Difference between revisions of "1966 IMO Problems/Problem 2"
m |
|||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
{1 - \tan^2 \frac{\alpha}{2}} > 0</math> | {1 - \tan^2 \frac{\alpha}{2}} > 0</math> | ||
− | because the numerator is <math>> 0</math> (because <math> | + | because the numerator is <math>> 0</math> (because <math>Y^2 + Y + 1 > 0</math> for any real |
− | denominator is also <math>> 0</math> (because <math>\alpha < \frac{\pi}{2}</math> so | + | <math>Y</math>), and the denominator is also <math>> 0</math> (because <math>\alpha < \frac{\pi}{2}</math>, |
− | <math>\tan \frac{\alpha}{2} < \tan \frac{\pi}{4} = 1</math>). | + | so <math>\tan \frac{\alpha}{2} < \tan \frac{\pi}{4} = 1</math>). |
It follows that <math>\tan \beta > 0</math>, so it can not be that | It follows that <math>\tan \beta > 0</math>, so it can not be that | ||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
We have <math>f''(x) > 0</math> on <math> \left( 0, \frac{\pi}{2} \right)</math> since the | We have <math>f''(x) > 0</math> on <math> \left( 0, \frac{\pi}{2} \right)</math> since the | ||
− | numerator is <math>> 0</math> because <math>Y^2 - Y + 1 >0</math>, and the denominator is | + | numerator is <math>> 0</math> (because <math>Y^2 - Y + 1 > 0</math> for any real <math>Y</math>), and |
− | <math>> 0</math> on the interval <math> \left( 0, \frac{\pi}{2} \right)</math>. It follows | + | the denominator is <math>> 0</math> on the interval |
− | that <math>f(x) = \tan x \sin x</math> is convex on the interval | + | <math> \left( 0, \frac{\pi}{2} \right)</math>. It follows that <math>f(x) = \tan x \sin x</math> |
− | <math> \left( 0, \frac{\pi}{2} \right)</math>. | + | is convex on the interval <math> \left( 0, \frac{\pi}{2} \right)</math>. |
Using the convexity we have | Using the convexity we have |
Latest revision as of 11:00, 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 (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 |