1

Area of a triangle can be easily calculated using only its 3 medians

is it also possible to find its Area as a function of its 3 bisectors?

Lots of people tried to find the solution and oddly enough no one has succeeded – how bizarre is that ??

As a reminder, Bisector of an angle C is a function of triangle's sides: a,b,c where p = (a+b+c)/2

Find the formula for the square of a triangle ABC as a function of La, Lb, Lc and you'll cover yourself with an eternal fame!

P.S. This problem is more difficult than initially expected. Pls, don't underestimate it. I am just an ignorant amateur, but I've never seen this formula in geometry books (even in those from the xix century)

A Z
  • 199
  • https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/269496/the-area-of-a-triangle-determined-by-the-bisectors – JC12 May 31 '20 at 23:57
  • it is a similar problem, but it does not give the answer to my question! thank you – A Z May 31 '20 at 23:58
  • 3
    It's an interesting problem, but a path to solution is straightforward using, say, the method of resultants or Groebner bases to eliminate side-lengths $a$, $b$, $c$ from a system of equations establishing the bisector lengths and area. Mathematica struggles a bit with the work on my laptop, but appropriate processor power is all that's really needed here. In any case, this "biggest unsolved problem in Elementary Planimetry" and "eternal fame" stuff seems a bit overblown. The "so pros pretend that there is simply 'no need' for this one?!" stuff is unnecessarily off-putting. – Blue Jun 01 '20 at 00:28
  • well, perhaps, the description was a bit overblown, but so far there is still no final result for this puzzle). Also there might exist a generalized formula for the square as a function of cevians. – A Z Jun 01 '20 at 00:57
  • 2
    The paper "Area of a Triangle and Angle Bisectors" (PDF link via arXiv.org) (dated 2005) gives a degree-$10$ polynomial relating bisectors and inradius; it shows that this polynomial's roots are not expressible as radicals in the bisectors, and therefore that the area of the triangle is not, either. (There's some Galois theory at work.) So, there's no easily-expressible "formula", per se. Still, it would be interesting to see the explicit polynomial relationship between area and bisectors; this is not given in the paper. – Blue Jun 01 '20 at 01:10
  • The comments are not the place to discuss secondary issues. That said, Stewart's Theorem relates the length of a cevian to the sides of a triangle and the pieces into which the cevian divides its corresponding side. If you have questions regarding that kind of thing, you should post separately about them. – Blue Jun 01 '20 at 01:26

1 Answers1

3

As mentioned in a comment, the path to a polynomial relationship between area and angle bisectors is straightforward (though potentially computationally-expensive) using, say, the method of resultants or Groebner bases to eliminate side-lengths $a$, $b$, $c$ from the system $$\begin{align} d^2 &= \frac{bc}{(b+c)^2}((b+c)^2-a^2) \\[4pt] e^2 &= \frac{ca}{(c+a)^2}((c+a)^2-b^2) \\[4pt] f^2 &= \frac{ab}{(a+b)^2}((a+b)^2-c^2) \\[4pt] 16 t^2 &= (a+b+c)(-a+b+c)(a-b+c)(a+b-c) \end{align}$$ where $d$, $e$, $f$ are the lengths of angle bisectors and $t$ is the area of the triangle.

My laptop with Mathematica struggles with the elimination process. There could be ways to optimize, but it turns out that I don't have to work that hard.

The 2005 paper "Area of a Triangle and Angle Bisectors" (PDF link via arXiv.org) by Buturlakin, et al. (2005), discusses how the area of a triangle isn't expressible in terms of the angle bisectors using radicals. Although it doesn't give an explicit polynomial relationship between area and bisectors, it does give relationships involving inradius $r$.

Let us define $$s_2 = \frac1{d^2}+\frac1{e^2}+\frac1{f^2} \qquad s_3 = \frac1{def} \qquad s_4= \frac1{d^2e^2}+\frac1{e^2f^2}+\frac1{f^2d^2}$$

Then we have

$$4s_2r^2t^2 - 8 s_3 r^3 t^2 = r^4 + t^2 \tag{1}$$

attributed to van Renthe Fink (1843), and

$$\begin{align} 0 &= \phantom{1}64r^{10} s_3^2 (s_2^2 - 4 s_4) \\ &- \phantom{1}64r^9 s_3 (s_2^3 - 10 s_3^2 - 4 s_2 s_4) \\ &+ \phantom{1}16r^8 s_2 (s_2^3 - 50 s_3^2 - 4 s_2 s_4) \\ &+ \phantom{1}32r^7 s_3 (10 s_2^2 - s_4) \\ &- \phantom{19}4r^6 (10 s_2^3 - 61 s_3^2 - 4 s_2 s_4) \\ &-188r^5 s_2 s_3 \\ &+\phantom{1}33r^4 s_2^2 \\ &+\phantom{1}28r^3 s_3 \\ &-\phantom{1}10r^2 s_2 \\ &+\phantom{19}1 \end{align}\tag{2}$$ attributed to H. Wolfe (1937). (The Wolfe polynomial cited in Buturlakin given for $1/(2r)$. I rewrote it for $r$.)

