-1

How many unique triangles are there with integer degree angles?

Like 60:60:60 is the equilateral. That's one. 1:2:177 is another. But not 2:1:177 because it is not a unique set of angles from a previous one. How many are there in total without repetitions?

I believe I have a correct answer. When I saw a pattern when writing them out manually and then assumed the pattern count was constant throughout. The number just "looks" correct, but I could be wrong.

What I want is a general concept of the combination problem and a formula that computes a correct answer of combinations for inputs of 180 and 3 (number of degrees and angles).

What combination formula applies to this question?

And what is the true count of unique triangles of integer degree angles?

=== New Addition below ===

I am looking for a formula and the logic behind it. A response like this: "the first angle can be 0 to 180 and the 2nd angle will be this minus 180 and the 3rd angle will be fixed by the other two. So the solution is 2 pick 180 minus some condition... which has this formula Y = Bla+Bla. And it is based on such and such combinatorial formula with this special condition for limiting shoices"

I already solved this through force using this logic:

0:0:180
0:1:179 
0:2:178
0:3:177
...
0:89:91
0:90:90 = 91

1:1:178 1:2:176 ... 1:89:90 = 89

2:2:176 ... 2:87:91 2:88:90 2:89:89 = 88

3:3:174 3:4:173 ... 3:87:90 3:88:89 = 86 ... 4:4:172 4:5:171 ... 4:87:89 4:88:88 = 85 5:5:170 ... 5:87:88 = 83 6:6:168 ... 6:87:87 = 82 7:7:166 ... 7:86:87 = 80 8:8:164 ... 8:86:86 = 79 9:9:162 ... 9:85:86 = 77

......

56:56:68 56:57:67 56:58:66 56:59:65 56:60:64 56:61:63 56:62:62 = 7

57:57:66 57:58:65 57:59:64 57:60:63 57:61:62 = 5

58:58:64 58:59:63 58:60:62 58:61:61 = 4

59:59:62 59:60:61 = 2 60:60:60 = 1

= 1+2+4+5+7+8+ ... +86+88+89 = 1+2+3+4+ ... +89 - (3+6+9+...+87) = 1+2+3+4+ ... +89 - 3*(1+2+3+ ... +29)

= (90)(90)/2 - 3(30)(30)/2 = (90^2-330^2)/2 = 2700

  • now 2700 seems like a large number, but it seems correct according to its relation with 360.

But I could be wrong and I suspect knowledge of a formula would make it faster and easier for me next time.

=== This image helped me understand why it is 2700. The image is the graph of two angles of a triangle. Axis are the first and second angle. The graph triangle is base 180, height 180 and has area = $180×180/2 = 180^2/2$. There are 6 reflected images in the graph. So divide by 6 to get the answer $180^2/12 = 2700$.

triangle type given two angles

  • Think of how many ways can you choose the first angle, think of the restrictions you get while choosing the second angle, etc. – ultralegend5385 Jul 07 '21 at 07:10
  • Only two angles are unknown, since the third angle is 180 minus the other ones. – Miguel Mars Jul 07 '21 at 07:12
  • 2
    $1 + 2 + 178 \neq 180$ – badjohn Jul 07 '21 at 07:36
  • I notice now that 2700 = 60 * 45. The angles up to the first 2 primary triangles: equilateral and root 2. Also it is 90×30 which are also fabulous angles. I think the answer to why this is has to do with the fact that similar triangle shapes are bound by angles at the right and isosceles triangle angle boundaries. – peawormsworth Jul 09 '21 at 06:18
  • I believe I have it now:

    The third angle is irreverent since it is fixed by the selection of the first two. That would provide 180 * 180 choices = 180^2. But the Second angle cannot be greater than the first so that removes half to selections leaving 180^2/2 selections. But for any 3 angle choices there are 6 rearrangements. So we divide by 6 leaving: 180^2/12 = 2700.

    – peawormsworth Jul 09 '21 at 07:35
  • I think the diagram added to the answer say: There are 3 times as many obtuse triangles then there are acute triangles in general. ie: any random triangle selected by angle with be 75% obtuse and 25% acute. – peawormsworth Jul 09 '21 at 08:06

1 Answers1

0

We basically need to find the positive integer solutions of the equation $$x_1+x_2+x_3=180$$ subject to conditions $x_1,x_2,x_3\leq 178$.

To do that, we simply need to check the coefficient of $x^{180}$ in the expansion of $$(1+x+x^2+\dots +x^{178})\cdot (1+x+x^2+\dots +x^{178})\cdot (1+x+x^2+\dots +x^{178})$$ or equivalently, the coefficient of $x^{180}$ in the expansion of $$(1+x+x^2+\dots +x^{178})^3$$

Does that help?

Sayan Dutta
  • 10,345
  • It doesn't help because I don't understand why angles must be less than 178 or why the angles are summed and multiplied. Has this to do with the pascals triangle and how it's coefficients relate to combinations as well?

    Sorry I don't understand. If you have a reference to the math topic this relates to maybe I can learn what you mean.

    --- update: i see the 178 is to disallow degenerate triangles. But I am ok with them so 0 is allowed here.

    – peawormsworth Jul 09 '21 at 06:48
  • @peawormsworth If one angle is more that $178$, then the other two can no longer be positive integers. So, each angle has to be less than or equal to $178$ and more than $0$. Now, to help you with the series expansion used, the best way to start is to think of how the powers of $x$ add up when we multiply the brackets. Please try to do that. In the meantime, I am searching for links that may help. – Sayan Dutta Jul 09 '21 at 06:58
  • @peawormsworth Here's a thread that may help - https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/524780/how-find-number-of-integer-solutions-x-1x-2-cdotsx-n-m – Sayan Dutta Jul 09 '21 at 07:02
  • @peawormsworth And, here's an excellent video that discusses a completely different topic, but goes through this part in the first few minutes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbePGBOVeg – Sayan Dutta Jul 09 '21 at 07:03
  • I watched the video and it is very interesting throughout. I think the solution is overkill since the denominations of angles are all the same. On the topic of coins, I was thinking about coins in denominations of powers of the golden ratio. I wonder how that would change the results of those coin polynomials? Thanks for the links. – peawormsworth Jul 09 '21 at 14:35
  • @peawormsworth I didn't quite get your comment. But, did you understand my solution? If that's an yes, then I'm happy. However, if it's a no, just go through the arguments once more. It's actually a very popular idea that will always be helpful. – Sayan Dutta Jul 09 '21 at 21:56
  • I believe products of powers sum together when multiplied, while multiplication distributes across all combinations of sums, and that the powers that sum to a common value can be grouped by coefficients which we understand tallies the number of ways to reach that number with the provided combinations of multiples of original possible values. I think I get that, but it seems like overkill to solving this problem since only one answer is required and not an array of possible answers. There is always a fix number of degrees in a full turn and all angles use the same division: 1 degree. – peawormsworth Jul 11 '21 at 02:30
  • I don't think the provided process will work. The equation will produce duplicate combinations and those will need to be removed to answer the posed question. The Mathologer video was using powers for coins of different combinations. The angles all use the same denomination: 1 degree. I'm just not sure the full potential of your solution is being exploited when using it to solve the posted question. It requires a computer to calculate coefficients and most are thrown away. If I wanted to write a computer program I would cycle through 180 twice and add unique ordered pairs to a set. – peawormsworth Jul 11 '21 at 02:41