Mixing
Is there a formula to calculate the area of a trapezoid knowing the length of all its sides?
If all sides: $a, b, c, d$ are known, is there a formula that can calculate the area of a trapezoid?
I know this formula for calculating the area of a trapezoid from its two bases and its height:
$$S=frac {a+b}{2}×h$$
And I know a well-known formula for finding the area of a triangle, called Heron's formula:
$$S=sqrt {p(p-a)(p-b)(p-c)}$$
$$p=frac{a+b+c}{2}$$
But I could not a formula for finding the area of a trapezoid in the books.
geometry euclidean-geometry area quadrilateral
asked Feb 5 '18 at 21:48
Newuser
299213
add a comment |
If all sides: $a, b, c, d$ are known, is there a formula that can calculate the area of a trapezoid?
I know this formula for calculating the area of a trapezoid from its two bases and its height:
$$S=frac {a+b}{2}×h$$
And I know a well-known formula for finding the area of a triangle, called Heron's formula:
$$S=sqrt {p(p-a)(p-b)(p-c)}$$
$$p=frac{a+b+c}{2}$$
But I could not a formula for finding the area of a trapezoid in the books.
geometry euclidean-geometry area quadrilateral
asked Feb 5 '18 at 21:48
Newuser
299213
2
What do you mean by "trapezoid"? In North America, it's a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides; elsewhere, it's a quadrilateral with no parallel sides.
– David Richerby
Feb 6 '18 at 22:27
add a comment |
If all sides: $a, b, c, d$ are known, is there a formula that can calculate the area of a trapezoid?
I know this formula for calculating the area of a trapezoid from its two bases and its height:
$$S=frac {a+b}{2}×h$$
And I know a well-known formula for finding the area of a triangle, called Heron's formula:
$$S=sqrt {p(p-a)(p-b)(p-c)}$$
$$p=frac{a+b+c}{2}$$
But I could not a formula for finding the area of a trapezoid in the books.
geometry euclidean-geometry area quadrilateral
asked Feb 5 '18 at 21:48
Newuser
299213
If all sides: $a, b, c, d$ are known, is there a formula that can calculate the area of a trapezoid?
I know this formula for calculating the area of a trapezoid from its two bases and its height:
$$S=frac {a+b}{2}×h$$
And I know a well-known formula for finding the area of a triangle, called Heron's formula:
$$S=sqrt {p(p-a)(p-b)(p-c)}$$
$$p=frac{a+b+c}{2}$$
But I could not a formula for finding the area of a trapezoid in the books.
geometry euclidean-geometry area quadrilateral
geometry euclidean-geometry area quadrilateral
asked Feb 5 '18 at 21:48
Newuser
299213
asked Feb 5 '18 at 21:48
Newuser
299213
edited Feb 7 '18 at 9:26
asked Feb 5 '18 at 21:48
Newuser
299213
asked Feb 5 '18 at 21:48
Newuser
299213
asked Feb 5 '18 at 21:48
Newuser
299213
299213
2
What do you mean by "trapezoid"? In North America, it's a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides; elsewhere, it's a quadrilateral with no parallel sides.
– David Richerby
Feb 6 '18 at 22:27
add a comment |
2
What do you mean by "trapezoid"? In North America, it's a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides; elsewhere, it's a quadrilateral with no parallel sides.
– David Richerby
Feb 6 '18 at 22:27
2
2
What do you mean by "trapezoid"? In North America, it's a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides; elsewhere, it's a quadrilateral with no parallel sides.
– David Richerby
Feb 6 '18 at 22:27
What do you mean by "trapezoid"? In North America, it's a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides; elsewhere, it's a quadrilateral with no parallel sides.
– David Richerby
Feb 6 '18 at 22:27
add a comment |
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
This problem is more subtle than some of the other answers here let on. A great deal hinges on whether "trapezoid" is defined inclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides) or exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides). The former definition is widely considered more mathematically sophisticated, but the latter definition is more traditional, is still extensively used in K-12 education in the United States, and has some advantages.
As the other responses have pointed out, if one defines "trapezoid" inclusively, then any parallelogram is automatically a trapezoid, and as the side-lengths of a parallelogram do not determine its area, it is not possible (even conceptually) that there could be a formula for the area of a trapezoid in terms of its side lengths.
