Difference between revisions of "1966 IMO Problems/Problem 2"
m |
m |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ==Problem== | ||
+ | |||
Let <math>a</math>, <math>b</math>, and <math>c</math> be the lengths of the sides of a triangle, and <math> \alpha,\beta,\gamma </math> respectively, the angles opposite these sides. Prove that if | Let <math>a</math>, <math>b</math>, and <math>c</math> be the lengths of the sides of a triangle, and <math> \alpha,\beta,\gamma </math> respectively, the angles opposite these sides. Prove that if | ||
Line 97: | Line 99: | ||
<math>\cos \frac{\alpha - \beta}{2} = 1</math>, i.e. <math>\alpha = \beta</math>. | <math>\cos \frac{\alpha - \beta}{2} = 1</math>, i.e. <math>\alpha = \beta</math>. | ||
− | + | [Solution by pf02, September 2024] | |
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
{{IMO box|year=1966|num-b=1|num-a=3}} | {{IMO box|year=1966|num-b=1|num-a=3}} |
Latest revision as of 20:17, 10 November 2024
Contents
[hide]Problem
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 (because
for any real
), and the denominator is also
(because
,
so
).
It follows that , so it can not be that
.
Now, we will prove that
implies
.
Replace and
(in fact, we don't care that
is the radius of the circumscribed
circle), and simplify by
. We get
.
This becomes
We will show that the function is convex on
the interval
. Indeed, the first
derivative is
, and the
second derivative is
.
We have on
since the
numerator is
(because
for any real
), and
the denominator is
on the interval
. It follows that
is convex on the interval
.
Using the convexity we have
. In
our case, we have
.
We can simplify by
because it is positive (because both
are acute!),
and we get
. This is possible only when
, i.e.
.
[Solution by pf02, September 2024]
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 |