$



Finally
$$T=[Delta DKG]=[AJKGD]-[AJKD]={a^2}+{b^2}=S Rightarrow S=T$$






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Aloizio Macedo
    Nov 24 at 13:16



















31














enter image description here



$$|square P_1 P_2 P_3 P_4| = (a+b)^2 = frac12(a+b)(2a+2b) = |square Q_1 Q_2 Q_3 Q_4|quad=:R$$




$$S ;=; R - 4cdotfrac12ab ;=; T$$




(This space intentionally left blank.)






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 3




    I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
    – Larry
    Nov 23 at 14:24








  • 5




    @Larry: I use GeoGebra.
    – Blue
    Nov 23 at 19:47






  • 1




    I see, thank you.
    – Larry
    Nov 23 at 19:49






  • 1




    @crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
    – Blue
    Nov 25 at 11:40








  • 1




    @Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
    – crskhr
    Nov 25 at 14:34



















18














Because there are so many squares, coordinates are easy to compute.



enter image description here



The area of the shaded square is clearly $u^2+v^2$.



The area of the shaded triangle is one-half of the absolute value of the determinant of the array



$$left[ begin{array}{c}
1 & 1 & 1 \
2u-v & 3u & 2u \
3u+v & u+3v & u+v
end{array} right]$$



which is also $u^2+v^2$.



I have a second solution.



enter image description here



$triangle GPN$ is obtained by rotating $triangle GSD 90^circ$ clockwise.
$triangle GQM$ is obtained by rotating $triangle GRK 90^circ$ counterclockwise.






share|cite|improve this answer































    12














    The four triangles adjacent to $S$ (two of them right, two of them obtuse) all have the same area. (Each has the same base and height as the one on the opposite side of the square, while the two right triangles are congruent.). Now rotate each of the obtuse triangles by $90^circ$ so that they are adjacent to $T$, as shown.



    enter image description here



    What now needs to be proved is that the two shaded pentagons have equal area. This can be done by observing that each pentagon decomposes into an isosceles right triangle and a trapezoid. The isosceles right triangles are congruent; the trapezoids have equal area as their two bases are the same and their heights are the same.






    share|cite|improve this answer































      11














      While the other solutions are obviously correct, they are also unnecessarily complicated.

      Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles, so* why not pick one which is simple to work with and results in a degenerate case.



      enter image description here



      *) The assumption of truth is not required since we first do show that S=T is, in fact, true (in one simple case) and skirt the rules from there on by leaving the extrapolation to the reader.

      While this approach is best suited for puzzles, looking at the edge cases first is a quick way to disprove things by example, or at least check that your calculations are correct






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 7




        That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
        – Owen
        Nov 23 at 23:19






      • 6




        Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
        – IanF1
        Nov 24 at 8:01






      • 1




        I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
        – user3445853
        Nov 24 at 20:38






      • 2




        If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
        – user3445853
        Nov 24 at 20:40






      • 1




        The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
        – Blue
        Dec 16 at 19:53



















      1














      This is a long comment.



      The shapes $S,,T$ share a vertex $A$ where six angles meet, three of them right angles. The other three angles therefore sum to a right angle. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles, and the right angle between them from $S$, sum to $pi-theta$. Since $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$, where $BA,,AC$ are sides of the upper squares.



      The challenge, then, is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
        – D. Thomine
        Nov 22 at 21:35










      • $BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
        – I like Serena
        Nov 22 at 21:41










      • $BACD$ is not a rhombus.
        – D. Thomine
        Nov 22 at 21:42






      • 2




        @Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
        – J.G.
        Nov 23 at 10:22






      • 1




        I have converted your answer into a comment.
        – TheSimpliFire
        Nov 24 at 14:28











      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009635%2fjapanese-temple-problem-from-1844%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes








      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      42














      We will, first of all, prove a very interesting property




      $mathbf{Lemma;1}$



      Given two squares PQRS and PTUV (as shown on the picture), the triangles $Delta STP$ and $Delta PVQ$ have equal area.




