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 |
Revision as of 12:00, 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 |