1967 IMO Problems/Problem 1
Let be a parallelogram with side lengths
,
, and with
.
If
is acute, prove that the four circles of radius
with centers
,
,
,
cover the parallelogram if and only if
Solution
To start our proof we draw a parallelogram with the requested sides. We notice that by drawing the circles with centers A, B, C, D that the length of must not exceed 2 (the radius for each circle) or the circles will not meet and thus not cover the parallelogram.
To prove our conjecture we draw a parallelogram with and draw a segment
so that
This is the parallelogram which we claim has the maximum length on and the highest value on any one angle.
We now have two triangles inside a parallelogram with lengths and
,
being segment
.
Using the Pythagorean theorem we conclude:
Using trigonometric functions we can compute:
Notice that by applying the and
functions, we can conclude that our angle
To conclude our proof we make sure that our values match the required values for maximum length of
Notice that as decreases, the value of (1) increases beyond 2. We can prove this using the law of sines. Similarly as
increases, the value of (1) decreases below 2, confirming that (1) is only implied when
is acute.
--Bjarnidk 02:16, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
Remarks (added by pf02, September 2024)
. I am sorry to be so harshly critical, but the
solution above is deeply flawed. Not only it has errors, but the
logic is flawed.
It shows that when the parallelogram
is covered by the circles of radius
centered at
, and
the inequality in the problem is true. (Even this is incomplete, while
giving too many, unnecessary details.) (Note that this is not a case
which satisfies the conditions of the problem since
is
right, not acute.)
In the last two lines it gives some reasoning about other values of
which is incomprehensible to this reader.
In one short sentence: this is not a solution.
. The problem itself is mildly flawed. To see this,
denote
the following two statements:
S1: The parallelogram is covered by the four circles of radius
centered at
.
S2: We have .
The problem says that if is acute,
and
are
equivalent, i.e. they imply each other.
Notice that can be rewritten as
.
Now notice that if then S1 is obviously true. See
the picture below, in Solution 2.
Also, notice that if and
then
as true. Indeed
, so
is
on this interval, so the right hand side
of
is
.
We see that if and
is acute, both
and
are true. We can not say that one implies the other in
the usual meaning of the word "imply": the two statements just
happen to be both true.
If we take then the problem is a genuine problem, and
there is something to prove.
. In the proofs I give below, we will see
where we need that
is acute. We will see that
is needed for the technicalities of
the proof. The fact that
is acute will be needed
at one crucial point in the proof.
In fact, it is possible to modify to a statement
similar to
so that
and
are equivalent without
any assumption on
. I will not go into this, I will
just give a hint: Denote
. If
is acute,
is obtuse, and we can easily reformulate
in terms of
.
. Below, I will give two solutions.
Solution 2 is one I carried out myself and relies on a
straightforward computation. Solution 3 is inspired by
an idea by feliz shown on the web page
https://artofproblemsolving.com/community/c6h21154p137323
The author calls it a solution, but it is quite confused,
so I would not call it a good solution. The idea though
is good and nice, and it yields a nice solution.
Solution 2
We can assume . Indeed, refer to Remark 2 above to
see that in this case there is nothing to prove.
Note that instead of the statement we can consider the
following statement
:
: the circles of radius
centered at
cover
.
This is equivalent to because of the symmetry between
and
.
Let be the intersection above
of the circles of radius
centered at
. The three circles cover
if an only if
is inside the circle of radius 1 centered at
, i.e. if an only if
.
The plan is to calculate in terms of
and impose
this condition. Let
,
and
. From the right triangle
we
have
. From the right triangle
we have
(Note that here we used the fact that is acute. These
equalities would look slightly differently otherwise.)
Now look at the condition , or equivalently
.
Making all the computations and simplifications, we have
.
Now I would like to square both sides. In order to get an
equivalent inequality, we need to know that .
This follows from the fact that
is acute. Indeed,
denote
. From the law of sines in
we have
. Compute and
simplify, and get
TO BE CONTINUED. I AM SAVING MID WAY SO AS NOT TO LOSE WORK DONE SO FAR.
A solution can also be found here [1]
See Also
1967 IMO (Problems) • Resources | ||
Preceded by First question |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | Followed by Problem 2 |
All IMO Problems and Solutions |