      $mathbf {Proof}$



      enter image description here



      Denote by $alpha$ the angle SPT and by $[...]$ the area of the polygon "...". Hence
      $$[Delta STP]=frac{overline {PS}cdotoverline {PT}cdot sin(alpha)}{2}$$ $$[Delta PVQ]=frac{overline {QP}*overline {PV}cdotsinBigl(360°-(90°+90+alpha)Bigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsinBigl(180°-alphaBigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsin(alpha)}{2}$$



      Since $overline {PS}=overline {PQ}$ and $overline {PT}=overline {PV}$ $$[Delta STP]=[Delta PVQ]$$



      Now, back to the problem



      enter image description here
      Let $overline {AB}=a$ and $overline {IJ}=b$. Note first of all that $$Delta BEC cong Delta EIF$$
      See why? $mathbf {Hint:}$




      It is obvious that $overline {CE}=overline {EF}$. Use the properties of right triangles in order to show that all angles are equal.




      Thus $${(overline{CE})^2}={a^2}+{b^2}=S$$



      Note furthermore that $$[Delta BEC]=[Delta EIF]=frac{ab}{2}$$
      By Lemma 1:
      $$[Delta DCG]=[Delta BEC]=frac{ab}{2}=[Delta EIF]=[Delta GFK]$$
      The area of the polygon AJKGD is thus
      $$[AJKGD]=[ABCD]+[CEFG]+[FIJK]+4[Delta DCG]=2Bigl({a^2}+{b^2}Bigr)+2ab$$



      The area of the trapezoid AJKD is moreover
      $$[AJKD]=frac{(a+b)(2a+2b)}{2}={a^2}+2ab+{b^2}$$



      Finally
      $$T=[Delta DKG]=[AJKGD]-[AJKD]={a^2}+{b^2}=S Rightarrow S=T$$






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
        – Aloizio Macedo
        Nov 24 at 13:16
















      42














      We will, first of all, prove a very interesting property




      $mathbf{Lemma;1}$



      Given two squares PQRS and PTUV (as shown on the picture), the triangles $Delta STP$ and $Delta PVQ$ have equal area.




      $mathbf {Proof}$



      enter image description here



      Denote by $alpha$ the angle SPT and by $[...]$ the area of the polygon "...". Hence
      $$[Delta STP]=frac{overline {PS}cdotoverline {PT}cdot sin(alpha)}{2}$$ $$[Delta PVQ]=frac{overline {QP}*overline {PV}cdotsinBigl(360°-(90°+90+alpha)Bigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsinBigl(180°-alphaBigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsin(alpha)}{2}$$



      Since $overline {PS}=overline {PQ}$ and $overline {PT}=overline {PV}$ $$[Delta STP]=[Delta PVQ]$$



      Now, back to the problem



      enter image description here
      Let $overline {AB}=a$ and $overline {IJ}=b$. Note first of all that $$Delta BEC cong Delta EIF$$
      See why? $mathbf {Hint:}$




      It is obvious that $overline {CE}=overline {EF}$. Use the properties of right triangles in order to show that all angles are equal.




      Thus $${(overline{CE})^2}={a^2}+{b^2}=S$$



      Note furthermore that $$[Delta BEC]=[Delta EIF]=frac{ab}{2}$$
      By Lemma 1:
      $$[Delta DCG]=[Delta BEC]=frac{ab}{2}=[Delta EIF]=[Delta GFK]$$
      The area of the polygon AJKGD is thus
      $$[AJKGD]=[ABCD]+[CEFG]+[FIJK]+4[Delta DCG]=2Bigl({a^2}+{b^2}Bigr)+2ab$$



      The area of the trapezoid AJKD is moreover
      $$[AJKD]=frac{(a+b)(2a+2b)}{2}={a^2}+2ab+{b^2}$$



      Finally
      $$T=[Delta DKG]=[AJKGD]-[AJKD]={a^2}+{b^2}=S Rightarrow S=T$$






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
        – Aloizio Macedo
        Nov 24 at 13:16














      42












      42








      42






      We will, first of all, prove a very interesting property




      $mathbf{Lemma;1}$



      Given two squares PQRS and PTUV (as shown on the picture), the triangles $Delta STP$ and $Delta PVQ$ have equal area.