However, if "trapezoid" is defined exclusively, then things are quite different. Consider a trapezoid with parallel bases of length $a$ and $b$ with $b>a$. Let $theta$ and $phi$ respectively denote the angles formed by the legs $c$ and $d$ with the base $b$. Then we have the following relationships:
$$ccostheta + dcosphi = b-a$$
$$csintheta = dsinphi$$
These conditions uniquely determine $theta$ and $phi$, and therefore among non-parallelogram trapezoids, choosing the lengths of the parallel sides and the lengths of the bases uniquely determines the figure. In particular we would have $$costheta = frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)}$$.
The height of the trapezoid would then be $h=csintheta$ (or if you prefer $h=dsinphi$, which is equal to it), so the area of the trapezoid can (in principal) be computed. If you really want to carry it out, you would have
$$sintheta = sqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2}$$
so the area would be
$$A=frac{a+b}{2}csqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2}$$
I am not sure if there is a simpler expression, however.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:07
mweiss
17.5k23270
2
You're right. I was thinking this through in response to your comment. One way to see it geometrically rather than algebraically is to imagine the two parallel edges joined at one pair of ends by a third edge. As you rotate that edge around a semicircle, changing the angles it makes with the parallel sides, the distance between the other ends of the parallel edges varies continuously with no repeat values.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:12
1
This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
– Seyed
Feb 5 '18 at 22:22
8
On the other hand, the question does not even specify which two of the four lengths correspond to the pair of parallel sides. If you are only given four lengths, do they determine a unique trapezoid?
– Rahul
Feb 6 '18 at 6:41
2
@Rahul For some "lucky" values of the four length, you can deduce which two are parallel, and there is a unique area. But in general, there is more than one way of choosing the parallel sides. Given lengths $1,2,2,4$, you can either take $4$ and $1$ as the parallel sides, or you can take $4$ and $2$ as the parallel sides. This leads to different trapezoids with different areas ($frac54 sqrt{7}$ and $frac34 sqrt{15}$, respectively, if I do it correctly).
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:48
3
"A great deal hinges on whether 'trapezoid' is defined inclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides) or exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides)." Stuff hinges on more than that! Outside North America, a trapezoid is a quadrilateral with no parallel sides (at least one pair would be a "trapezium" in that nomenclature).
– David Richerby
Feb 6 '18 at 22:29
|
show 3 more comments
To add a derivation that puts the square root factor in a Heronian context ...
For $c := |overline{CD}| neq |overline{AB}| =: a$,
$$|square ABCD| = frac12 (a+c) cdot h = frac12 (a+c) cdot frac{2 |triangle AC^prime D|}{|overline{C^prime D}|} = frac{a+c}{|a-c|};|triangle AC^prime D|$$
Then, applying Heron's Formula to a triangle with side-lengths $b$, $d$, $c-a$, we have
$$|triangle AC^prime D| = frac14sqrt{((c-a)+b+d)(-(c-a)+b+d)((c-a)-b+d)((c-a)+b-d);}$$
answered Feb 6 '18 at 7:15
Blue
47.6k870151
1
This derivation is far better than my own!
– mweiss
Feb 6 '18 at 15:05
add a comment |
A note for the case when only two sides are parallel,
just the set of four side lengths do not determine the area.
An additional information is needed to define,
which pair of sides are parallel.
An illustrative example for side lengths $19,23,29,31$:
answered Feb 6 '18 at 15:22
g.kov
6,0971718
Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:53
I was expecting a slightly different diagram, like your first in terms of which sides have which length, but with $29$ parallel to $31$ instead of $19$ parallel to $23$
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 12:35
1
@Henry: Well, have you tried to construct it with side of length 29 parallel to side of length 31 with the other two 19, 23?
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 13:33
@g.kov - good point, as in effect I would need to construct a $19,23,2$ triangle. So does this suggest that given the order of the sides and them all being different, there would only be one possibility (and its reflection) for a pair of parallel sides, and so only one area?
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 15:05
@Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 15:17
add a comment |
This is how to calculate the area of a trapezoid when the four sides are known:
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:09
Seyed
6,71341424
2
Could you explain the derivation of that formula for $h$, or cite a source? It looks like it comes from a method similar to the one I derived in my answer, but has a nice symmetric form to it.
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 22:16
5
You need to assume that $a$ is not $c$ since you have $(a-c)^2$ in a denominator.
