33

2014 triangles have non-overlapping interiors contained in a unit circle.What is the largest possible value of the sum of their areas?

What are some ideas that might help me start this?

Note that the 2014 points do not have to lie on the circle.

Ayesha
  • 2,740
  • 3
    If it is a contest, shouldn't you show your knowledge of math..? – Bak1139 Apr 16 '14 at 12:26
  • 2
    I'm not sure how that is relevant here. . . ? – Ayesha Apr 16 '14 at 12:28
  • 8
    @Ayesha Typically, we like to see people demonstrate an attempt at solving a problem, particularly if it is (or if it resembles) homework. Some people extend this to include requiring work for all questions, rather than just basic questions, which is what Bak1139 seems to be doing. (I, personally, think that contest problems--and other "for fun" problems--should have a lower "demonstrated effort" expectation than homework, but I'm just attempting to explain Bak1139's comment.) – apnorton May 08 '14 at 19:38
  • Related: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/163893/triangle-constrained-number-rather-than-shape-packing – user41281 Jun 19 '14 at 02:38

2 Answers2

5

The first triangle placed must have 3 edges. A triangle placed after that with the largest area should share a side with the original triangle, and cover 1 original side, and add 2 new sides, giving it an extra side overall. Therefore, with 2013 more triangles than the first one, there should be a 2016 (3+2013) sided figure created for largest area covered. For this 2016-gon to have the largest area, it should be a regular 2016-gon, which can be done with 2014 triangles. The area for this is $\frac{1}{2}nR^2\sin{\frac{360^\circ}{n}}$ with R being the circle radius, and n being the number of sides. The rest can easily be plugged in to find the total area of the 2014 triangles.

Asimov
  • 3,042
  • I don't really think this is right. . . – Ayesha May 03 '14 at 01:31
  • This is just what came to mind logically and quickly. If this was from a competition, did you ever get the answer? How much time was given? Were calculators involved? – Asimov May 03 '14 at 01:32
  • Nope, it's an olympiad problem. Many US IMOers took the test, and none of them scored full points. The answer key says that the graders are still looking for a solution. No calculators, 90 minutes was given. – Ayesha May 03 '14 at 01:35
  • Oh wow, that sounds like loads of fun. Usually I try not to meddle with the IMO, and their freakishly hard problems, but this one just intrigues me. I wonder what method works perfectly for it? Do we even know the number answer, even if not the method? – Asimov May 03 '14 at 01:37
  • 3
    Sadly, no. See this (problem 2): http://web.mit.edu/hmmt/www/february/invitational/2014/invitational_solutions_2014.pdf – Ayesha May 03 '14 at 01:40
  • Now im just curious, where is a gap in my logic? Why isnt it a perfect answer? – Asimov May 03 '14 at 01:58
  • Thats a good point, i think i might be able to prove it though, given a little work. I can easily prove that it cant be more than 2016 sides, and convex, so that might be helpful. Tomorrow i might revise some parts of my answer, and add a bit to it. – Asimov May 03 '14 at 02:02
  • -1 Your argument is contradictory. You can't assume that the second triangle placed must have the largest area, for if so then it must be an isosceles triangle. Furthermore, this is not true in your eventual construction. – Calvin Lin May 03 '14 at 23:44
  • @CalvinLin Thats a very good point. I could say that given an n-gon inside of a circle, it is biggest when it is regular (therefore convex) and tangent to the circle at all points. I can then show that the most sided convex n-gon we can make with 2014 triangles is a 2016-gon. My proof was far from solid, but i feel at heart it goes along the right alleyway to an answer – Asimov May 04 '14 at 02:33
  • 7
    That a regular polygon maximizes the area (given n-gon) is easy, just use the isometric theorem, or apply Jensens to the sine function. However, it is not clear that the figure must be convex, or even that it should have a hole in the middle. Bearing in mind that even the contest organizers are having issues, there are certain subtitle ties in this problem that you can't sweep under a rug. – Calvin Lin May 04 '14 at 04:55
  • 1
    Hole in the middle? I dont remember saying anything of that sort. And yes, i do realize that my proof is far from complete, merely an idea that may have helped the reader come to the correct proof themselves. – Asimov May 04 '14 at 13:41
  • 2
    Interesting. I would suggest to start with something provable, like when you have one triangle the largest area is a equilateral, and then continue until 2014. I think you should try to start small, try it with 4, 10 or 20 triangles and see if you can find a rule. If you can't solve it for 20, you won't solve it for 2014. – WalyKu May 05 '14 at 10:40
  • 2
    Just as a note to everyone, one of the organizers did write a bit about the problem: http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=433&t=584485 – Ayesha May 09 '14 at 20:42
  • @Asimov I believe Calvin meant "should not have a hole in the middle". – Caleb Stanford May 18 '14 at 20:46
  • @Ayesha, that talks about something different – vonbrand May 28 '14 at 01:57
  • @vonbrand Scroll to the bottom. – Ayesha May 28 '14 at 02:01
  • Why was this downvoted? – user41281 Jun 08 '14 at 00:49
  • @user41281 Those who expressed displeasure in it did so as it was a rough idea rather than a complete proof. It does not prove that the biggest shape has no homes in side of it and must be a polygon was the biggest issue I heard – Asimov Jun 08 '14 at 05:05
2

I started to really like this problem after the first month!