      $mathbf {Proof}$



      enter image description here



      Denote by $alpha$ the angle SPT and by $[...]$ the area of the polygon "...". Hence
      $$[Delta STP]=frac{overline {PS}cdotoverline {PT}cdot sin(alpha)}{2}$$ $$[Delta PVQ]=frac{overline {QP}*overline {PV}cdotsinBigl(360°-(90°+90+alpha)Bigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsinBigl(180°-alphaBigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsin(alpha)}{2}$$



      Since $overline {PS}=overline {PQ}$ and $overline {PT}=overline {PV}$ $$[Delta STP]=[Delta PVQ]$$



      Now, back to the problem



      enter image description here
      Let $overline {AB}=a$ and $overline {IJ}=b$. Note first of all that $$Delta BEC cong Delta EIF$$
      See why? $mathbf {Hint:}$




      It is obvious that $overline {CE}=overline {EF}$. Use the properties of right triangles in order to show that all angles are equal.




      Thus $${(overline{CE})^2}={a^2}+{b^2}=S$$



      Note furthermore that $$[Delta BEC]=[Delta EIF]=frac{ab}{2}$$
      By Lemma 1:
      $$[Delta DCG]=[Delta BEC]=frac{ab}{2}=[Delta EIF]=[Delta GFK]$$
      The area of the polygon AJKGD is thus
      $$[AJKGD]=[ABCD]+[CEFG]+[FIJK]+4[Delta DCG]=2Bigl({a^2}+{b^2}Bigr)+2ab$$



      The area of the trapezoid AJKD is moreover
      $$[AJKD]=frac{(a+b)(2a+2b)}{2}={a^2}+2ab+{b^2}$$



      Finally
      $$T=[Delta DKG]=[AJKGD]-[AJKD]={a^2}+{b^2}=S Rightarrow S=T$$






      share|cite|improve this answer














      We will, first of all, prove a very interesting property




      $mathbf{Lemma;1}$



      Given two squares PQRS and PTUV (as shown on the picture), the triangles $Delta STP$ and $Delta PVQ$ have equal area.




      $mathbf {Proof}$



      enter image description here



      Denote by $alpha$ the angle SPT and by $[...]$ the area of the polygon "...". Hence
      $$[Delta STP]=frac{overline {PS}cdotoverline {PT}cdot sin(alpha)}{2}$$ $$[Delta PVQ]=frac{overline {QP}*overline {PV}cdotsinBigl(360°-(90°+90+alpha)Bigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsinBigl(180°-alphaBigr)}{2}=frac{overline {QP}cdotoverline {PV}cdotsin(alpha)}{2}$$



      Since $overline {PS}=overline {PQ}$ and $overline {PT}=overline {PV}$ $$[Delta STP]=[Delta PVQ]$$



      Now, back to the problem



      enter image description here
      Let $overline {AB}=a$ and $overline {IJ}=b$. Note first of all that $$Delta BEC cong Delta EIF$$
      See why? $mathbf {Hint:}$




      It is obvious that $overline {CE}=overline {EF}$. Use the properties of right triangles in order to show that all angles are equal.




      Thus $${(overline{CE})^2}={a^2}+{b^2}=S$$



      Note furthermore that $$[Delta BEC]=[Delta EIF]=frac{ab}{2}$$
      By Lemma 1:
      $$[Delta DCG]=[Delta BEC]=frac{ab}{2}=[Delta EIF]=[Delta GFK]$$
      The area of the polygon AJKGD is thus
      $$[AJKGD]=[ABCD]+[CEFG]+[FIJK]+4[Delta DCG]=2Bigl({a^2}+{b^2}Bigr)+2ab$$



      The area of the trapezoid AJKD is moreover
      $$[AJKD]=frac{(a+b)(2a+2b)}{2}={a^2}+2ab+{b^2}$$



      Finally
      $$T=[Delta DKG]=[AJKGD]-[AJKD]={a^2}+{b^2}=S Rightarrow S=T$$







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Nov 23 at 7:43









      Mutantoe

      560411




      560411










      answered Nov 22 at 21:39









      Dr. Mathva

      929315




      929315












      • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
        – Aloizio Macedo
        Nov 24 at 13:16


















      • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
        – Aloizio Macedo
        Nov 24 at 13:16
















      Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Aloizio Macedo
      Nov 24 at 13:16




      Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Aloizio Macedo
      Nov 24 at 13:16











      31














      enter image description here



      $$|square P_1 P_2 P_3 P_4| = (a+b)^2 = frac12(a+b)(2a+2b) = |square Q_1 Q_2 Q_3 Q_4|quad=:R$$




      $$S ;=; R - 4cdotfrac12ab ;=; T$$




      (This space intentionally left blank.)