– Somos
Feb 5 '18 at 23:22
4
@Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:53
1
Wikipedia Link
– steven gregory
Feb 6 '18 at 13:18
1
Don't put plain English text in italics in formulae! I see that the formula is made in Microsoft Word. Write your English text within double quotes to tell Word to treat it as normal text.
– Andreas Rejbrand
Feb 7 '18 at 8:30
add a comment |
Hint (if we know the parallel sides):
From The picture:
take: $a=AB, b=BC, c=CD, d=DA,x=AE$
so we have:
$
h=ED=sqrt{d^2-x^2}=sqrt{b^2-(a-c-x)^2}=CF
$
solve for $x$ and find $h=sqrt{d^2-x^2}$
Find the area $A=frac {a+b}{2}h$
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:46
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
– Curtis Bechtel
Feb 6 '18 at 16:36
Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
– Emilio Novati
Feb 6 '18 at 17:01
add a comment |
There can't be such a formula. The side lengths do not determine the area.
Think about all the rhombi with four sides of length $1$. They are all trapezoids (even parallelograms) with the same side lengths but different areas, which can be anything between $0$ and $1$.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:52
Ethan Bolker
41.6k547110
I dont understood.How?
– Newuser
Feb 5 '18 at 21:54
3
If "trapezoid" is defined exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides, so that parallelograms are not trapezoids) then do the side lengths determine the figure?
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 21:55
@mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:14
1
if these conditions are met $a+c+d > b$ , $a+c < b$ , $a+d < b$ , there should be a unique trapzoid in universe with these parameters. and of course with a calculable area.
– Abr001am
Feb 6 '18 at 16:08
add a comment |
-For the trapzoid abcd to have parallel sides it requires all these conditions to be set for uniqueness of area:
- $a+b+c>d$, $b+a<d$, $c+a<d$.
-Neverthless, a trapzoid with non parallel sides can not be defined just by his side lengths, but a fifth coordinate added should.
In this experience we show how come multiple trapzoid shapes can be formed with same lengths of edges.
Imagine we bring a fork and a knife to start dining on some digestable geometrical concepts :
A thread and two pins:
We instill the pins on some flat table:
Then take the fork and the knife, choose two fixed points in the string, then pull it from these points with those tools without changing the fulcrum points.
Distance of the chord from the pinpoints to the coordinates of fulcrums dosn't change, while the shape of the trapzoid changes infinitely!
now envisage that $h_1$ is figured by the fork, $h_2$ symbolised by the knife, h1 is directly relative to h2 always regarding the same side lengths. We will show in the following trigonometric relations:
- $costheta=b`/a$,
$sintheta=(h_2-h_1)/a implies sqrt{1-(b`/a)^2}=(h_2-h_1)/a$ - $b``/d= sqrt{1-(h_2/d)^2}$
- $(b-b`-b``)/c= sqrt{1-(h_1/c)^2}$
Since there is 4 unknowns $b`,b``,h_1,h_2$ we can formulate $h_1$ in function of $h_2$ and 4 side constants.
Credits for the images goes to canstockphoto.com
answered Feb 7 '18 at 2:02
Abr001am
649613
add a comment |
I derived the formula for the area using the same procedure as is used to show Heron's Formula. Looking at the end formula, I realized that the formula follows quite simply from Heron's Formula.
Given a trapezoid with unequal parallel bases $a$ and $b$,
consider the triangle with base $|b-a|$ and sides $c$ and $d$:
Using $s=frac{|b-a|+c+d}2$, the area of the triangle is
$$
text{Area of Triangle}=sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}
$$
The altitude of the trapezoid and the triangle are the same, so the area is proportional to the average of the lengths of the bases. That is,
$$
bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{text{Area of Trapezoid}=frac{b+a}{|b-a|}sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}}
$$
answered Nov 20 '18 at 12:42
robjohn♦
264k27303624
I get it now. I had some difficulty at first ... but then I visualised it as two seperate triangles made by drawing a diagonal across the trapezium: one with a as base (or lid, rather) & the other with b as base: the former has area a/|b-a| × that of your Heron triange - the latter b/|b-a| × it; so the sum of them, the area of the trapezium, is (b+a)/|b-a| × it! Neat!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:34
add a comment |
I think you mean Brahmagupta's formula, not Heron's formula. There is no formula for the area of trapezoid given the lengths of the sides, because the sides alone do not determine the area. This is true even for a parallelogram. Imagine a parallelogram made of four sticks, joined together by pins at the corners. Then you can slide it closed by moved the top side parallel to the bottom side. You'll get zero area when the top and bottom coincide, and maximum are when you have a rectangle.
