Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Random Triangle Problem
Replies: 57   Last Post: Aug 17, 1997 10:51 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Robert Hill Posts: 529 Registered: 12/8/04
Re: Random Triangle Problem
Posted: Jul 31, 1997 10:01 AM

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.970730115937.13347B-100000@yamuna.math.ufl.edu>, Muad'dib <schmidt@yamuna.math.ufl.edu> writes:
> Just wondering:
>
> Suppose you are given a "random" triangle.
> It does have a longest side. Call it n, and its enpoints a and b.
> Call the third point of the triangle c.
> c
> / \
> / \
> /________ > a n b
>
> What is wrong with the assumption that the distances from a to c and the
> distances from b to c are independent, and that the distance from a to c
> (and likewise the distance from b to c) is uniformly distributed over (0,n]?
> (ie the ratios of the two other sides to the longest side should be
> uniformly distributed over (0,1])

Well, if you assume this, then there is a finite probability that
diatance ac + distance bc < n, and then no triangle is possible.

You could modify your assumption to say that, if x,y are the ratios of the
two shorter sides to the longest side, then the point (x,y) is
uniformly distributed over the region

0 <= x <= 1, 0 <= y <= 1, x + y >= 1

of the x,y plane, and would then get an answer different from 3/4.

> These seem like viable, intuitive assumptions about a random triangle.
> If not, then in what way should the lengths of the sides be dependent?
>
> The reason I ask is because these simple assumptions alone (not
> assumptions involving random points in R^2 and the like) allow the
> construction of a measure space of triangles that does not give 3/4 as
> the probability of obtuseness. If 3/4 is the accepted answer, then this
> implies that a "random" triangle follows nonuniform distributions in the
> ratios of its sides. This doesn't make sense to me.

There are perhaps many ways of defining what is meant by a random triangle,
and most of them are incompatible with most of the others.
Each of them gives rise to a separate version of the question
"what is the probability of obtuseness", which may have a different answer
from the other versions. Many of the versions of this question
might be interesting but they are separate from one another.
I am not arguing that one of them is best.

I have forgotten the exact wording used by the person who started this
thread, but I believe he fairly clearly implied that he was interested in
the assumption that the vertices are uniformly and indepndently distributed
over the whole plane. This brings in the extra problem that it is not a
proper distribution. This is what makes all the disagreement possible.
In what way, if any, can one preserve the spirit of this idea while
translating it into a well-defined problem?

--
Robert Hill

University Computing Service, Leeds University, England

"Though all my wares be trash, the heart is true."
- John Dowland, Fine Knacks for Ladies (1600)

Date Subject Author
7/16/97 Mike Housky
7/21/97 Bill Taylor
7/22/97 tony richards
7/24/97 Brian M. Scott
7/23/97 tony richards
7/23/97 T. Sheridan
7/24/97 Bill Taylor
7/24/97 Bill Taylor
7/25/97 Ilias Kastanas
7/23/97 Robert Hill
7/23/97 tony richards
7/27/97 Bill Taylor
7/24/97 Robert Hill
7/28/97 tony richards
7/30/97 Bill Taylor
7/30/97 tony richards
8/1/97 Bill Taylor
7/24/97 Robert Hill
7/24/97 Robert Hill
7/24/97 Robert Hill
7/25/97 Robert Hill
7/30/97 Bill Taylor
8/1/97 Charles H. Giffen
8/1/97 John Rickard
8/1/97 Chris Thompson
8/1/97 John Rickard
8/4/97 Bill Taylor
8/5/97 John Rickard
7/25/97 Charles H. Giffen
7/25/97 Charles H. Giffen
7/28/97 Hauke Reddmann
7/28/97 Robert Hill
7/28/97 Robert Hill
7/28/97 Robert Hill
7/29/97 tony richards
7/30/97 Keith Ramsay
7/30/97 tony richards
8/2/97 Keith Ramsay
7/29/97 tony richards
8/4/97 Bill Taylor
8/5/97 Charles H. Giffen
8/6/97 Terry Moore
8/7/97 Terry Moore
8/16/97 Kevin Brown
8/17/97 Kevin Brown
7/30/97 Robert Hill
7/31/97 tony richards
8/6/97 Terry Moore
7/31/97 John Rickard
7/30/97 Robert Hill
7/31/97 Robert Hill
7/31/97 Robert Hill
8/1/97 R J Morris
8/4/97 Robert Hill
8/4/97 Robert Hill
8/5/97 Charles H. Giffen
8/6/97 Robert Hill