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 3




        I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
        – Larry
        Nov 23 at 14:24








      • 5




        @Larry: I use GeoGebra.
        – Blue
        Nov 23 at 19:47






      • 1




        I see, thank you.
        – Larry
        Nov 23 at 19:49






      • 1




        @crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
        – Blue
        Nov 25 at 11:40








      • 1




        @Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
        – crskhr
        Nov 25 at 14:34
















      31














      enter image description here



      $$|square P_1 P_2 P_3 P_4| = (a+b)^2 = frac12(a+b)(2a+2b) = |square Q_1 Q_2 Q_3 Q_4|quad=:R$$




      $$S ;=; R - 4cdotfrac12ab ;=; T$$




      (This space intentionally left blank.)






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 3




        I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
        – Larry
        Nov 23 at 14:24








      • 5




        @Larry: I use GeoGebra.
        – Blue
        Nov 23 at 19:47






      • 1




        I see, thank you.
        – Larry
        Nov 23 at 19:49






      • 1




        @crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
        – Blue
        Nov 25 at 11:40








      • 1




        @Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
        – crskhr
        Nov 25 at 14:34














      31












      31








      31






      enter image description here



      $$|square P_1 P_2 P_3 P_4| = (a+b)^2 = frac12(a+b)(2a+2b) = |square Q_1 Q_2 Q_3 Q_4|quad=:R$$




      $$S ;=; R - 4cdotfrac12ab ;=; T$$




      (This space intentionally left blank.)






      share|cite|improve this answer














      enter image description here



      $$|square P_1 P_2 P_3 P_4| = (a+b)^2 = frac12(a+b)(2a+2b) = |square Q_1 Q_2 Q_3 Q_4|quad=:R$$




      $$S ;=; R - 4cdotfrac12ab ;=; T$$




      (This space intentionally left blank.)







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Nov 23 at 6:02

























      answered Nov 23 at 3:39









      Blue

      47.5k870150




      47.5k870150








      • 3




        I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
        – Larry
        Nov 23 at 14:24








      • 5




        @Larry: I use GeoGebra.
        – Blue
        Nov 23 at 19:47






      • 1




        I see, thank you.
        – Larry
        Nov 23 at 19:49






      • 1




        @crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
        – Blue
        Nov 25 at 11:40








      • 1




        @Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
        – crskhr
        Nov 25 at 14:34














      • 3




        I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
        – Larry
        Nov 23 at 14:24








      • 5




        @Larry: I use GeoGebra.
        – Blue
        Nov 23 at 19:47






      • 1




        I see, thank you.
        – Larry
        Nov 23 at 19:49






      • 1




        @crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
        – Blue
        Nov 25 at 11:40








      • 1




        @Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
        – crskhr
        Nov 25 at 14:34








      3




      3




      I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
      – Larry
      Nov 23 at 14:24






      I wonder what tools you use to create awesome graphs like this
      – Larry
      Nov 23 at 14:24






      5




      5




      @Larry: I use GeoGebra.
      – Blue
      Nov 23 at 19:47




      @Larry: I use GeoGebra.
      – Blue
      Nov 23 at 19:47




      1




      1




      I see, thank you.
      – Larry
      Nov 23 at 19:49




      I see, thank you.
      – Larry
      Nov 23 at 19:49




      1




      1




      @crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
      – Blue
      Nov 25 at 11:40






      @crskhr: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths labeled at the bottom of the figure; they match the sides of the bottom squares. And "$square$" in this context means merely "quadrilateral" of any shape, despite the symbol itself being more structured; compare this to "$triangle$" (in, say, "$triangle ABC$"), which means "triangle" of any shape, despite the symbol itself resembling an equilateral figure. (See, for instance, Wikipedia's entry for mathematical symbols.)
      – Blue
      Nov 25 at 11:40






      1




      1




      @Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
      – crskhr
      Nov 25 at 14:34




      @Blue Thanks a lot for clarifying :)
      – crskhr
      Nov 25 at 14:34











      18














      Because there are so many squares, coordinates are easy to compute.



      enter image description here



      The area of the shaded square is clearly $u^2+v^2$.