In the case of Brahmagupta's formula, the quadrilateral is circumscribable, and you can't change the sides like that.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:56
saulspatz
14k21329
2
"This is true even for a parallelogram" - in fact, as other answers show, it is true only for a parallelogram. For a trapezium which is not a parallelogram the size lengths do determine the area (provided you are told which are the lengths of the parallel sides).
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:55
@MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
– saulspatz
Feb 6 '18 at 14:31
@saulspatz In the United States, at least, that is the norm at the pre-college level, and has been for more than a century. See my answer on MESE at matheducators.stackexchange.com/a/13766/29 for a historical survey.
– mweiss
Nov 27 '18 at 1:29
add a comment |
M Weiss put
$$A=frac{a+b}{2}csqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2} .$$
I would rather have that answer symmetrical in $c$ & $d$, which would be
$$A=frac{a+b}{4(b-a)}sqrt{(b-a)^4+2(b-a)^2(c^2+d^2)+(c^2-d^2)^2} .$$
But it's just that to my taste it looks odd that it's not symmetrical in $c$ & $d$ ... my mind just protests that it ought to be!
Or
$$A=frac{a+b}{4(b-a)}sqrt{(b-a)^2((b-a)^2+2(c^2+d^2))+(c^2-d^2)^2} ,$$
even.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 8:03
AmbretteOrrisey
57410
This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
– mweiss
Nov 23 '18 at 16:28
Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:14
Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:35
add a comment |
It depends on your definition of trapezoid. If it includes parallelograms, then No: here are two trapezoids, same side-lengths, different area:
answered Feb 7 '18 at 12:23
M. Winter
18.9k62765
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2637690%2fis-there-a-formula-to-calculate-the-area-of-a-trapezoid-knowing-the-length-of-al%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This problem is more subtle than some of the other answers here let on. A great deal hinges on whether "trapezoid" is defined inclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides) or exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides). The former definition is widely considered more mathematically sophisticated, but the latter definition is more traditional, is still extensively used in K-12 education in the United States, and has some advantages.
As the other responses have pointed out, if one defines "trapezoid" inclusively, then any parallelogram is automatically a trapezoid, and as the side-lengths of a parallelogram do not determine its area, it is not possible (even conceptually) that there could be a formula for the area of a trapezoid in terms of its side lengths.
However, if "trapezoid" is defined exclusively, then things are quite different. Consider a trapezoid with parallel bases of length $a$ and $b$ with $b>a$. Let $theta$ and $phi$ respectively denote the angles formed by the legs $c$ and $d$ with the base $b$. Then we have the following relationships:
$$ccostheta + dcosphi = b-a$$
$$csintheta = dsinphi$$
These conditions uniquely determine $theta$ and $phi$, and therefore among non-parallelogram trapezoids, choosing the lengths of the parallel sides and the lengths of the bases uniquely determines the figure. In particular we would have $$costheta = frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)}$$.
The height of the trapezoid would then be $h=csintheta$ (or if you prefer $h=dsinphi$, which is equal to it), so the area of the trapezoid can (in principal) be computed. If you really want to carry it out, you would have
$$sintheta = sqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2}$$
so the area would be
$$A=frac{a+b}{2}csqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2}$$
I am not sure if there is a simpler expression, however.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:07
mweiss
17.5k23270
2
You're right. I was thinking this through in response to your comment. One way to see it geometrically rather than algebraically is to imagine the two parallel edges joined at one pair of ends by a third edge. As you rotate that edge around a semicircle, changing the angles it makes with the parallel sides, the distance between the other ends of the parallel edges varies continuously with no repeat values.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:12
1
This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
– Seyed
Feb 5 '18 at 22:22
8
On the other hand, the question does not even specify which two of the four lengths correspond to the pair of parallel sides. If you are only given four lengths, do they determine a unique trapezoid?
– Rahul
Feb 6 '18 at 6:41
2
@Rahul For some "lucky" values of the four length, you can deduce which two are parallel, and there is a unique area. But in general, there is more than one way of choosing the parallel sides. Given lengths $1,2,2,4$, you can either take $4$ and $1$ as the parallel sides, or you can take $4$ and $2$ as the parallel sides. This leads to different trapezoids with different areas ($frac54 sqrt{7}$ and $frac34 sqrt{15}$, respectively, if I do it correctly).