Eliminating $r$ from $(1)$ and $(2)$ is comparatively easy. The result(ant) is ... deep breath ...

$$\begin{align} 0 &= 16777216 t^{20} s_3^{12} (s_2^2 - 4 s_4) \\ &+ 2097152 t^{18} s_3^8 (s_2^6 - 2 s_2^3 s_3^2 - 10 s_3^4 - 6 s_2^4 s_4 + 8 s_2 s_3^2 s_4 + 8 s_2^2 s_4^2) \\[4pt] &+65536 t^{16} s_3^4 \left(\begin{array}{c} s_2^{10} + 12 s_2^7 s_3^2 - 120 s_2^4 s_3^4 + 90 s_2 s_3^6 \\ - 8 s_2^8 s_4 - 56 s_2^5 s_3^2 s_4 + 428 s_2^2 s_3^4 s_4 + 16 s_2^6 s_4^2 \\ + 64 s_2^3 s_3^2 s_4^2 - 112 s_3^4 s_4^2 - 128 s_2 s_3^2 s_4^3 \end{array}\right) \\[4pt] &-16384 t^{14} s_3^2 \left(\begin{array}{c} 5 s_2^8 s_3^2 + 58 s_2^5 s_3^4 - 392 s_2^2 s_3^6 + 2 s_2^9 s_4 \\ + 5 s_2^6 s_3^2 s_4 - 134 s_2^3 s_3^4 s_4 + 167 s_3^6 s_4 \\ - 16 s_2^7 s_4^2 - 104 s_2^4 s_3^2 s_4^2 + 528 s_2 s_3^4 s_4^2 \\ + 32 s_2^5 s_4^3 + 32 s_2^2 s_3^2 s_4^3 - 64 s_3^2 s_4^4 \end{array}\right) \\[4pt] &+256 t^{12} \left(\begin{array} 14 s_2^9 s_3^2 + 432 s_2^6 s_3^4 + 500 s_2^3 s_3^6 - 519 s_3^8 \\ + 24 s_2^7 s_3^2 s_4 + 28 s_2^4 s_3^4 s_4 - 10832 s_2 s_3^6 s_4 \\ + 16 s_2^8 s_4^2 - 64 s_2^5 s_3^2 s_4^2 + 1824 s_2^2 s_3^4 s_4^2 - 128 s_2^6 s_4^3 \\ - 1024 s_2^3 s_3^2 s_4^3 + 3072 s_3^4 s_4^3 + 256 s_2^4 s_4^4 \end{array}\right) \\[4pt] &-32 t^{10} \left(\begin{array}{c} 94 s_2^7 s_3^2 + 2243 s_2^4 s_3^4 + 9328 s_2 s_3^6 + 36 s_2^8 s_4 + 744 s_2^5 s_3^2 s_4 \\ - 3648 s_2^2 s_3^4 s_4 - 144 s_2^6 s_4^2 - 1536 s_2^3 s_3^2 s_4^2 - 7680 s_3^4 s_4^2 + 2048 s_2 s_3^2 s_4^3 \end{array}\right) \\[4pt] &+ t^8\left(\begin{array}{c} 81 s_2^8 + 1568 s_2^5 s_3^2 - 21184 s_2^2 s_3^4 + 768 s_2^6 s_4 + 24064 s_2^3 s_3^2 s_4 \\ + 37888 s_3^4 s_4 - 3072 s_2^4 s_4^2 - 24576 s_2 s_3^2 s_4^2\end{array}\right) \\[4pt] &-4 t^6 (27 s_2^6 + 352 s_2^3 s_3^2 - 424 s_3^4 + 32 s_2^4 s_4 + 320 s_2 s_3^2 s_4 - 128 s_2^2 s_4^2) \\ &+ 2 t^4 s_2 (27 s_2^3 + 80 s_3^2) \\ &-12 t^2 s_2^2 \\ &+ 1 \end{align} \tag{$\star$}$$

Barring transcription errors, equation $(\star)$ gives an implicit relation between the area of a triangle and the lengths of its angle bisectors. (A numerical test against a random-ish GeoGebra model worked, so this can't be too far off.)

Now ... Where's that eternal fame I was promised?


If $e=f$, equation $(\star)$ reduces to

$$\begin{align} 0 &= ( 4 t - d f )( 4 t + d f ) \\ &\cdot ( 256 t^6 d^4 + 16t^4f^2 ( 9 d^6 + 4 d^4 f^2 + 4 d^2 f^4 + f^6 ) - t^2 d^2 f^6 ( 24 d^4 + 8 d^2 f^2 + 3 f^4 ) + d^6 f^{10} )^2 \\ &\cdot( 16 t^6 ( 4 d^2 - f^2 ) + t^4 d^2 ( 64 d^4 - 32 d^2 f^2 + 9 f^4 ) - 2t^2 d^6 f^2 ( 8 d^2 + 3 f^2 ) + d^{10} f^4 ) \end{align}$$ If $d=e=f$, then we have $$(3 t^2 - d^4) (4 t - d^2)^3 (4 t + d^2)^3 (16t^4 + 19d^4t^2-d^8 )^3= 0$$ of which the first factor corresponds to the case of the equilateral triangle. The second and fourth factors yield positive real roots, so we aren't getting uniqueness from this thing.

Blue
  • 75,673
  • Very Nice! Question: given some bisector lengths, is the polynomial in $t$ having a unique positive root (the area)? Or you have to choose from several of them? – orangeskid Jun 01 '20 at 03:01
  • 1
    @orangeskid: You have to choose among candidate roots. In my random-ish numerical test, solving for $t^2$, there were six extraneous positive roots, and three complex. (Interestingly, the complexes were purely imaginary.) For what it's worth, the correct root was the largest. – Blue Jun 01 '20 at 03:16
  • 1
    @g.kov: I hadn't noticed, but I just did a couple of tests. If $d$ is the interior angle bisector at $A$, and $e$ and $f$ are the exterior angle bisectors at $B$ and $C$, then (it appears that) one of the roots of $(\star)$ is the area of $\triangle ABC$. In the case of $d=e=f$, the value comes from the final factor of the reduced polynomial. So, that's interesting. Also, the van Renthe Fin[c]k polynomial $(1)$ seems to work in this context, too, provided the sign of the $s_3$ term is reversed (which probably is best understood as having taken $d$ to be negative). I wonder if vRF knew this. – Blue Jun 01 '20 at 08:31