      The area of the shaded triangle is one-half of the absolute value of the determinant of the array



      $$left[ begin{array}{c}
      1 & 1 & 1 \
      2u-v & 3u & 2u \
      3u+v & u+3v & u+v
      end{array} right]$$



      which is also $u^2+v^2$.



      I have a second solution.



      enter image description here



      $triangle GPN$ is obtained by rotating $triangle GSD 90^circ$ clockwise.
      $triangle GQM$ is obtained by rotating $triangle GRK 90^circ$ counterclockwise.






      share|cite|improve this answer




























        18














        Because there are so many squares, coordinates are easy to compute.



        enter image description here



        The area of the shaded square is clearly $u^2+v^2$.



        The area of the shaded triangle is one-half of the absolute value of the determinant of the array



        $$left[ begin{array}{c}
        1 & 1 & 1 \
        2u-v & 3u & 2u \
        3u+v & u+3v & u+v
        end{array} right]$$



        which is also $u^2+v^2$.



        I have a second solution.



        enter image description here



        $triangle GPN$ is obtained by rotating $triangle GSD 90^circ$ clockwise.
        $triangle GQM$ is obtained by rotating $triangle GRK 90^circ$ counterclockwise.






        share|cite|improve this answer


























          18












          18








          18






          Because there are so many squares, coordinates are easy to compute.



          enter image description here



          The area of the shaded square is clearly $u^2+v^2$.



          The area of the shaded triangle is one-half of the absolute value of the determinant of the array



          $$left[ begin{array}{c}
          1 & 1 & 1 \
          2u-v & 3u & 2u \
          3u+v & u+3v & u+v
          end{array} right]$$



          which is also $u^2+v^2$.



          I have a second solution.



          enter image description here



          $triangle GPN$ is obtained by rotating $triangle GSD 90^circ$ clockwise.
          $triangle GQM$ is obtained by rotating $triangle GRK 90^circ$ counterclockwise.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Because there are so many squares, coordinates are easy to compute.



          enter image description here



          The area of the shaded square is clearly $u^2+v^2$.



          The area of the shaded triangle is one-half of the absolute value of the determinant of the array



          $$left[ begin{array}{c}
          1 & 1 & 1 \
          2u-v & 3u & 2u \
          3u+v & u+3v & u+v
          end{array} right]$$



          which is also $u^2+v^2$.



          I have a second solution.



          enter image description here



          $triangle GPN$ is obtained by rotating $triangle GSD 90^circ$ clockwise.
          $triangle GQM$ is obtained by rotating $triangle GRK 90^circ$ counterclockwise.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 19 at 4:21

























          answered Nov 23 at 14:50









          steven gregory

          17.7k32257




          17.7k32257























              12














              The four triangles adjacent to $S$ (two of them right, two of them obtuse) all have the same area. (Each has the same base and height as the one on the opposite side of the square, while the two right triangles are congruent.). Now rotate each of the obtuse triangles by $90^circ$ so that they are adjacent to $T$, as shown.



              enter image description here



              What now needs to be proved is that the two shaded pentagons have equal area. This can be done by observing that each pentagon decomposes into an isosceles right triangle and a trapezoid. The isosceles right triangles are congruent; the trapezoids have equal area as their two bases are the same and their heights are the same.






              share|cite|improve this answer




























                12














                The four triangles adjacent to $S$ (two of them right, two of them obtuse) all have the same area. (Each has the same base and height as the one on the opposite side of the square, while the two right triangles are congruent.). Now rotate each of the obtuse triangles by $90^circ$ so that they are adjacent to $T$, as shown.