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:48
3
"A great deal hinges on whether 'trapezoid' is defined inclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides) or exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides)." Stuff hinges on more than that! Outside North America, a trapezoid is a quadrilateral with no parallel sides (at least one pair would be a "trapezium" in that nomenclature).
– David Richerby
Feb 6 '18 at 22:29
|
show 3 more comments
This problem is more subtle than some of the other answers here let on. A great deal hinges on whether "trapezoid" is defined inclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides) or exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides). The former definition is widely considered more mathematically sophisticated, but the latter definition is more traditional, is still extensively used in K-12 education in the United States, and has some advantages.
As the other responses have pointed out, if one defines "trapezoid" inclusively, then any parallelogram is automatically a trapezoid, and as the side-lengths of a parallelogram do not determine its area, it is not possible (even conceptually) that there could be a formula for the area of a trapezoid in terms of its side lengths.
However, if "trapezoid" is defined exclusively, then things are quite different. Consider a trapezoid with parallel bases of length $a$ and $b$ with $b>a$. Let $theta$ and $phi$ respectively denote the angles formed by the legs $c$ and $d$ with the base $b$. Then we have the following relationships:
$$ccostheta + dcosphi = b-a$$
$$csintheta = dsinphi$$
These conditions uniquely determine $theta$ and $phi$, and therefore among non-parallelogram trapezoids, choosing the lengths of the parallel sides and the lengths of the bases uniquely determines the figure. In particular we would have $$costheta = frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)}$$.
The height of the trapezoid would then be $h=csintheta$ (or if you prefer $h=dsinphi$, which is equal to it), so the area of the trapezoid can (in principal) be computed. If you really want to carry it out, you would have
$$sintheta = sqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2}$$
so the area would be
$$A=frac{a+b}{2}csqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2}$$
I am not sure if there is a simpler expression, however.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:07
mweiss
17.5k23270
2
You're right. I was thinking this through in response to your comment. One way to see it geometrically rather than algebraically is to imagine the two parallel edges joined at one pair of ends by a third edge. As you rotate that edge around a semicircle, changing the angles it makes with the parallel sides, the distance between the other ends of the parallel edges varies continuously with no repeat values.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:12
1
This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
– Seyed
Feb 5 '18 at 22:22
8
On the other hand, the question does not even specify which two of the four lengths correspond to the pair of parallel sides. If you are only given four lengths, do they determine a unique trapezoid?
– Rahul
Feb 6 '18 at 6:41
2
@Rahul For some "lucky" values of the four length, you can deduce which two are parallel, and there is a unique area. But in general, there is more than one way of choosing the parallel sides. Given lengths $1,2,2,4$, you can either take $4$ and $1$ as the parallel sides, or you can take $4$ and $2$ as the parallel sides. This leads to different trapezoids with different areas ($frac54 sqrt{7}$ and $frac34 sqrt{15}$, respectively, if I do it correctly).
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:48
3
"A great deal hinges on whether 'trapezoid' is defined inclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides) or exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides)." Stuff hinges on more than that! Outside North America, a trapezoid is a quadrilateral with no parallel sides (at least one pair would be a "trapezium" in that nomenclature).
– David Richerby
Feb 6 '18 at 22:29
|
show 3 more comments
This problem is more subtle than some of the other answers here let on. A great deal hinges on whether "trapezoid" is defined inclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides) or exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides). The former definition is widely considered more mathematically sophisticated, but the latter definition is more traditional, is still extensively used in K-12 education in the United States, and has some advantages.
As the other responses have pointed out, if one defines "trapezoid" inclusively, then any parallelogram is automatically a trapezoid, and as the side-lengths of a parallelogram do not determine its area, it is not possible (even conceptually) that there could be a formula for the area of a trapezoid in terms of its side lengths.
However, if "trapezoid" is defined exclusively, then things are quite different. Consider a trapezoid with parallel bases of length $a$ and $b$ with $b>a$. Let $theta$ and $phi$ respectively denote the angles formed by the legs $c$ and $d$ with the base $b$. Then we have the following relationships:
$$ccostheta + dcosphi = b-a$$
$$csintheta = dsinphi$$
These conditions uniquely determine $theta$ and $phi$, and therefore among non-parallelogram trapezoids, choosing the lengths of the parallel sides and the lengths of the bases uniquely determines the figure. In particular we would have $$costheta = frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)}$$.
