Difference between revisions of "1966 IMO Problems/Problem 2"
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
From <math>\alpha < \beta</math> it follows that <math>a < b</math>. So, | From <math>\alpha < \beta</math> it follows that <math>a < b</math>. So, | ||
+ | |||
+ | <math>b \tan \beta = (a + b) \tan \frac{\alpha + \beta}{2} - a \tan \alpha > | ||
+ | 2a \tan \frac{\alpha + \beta}{2} - a \tan \alpha \ge | ||
+ | a (2 \tan \left( \frac{\alpha}{2} + \frac{\pi}{4} \right) - \tan \alpha) =</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <math>2a \left( \frac{\tan \frac{\alpha}{2} + 1}{1 - \tan \frac{\alpha}{2}} - | ||
+ | \frac{\tan \frac{\alpha}{2}}{1 - \tan^2 \frac{\alpha}{2}} \right) = | ||
+ | 2a \cdot \frac{\tan^2 \frac{\alpha}{2} + \tan \frac{\alpha}{2} + 1} | ||
+ | {1 - \tan^2 \frac{\alpha}{2}} > 0</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | because the numerator is <math>> 0</math> and the denominator is also <math>> 0</math> | ||
+ | (because <math>\alpha < \frac{\pi}{2}</math> so <math>\tan \frac{\alpha}{2} < 1</math>). | ||
+ | |||
+ | It follows that <math>\tan \beta > 0</math>, so it can not be that | ||
+ | <math>\beta \ge \frac{\pi}{2}</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Now, we will prove that | ||
+ | <math>(a + b) \tan \frac{\alpha + \beta}{2} = a \tan \alpha + b \tan \beta</math> | ||
+ | implies <math>\alpha = \beta</math>. | ||
+ | |||
Revision as of 00:36, 29 September 2024
Let , , and be the lengths of the sides of a triangle, and respectively, the angles opposite these sides. Prove that if
the triangle is isosceles.
Solution
We'll prove that the triangle is isosceles with . We'll prove that . Assume by way of contradiction WLOG that . First notice that as then and the identity our equation becomes: Using the identity and inserting this into the above equation we get: Now, since and the definitions of being part of the definition of a triangle, . Now, (as and the angles are positive), , and furthermore, . By all the above, Which contradicts our assumption, thus . By the symmetry of the condition, using the same arguments, . Hence .
Solution 2
First, we'll prove that both and are acute. At least one of them has to be acute because these are angles of a triangle. We can assume that is acute. We want to show that is acute as well. For a proof by contradiction, assume .
From the hypothesis, it follows that .
From it follows that . So,
because the numerator is and the denominator is also (because so ).
It follows that , so it can not be that .
Now, we will prove that implies .
(Solution by pf02, September 2024)
TO BE CONTINUED. SAVING MID WAY SO I DON'T LOOSE WORK DONE SO FAR.
See Also
1966 IMO (Problems) • Resources | ||
Preceded by Problem 1 |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | Followed by Problem 3 |
All IMO Problems and Solutions |