                enter image description here



                What now needs to be proved is that the two shaded pentagons have equal area. This can be done by observing that each pentagon decomposes into an isosceles right triangle and a trapezoid. The isosceles right triangles are congruent; the trapezoids have equal area as their two bases are the same and their heights are the same.






                share|cite|improve this answer


























                  12












                  12








                  12






                  The four triangles adjacent to $S$ (two of them right, two of them obtuse) all have the same area. (Each has the same base and height as the one on the opposite side of the square, while the two right triangles are congruent.). Now rotate each of the obtuse triangles by $90^circ$ so that they are adjacent to $T$, as shown.



                  enter image description here



                  What now needs to be proved is that the two shaded pentagons have equal area. This can be done by observing that each pentagon decomposes into an isosceles right triangle and a trapezoid. The isosceles right triangles are congruent; the trapezoids have equal area as their two bases are the same and their heights are the same.






                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  The four triangles adjacent to $S$ (two of them right, two of them obtuse) all have the same area. (Each has the same base and height as the one on the opposite side of the square, while the two right triangles are congruent.). Now rotate each of the obtuse triangles by $90^circ$ so that they are adjacent to $T$, as shown.



                  enter image description here



                  What now needs to be proved is that the two shaded pentagons have equal area. This can be done by observing that each pentagon decomposes into an isosceles right triangle and a trapezoid. The isosceles right triangles are congruent; the trapezoids have equal area as their two bases are the same and their heights are the same.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Nov 24 at 15:01

























                  answered Nov 24 at 9:25









                  Will Orrick

                  13.5k13359




                  13.5k13359























                      11














                      While the other solutions are obviously correct, they are also unnecessarily complicated.

                      Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles, so* why not pick one which is simple to work with and results in a degenerate case.



                      enter image description here



                      *) The assumption of truth is not required since we first do show that S=T is, in fact, true (in one simple case) and skirt the rules from there on by leaving the extrapolation to the reader.

                      While this approach is best suited for puzzles, looking at the edge cases first is a quick way to disprove things by example, or at least check that your calculations are correct






                      share|cite|improve this answer



















                      • 7




                        That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
                        – Owen
                        Nov 23 at 23:19






                      • 6




                        Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
                        – IanF1
                        Nov 24 at 8:01






                      • 1




                        I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
                        – user3445853
                        Nov 24 at 20:38






                      • 2




                        If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
                        – user3445853
                        Nov 24 at 20:40






                      • 1




                        The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
                        – Blue
                        Dec 16 at 19:53
















                      11














                      While the other solutions are obviously correct, they are also unnecessarily complicated.

                      Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles, so* why not pick one which is simple to work with and results in a degenerate case.



                      enter image description here



                      *) The assumption of truth is not required since we first do show that S=T is, in fact, true (in one simple case) and skirt the rules from there on by leaving the extrapolation to the reader.

                      While this approach is best suited for puzzles, looking at the edge cases first is a quick way to disprove things by example, or at least check that your calculations are correct






                      share|cite|improve this answer



















                      • 7




                        That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
                        – Owen
                        Nov 23 at 23:19






                      • 6




                        Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
                        – IanF1
                        Nov 24 at 8:01






                      • 1




                        I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
                        – user3445853
                        Nov 24 at 20:38






                      • 2




                        If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
                        – user3445853
                        Nov 24 at 20:40






                      • 1




                        The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
                        – Blue
                        Dec 16 at 19:53














                      11












                      11








                      11






                      While the other solutions are obviously correct, they are also unnecessarily complicated.

                      Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles, so* why not pick one which is simple to work with and results in a degenerate case.



                      enter image description here



                      *) The assumption of truth is not required since we first do show that S=T is, in fact, true (in one simple case) and skirt the rules from there on by leaving the extrapolation to the reader.

                      While this approach is best suited for puzzles, looking at the edge cases first is a quick way to disprove things by example, or at least check that your calculations are correct






                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      While the other solutions are obviously correct, they are also unnecessarily complicated.

