Wednesday 4 May 2011

2-D Disco

There wasn't enough room to give the solution to Pyrgic Puzzle No. 3 on May 7th:
'Down at the 2-D disco, 3 identical discs gang up on a slightly smaller disc and they trap it between themselves and a straight line, as shown.

      If the radius of the small disc is 1 unit, what is the radius of the bigger discs?'
Many readers became lost or bogged down in detail. Solving a problem like this one is rather like swimming from A to B except
that there are no markers to tell you in which direction you must set off and— perhaps as importantly— how far to go. So some readers went around in circles and others gave up before they could reach the conclusion.
You need to find an expression giving R in terms of r. Don't imagine that this must be a linear equation. As it happens it turns out to be a quadratic.
Let's start with the construction shown and let's label as many of these lengths as we can in terms of R and r.
Now AB = 2R; AD = R + r.
Note that the point C is a vertical distance R above the horizontal line. D is r above the horizontal line. So CD = R - r.
BC = R + r - CD = R + r - (R - r) = 2r.
To summarise:
AB = 2R.
AD = R + r.
CD = R - r.
BC = 2r.
There are two ways of finding AC: from the upper right-angled triangle, and from the lower right-angled triangle. Equating these will give us a direct link between R and r.
From the upper triangle:
AC2 + BC2 = AB2, so that AC2 + 4r2 = 4R2, so that:
AC2 = 4R2 - 4r2.
From the lower triangle:
                                            AC2 + (R - r)2 = (R + r)2.
This boils down to:
                                           AC2 = 4Rr.
Equating these two expressions for AC2, we find:
4R2 - 4r2 = 4Rr.
This can be written:
                                                    R2 - Rr - r2 = 0,

and since we are told that r = 1, we have:

                                                 R2 - R - 1 = 0,
This may be regarded as a quadratic with R as the unknown.
Most people solve their quadratics by referring to the standard formula for the canonical quadratic, which is expressed in standard form as:
ax2 + bx + c = 0.*
This has solutions:
x = [-b ± √(b2 - 4ac)]/2a.
In this particular instance, a = 1, b = -1, c = -1, so the solutions are:
R = [1 ± √(5)]/2.
R is positive, so we must reject the negative root and we are left with:
R = [1 + √(5)]/2,
which is known as the golden ratio, which all goes to show that the golden ratio turns up in all sorts of unexpected places.
*If you don't remember or know the formula (if you are short on memory but long on cunning) you can certainly proceed as follows:
R2 - R = 1.
Add 1/4 to both sides:
R2 - R + 1/4 = 5/4.
The left-hand side is simply (R - 1/2)2, so
(R -1/2)2 = 5/4.
We can take square roots of both sides without affecting the balance of the equation:
R - 1/2 = ±√5/2
So that:
R = (1 ±√5)2/.
Again we discard the negative root, since it gives us a negative value for R and the Radius of a circle is a positive quantity.
R = (1 + √5)/2
as before.

7 comments:

Charlotte Mooney said...

In the immortal words of Bart Simpson: ¡Ay Carumba!

Toby said...

Super, thank you. Could you please post a similar explanation for 2D Disco of 28 May? The explanation in the paper seems unfathomable!

Thanks!

Suhada said...

Hello Chris,
Two things:
(1) I've been following your Pyrgic puzzles for years and really enjoy the maths. The art of puzzle setting is choosing ones which are not trivial but not too complex. So often for me the level of your puzzles is just right - thankyou for being a true puzzle artist.
(2) I love the problems you've been setting with circles/lines/shapes touching each other. Rather similar to the one here (3 circles surrounding a circle on a line) is a problem I've devised: "Three same-sized circles crowd a smaller circle at a disco. (The three same-sized circles touch each other and the smaller circle is in the gap in the middle.) If the three big circles are radius one what is the radius of the small circle?" I'll leave you to solve it - I'd be very happy - in fact honoured if you were to publish the problem! Regards Suhada

Suhada said...

And then there's the sister problem which is if three same-sized circles are touching each other then what is the radius of the smallest circle that will enclose them all?
Suhada

Chris Maslanka said...

Toby-Yes, sorry about that. Some of the proofs are not as direct as they could be. As soon as I have a moment I'll try and card out the tangles...

Chris Maslanka said...

Suhada - Thank you for your kind and appreciative comments. The first of the puzzles you mention was already in the pipeline. Obviously my readers are so intelligent they are getting ahead of me. If it carries on like this I won't need to publish anything, people will just close their eyes and imagine the next week's puzzles. In the meantime, please see tomorrow's Guardian. I hadn't thought of the sister puzzle, the inversion, so thanks for that. I hope to publish that in the coming weeks.

Suhada said...

Chris,
I was delighted to see the three circles puzzle appear the day after you replied to me - uncanny synchronicity indeed.
Thanks for the acknowledgement in the Guardian.
I found you on youtube and found you at St Catherines College where I studied Pure Maths in 1982-1985 so synchronicity again!