We will prove that the $(n+2)$-gon is always the solution for $n$-triangles, by method of elimination.

Definitions:

$A_n$ is a solution satisfying the given conditions for $n$ triangles. By nature $A_n$ is a polygon or a collection of disjoint polygons.

$h(A_n)$ will denote the hull of $A_n$, while $ch(A_n)$ will denote the convex hull.

Proof:

We will start with a trivial, but nonetheless useful observation - if moving a set of vertices can increase the total area, $A_n$ is not a solution.

Any simple polygon with $n$-vertices consists of exactly $n-2$ triangles. Thus any simple polygon can be deformed into another simple polygon with the same amount of vertices, without changing the amount of triangles needed.

In general, if for a certain set of probable solutions, there exists a method to increase the area, then said set can be dismissed. On that we will begin:

  1. $A_n$ cannot be a disjoint collection of polygons;

    Proof: if we connect said polygons, we will increase the total area.

  2. The hull vertices of $A_n$ are convex.

    Proof: if $h(A_N)$ contains more vertices than $ch(A_n)$, then its worthwhile to substitute, as we will have more triangles to fill up the space.

  3. Any "hole" in $A_n$ must have all its vertices in the $h(A_n)$;

    Proof: If we move a vertex of a polygon $P$, such that it doesn't create an intersection, overlap with another vertex, or lie on a segment generated by two other vertices, then the overall amount of triangles required for a triangulization of $P$ does not change.

    If we have a vertex in $A_n$, which is not in $h(A_n)$, then it can be moved onto it, reducing the amount of vertices, getting a spare triangle to fill up the space and increasing the span of $A_n$ edges.

  4. $A_n$ touches the unit circle atleast once.

    Proof: Let $m$ denote the maximum distance from the origin of all vertices in $A_n$. Since we are dealing with the unit circle, the following must hold $m^{-1}A_n = A_n$, which means that the maximum length will always be $1$ or that $A_n$ touches the unit circle at least once.

    !! On a side note, one convincing idea arises - if $A_n$ can be covered up with a convex polygon with $n+2$ or less vertices, which are all on the circle, then $A_n$ is not a solution. If one imagines an arbitrary messy polygon dangling from one point off the unit circle, overlapped by a convex polygon, one is quite convinced how convex the hull of $A_n$ must be.

    So, we are left with "incomplete" triangulizations of simple convex polygons.

  5. In a convex incomplete simple, all "holes" can be patched up with an increase in area.

    Proof: If we remove three adjacent vertices in a convex polygon, the remaining vertices are still in convex arrangement.

    First, we start with a lemma - the smallest area triangle in a convex polygon is always composed of three adjacent vertices - proof.

    Any "hole" is a polygon in $A_n$. By the lemma, it follows that we can always swap out all the constituent triangles of said polygon for the triangles composed of three adjacent vertices, increasing the area for each swap. Which in the end results in a simple convex polygon, with total greater area.

  6. The largest simple convex polygon with $n$ triangles in the unit circle, is the $(n+2)$-gon.

    Proof: Extending any vertex of a simple convex polygon to the perimeter of the unit circle, increases the area. Thus all the vertices are on the circle.

    If we move a point $B$, in between two adjacent points $A$ and $C$, the area of $\Delta ABC$ will be maximum, when the altitude to $B$ is in the middle of $AC$. Therefore, any vertex on the unit circle is equally distanced from its neighbours.

    Such a configuration can only be achieved by the $(n+2)$-gon with $n$-triangles.

    Therefore, the $(n+2)$-gon, with all of its vertices on the unit circle, is the largest polygon that can be assembled from $n$-triangles.


The area of an ($n+2$)-gon, is equal to:

$S(n + 2) = \frac12(n+2)sin\frac{2\pi}{n+2}$

For the case $ n = 2014$ :

$S(2016) = 1008sin\frac{\pi}{1008} \approx \pi - 5 \times 10^{-6}$

  • Copied over from MO: I'm afraid I don't understand what you're doing. For example, what do you mean by the "hull" (vs. "convex hull"?) Also, in point (3), what do you mean by a "hole"? Unfortunately I don't see a reasonable interpretation for your claim "If we have a vertex in $A_n$, which is not in $(A_n)$, then it can be moved onto it, reducing the amount of vertices".

    Overall, I'm skeptical that an easy smoothing method exists (I will edit in a concrete obstruction soon), but it's certainly possible... in any case I would appreciate clarification on your solution.

    – Victor Wang Aug 18 '14 at 21:45
  • Link to the concrete obstruction: see the recent edit at http://mathoverflow.net/questions/163893/triangle-constrained-number-rather-than-shape-packing – Victor Wang Aug 18 '14 at 22:05