                      Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles, so* why not pick one which is simple to work with and results in a degenerate case.



                      enter image description here



                      *) The assumption of truth is not required since we first do show that S=T is, in fact, true (in one simple case) and skirt the rules from there on by leaving the extrapolation to the reader.

                      While this approach is best suited for puzzles, looking at the edge cases first is a quick way to disprove things by example, or at least check that your calculations are correct







                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      edited Nov 24 at 9:49

























                      answered Nov 23 at 19:06









                      DenDenDo

                      58948




                      58948








                      • 7




                        That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
                        – Owen
                        Nov 23 at 23:19






                      • 6




                        Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
                        – IanF1
                        Nov 24 at 8:01






                      • 1




                        I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
                        – user3445853
                        Nov 24 at 20:38






                      • 2




                        If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
                        – user3445853
                        Nov 24 at 20:40






                      • 1




                        The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
                        – Blue
                        Dec 16 at 19:53














                      • 7




                        That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
                        – Owen
                        Nov 23 at 23:19






                      • 6




                        Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
                        – IanF1
                        Nov 24 at 8:01






                      • 1




                        I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
                        – user3445853
                        Nov 24 at 20:38






                      • 2




                        If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
                        – user3445853
                        Nov 24 at 20:40






                      • 1




                        The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
                        – Blue
                        Dec 16 at 19:53








                      7




                      7




                      That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
                      – Owen
                      Nov 23 at 23:19




                      That's a beautiful drawing, but I'm not sure if "Since the angle of the squares is not specified, it must be true for all angles" is logically sound here. It seems to be assuming the truth of the answer.
                      – Owen
                      Nov 23 at 23:19




                      6




                      6




                      Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
                      – IanF1
                      Nov 24 at 8:01




                      Tongue in cheek: Isn't this almost equivalent to "P is true because the question asks me to prove it"?
                      – IanF1
                      Nov 24 at 8:01




                      1




                      1




                      I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
                      – user3445853
                      Nov 24 at 20:38




                      I'm a bit puzzled why an off-topic aside ("testing degenerate cases is useful" and "regularly check your tire pressure" are equally relevant remarks to the posed problem) with a drawing and nothing else gets so many upvotes. "To disprove by example" is useless here, as we already know it's true; that's the puzzle: show it. This differs from the other proofs NOT by removing unneccessary complications but by removing the PROOF part; without a hint of a path to a proof, or any insight? Very weird.
                      – user3445853
                      Nov 24 at 20:38




                      2




                      2




                      If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
                      – user3445853
                      Nov 24 at 20:40




                      If the absurdity of this isn't clear enough: Continue the logic and let the surface of the yellow square go to zero. Now both triangles are equal sized (as both are zero). So then drawing a seagreen square on its own is someway somehow corroboration that the original question is true, and the "extrapolation" of the method of proof is left to the reader?! Neat. I don't know why I ever worked for math.
                      – user3445853
                      Nov 24 at 20:40




                      1




                      1




                      The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
                      – Blue
                      Dec 16 at 19:53




                      The value of this view is in showing that, if there is a constant difference between the areas of the triangle and square, then that difference is zero. (Or, if there's a constant ratio, then the ratio is one; etc.) So, had the task been to find that constant difference (or ratio, or whatever), then consulting a particularly-convenient configuration would've made for a proper solution. In any case, this serves as a sanity check on the problem.
                      – Blue
                      Dec 16 at 19:53











                      1














                      This is a long comment.



                      The shapes $S,,T$ share a vertex $A$ where six angles meet, three of them right angles. The other three angles therefore sum to a right angle. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles, and the right angle between them from $S$, sum to $pi-theta$. Since $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$, where $BA,,AC$ are sides of the upper squares.



                      The challenge, then, is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer





















                      • I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
                        – D. Thomine
                        Nov 22 at 21:35










                      • $BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
                        – I like Serena
                        Nov 22 at 21:41










                      • $BACD$ is not a rhombus.
                        – D. Thomine
                        Nov 22 at 21:42






                      • 2




                        @Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
                        – J.G.
                        Nov 23 at 10:22






                      • 1




                        I have converted your answer into a comment.
                        – TheSimpliFire
                        Nov 24 at 14:28
















                      1














                      This is a long comment.



                      The shapes $S,,T$ share a vertex $A$ where six angles meet, three of them right angles. The other three angles therefore sum to a right angle. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles, and the right angle between them from $S$, sum to $pi-theta$. Since $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$, where $BA,,AC$ are sides of the upper squares.



                      The challenge, then, is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer





















                      • I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
                        – D. Thomine
                        Nov 22 at 21:35










                      • $BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
                        – I like Serena
                        Nov 22 at 21:41










                      • $BACD$ is not a rhombus.
                        – D. Thomine
                        Nov 22 at 21:42






                      • 2




                        @Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
                        – J.G.
                        Nov 23 at 10:22






                      • 1




                        I have converted your answer into a comment.
                        – TheSimpliFire
                        Nov 24 at 14:28














                      1












                      1








                      1






                      This is a long comment.



                      The shapes $S,,T$ share a vertex $A$ where six angles meet, three of them right angles. The other three angles therefore sum to a right angle. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles, and the right angle between them from $S$, sum to $pi-theta$. Since $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$, where $BA,,AC$ are sides of the upper squares.



                      The challenge, then, is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      This is a long comment.



                      The shapes $S,,T$ share a vertex $A$ where six angles meet, three of them right angles. The other three angles therefore sum to a right angle. Let $theta$ be the angle in $T$, so the two other acute angles, and the right angle between them from $S$, sum to $pi-theta$. Since $sintheta=sin(pi-theta)$, $T$ has the same area as $triangle ABC$, where $BA,,AC$ are sides of the upper squares.



                      The challenge, then, is to show $S$ has that much area too. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $S$ opposite $A$. I suspect we can show the quadrilateral $BACD$ has twice the area of $S$, and also twice the area of $triangle ABC$.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Nov 22 at 21:11









                      J.G.

                      21.9k22034




                      21.9k22034












                      • I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
                        – D. Thomine
                        Nov 22 at 21:35










                      • $BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
                        – I like Serena
                        Nov 22 at 21:41










                      • $BACD$ is not a rhombus.
                        – D. Thomine
                        Nov 22 at 21:42






                      • 2




                        @Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
                        – J.G.
                        Nov 23 at 10:22






                      • 1




                        I have converted your answer into a comment.
                        – TheSimpliFire
                        Nov 24 at 14:28


















                      • I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
                        – D. Thomine
                        Nov 22 at 21:35










                      • $BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
                        – I like Serena
                        Nov 22 at 21:41










                      • $BACD$ is not a rhombus.
                        – D. Thomine
                        Nov 22 at 21:42






                      • 2




                        @Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
                        – J.G.
                        Nov 23 at 10:22






                      • 1




                        I have converted your answer into a comment.
                        – TheSimpliFire
                        Nov 24 at 14:28
















                      I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
                      – D. Thomine
                      Nov 22 at 21:35




                      I don't think that $BACD$ has twice the area of $ABC$. If you try to move $ABC$ by shearing to get a triangle with side $BC$ and something on the bottom line, the third point isn't $D$.
                      – D. Thomine
                      Nov 22 at 21:35












                      $BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
                      – I like Serena
                      Nov 22 at 21:41




                      $BACD$ is a rhombus because its opposite sides are parallel. So it does have twice the area of $ABC$.
                      – I like Serena
                      Nov 22 at 21:41












                      $BACD$ is not a rhombus.
                      – D. Thomine
                      Nov 22 at 21:42




                      $BACD$ is not a rhombus.
                      – D. Thomine
                      Nov 22 at 21:42




                      2




                      2




                      @Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
                      – J.G.
                      Nov 23 at 10:22




                      @Servaes It's too long. "Long comment" is something people often say when their contribution has to be an "answer" because of software limitations, but is far from a complete answer.
                      – J.G.
                      Nov 23 at 10:22




                      1




                      1




                      I have converted your answer into a comment.
                      – TheSimpliFire
                      Nov 24 at 14:28




                      I have converted your answer into a comment.
                      – TheSimpliFire
                      Nov 24 at 14:28


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009635%2fjapanese-temple-problem-from-1844%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Plaza Victoria

                      In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

                      How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...