The height of the trapezoid would then be $h=csintheta$ (or if you prefer $h=dsinphi$, which is equal to it), so the area of the trapezoid can (in principal) be computed. If you really want to carry it out, you would have
$$sintheta = sqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2}$$
so the area would be
$$A=frac{a+b}{2}csqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2}$$
I am not sure if there is a simpler expression, however.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:07
mweiss
17.5k23270
This problem is more subtle than some of the other answers here let on. A great deal hinges on whether "trapezoid" is defined inclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides) or exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides). The former definition is widely considered more mathematically sophisticated, but the latter definition is more traditional, is still extensively used in K-12 education in the United States, and has some advantages.
As the other responses have pointed out, if one defines "trapezoid" inclusively, then any parallelogram is automatically a trapezoid, and as the side-lengths of a parallelogram do not determine its area, it is not possible (even conceptually) that there could be a formula for the area of a trapezoid in terms of its side lengths.
However, if "trapezoid" is defined exclusively, then things are quite different. Consider a trapezoid with parallel bases of length $a$ and $b$ with $b>a$. Let $theta$ and $phi$ respectively denote the angles formed by the legs $c$ and $d$ with the base $b$. Then we have the following relationships:
$$ccostheta + dcosphi = b-a$$
$$csintheta = dsinphi$$
These conditions uniquely determine $theta$ and $phi$, and therefore among non-parallelogram trapezoids, choosing the lengths of the parallel sides and the lengths of the bases uniquely determines the figure. In particular we would have $$costheta = frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)}$$.
The height of the trapezoid would then be $h=csintheta$ (or if you prefer $h=dsinphi$, which is equal to it), so the area of the trapezoid can (in principal) be computed. If you really want to carry it out, you would have
$$sintheta = sqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2}$$
so the area would be
$$A=frac{a+b}{2}csqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2}$$
I am not sure if there is a simpler expression, however.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:07
mweiss
17.5k23270
edited Feb 5 '18 at 22:15
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:07
mweiss
17.5k23270
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:07
mweiss
17.5k23270
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:07
mweiss
17.5k23270
17.5k23270
2
You're right. I was thinking this through in response to your comment. One way to see it geometrically rather than algebraically is to imagine the two parallel edges joined at one pair of ends by a third edge. As you rotate that edge around a semicircle, changing the angles it makes with the parallel sides, the distance between the other ends of the parallel edges varies continuously with no repeat values.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:12
1
This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
– Seyed
Feb 5 '18 at 22:22
8
On the other hand, the question does not even specify which two of the four lengths correspond to the pair of parallel sides. If you are only given four lengths, do they determine a unique trapezoid?
– Rahul
Feb 6 '18 at 6:41
2
@Rahul For some "lucky" values of the four length, you can deduce which two are parallel, and there is a unique area. But in general, there is more than one way of choosing the parallel sides. Given lengths $1,2,2,4$, you can either take $4$ and $1$ as the parallel sides, or you can take $4$ and $2$ as the parallel sides. This leads to different trapezoids with different areas ($frac54 sqrt{7}$ and $frac34 sqrt{15}$, respectively, if I do it correctly).
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:48
3
"A great deal hinges on whether 'trapezoid' is defined inclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides) or exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides)." Stuff hinges on more than that! Outside North America, a trapezoid is a quadrilateral with no parallel sides (at least one pair would be a "trapezium" in that nomenclature).
– David Richerby
Feb 6 '18 at 22:29
|
show 3 more comments
2
You're right. I was thinking this through in response to your comment. One way to see it geometrically rather than algebraically is to imagine the two parallel edges joined at one pair of ends by a third edge. As you rotate that edge around a semicircle, changing the angles it makes with the parallel sides, the distance between the other ends of the parallel edges varies continuously with no repeat values.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:12
1
This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
– Seyed
Feb 5 '18 at 22:22
8
On the other hand, the question does not even specify which two of the four lengths correspond to the pair of parallel sides. If you are only given four lengths, do they determine a unique trapezoid?
– Rahul
Feb 6 '18 at 6:41
2
@Rahul For some "lucky" values of the four length, you can deduce which two are parallel, and there is a unique area. But in general, there is more than one way of choosing the parallel sides. Given lengths $1,2,2,4$, you can either take $4$ and $1$ as the parallel sides, or you can take $4$ and $2$ as the parallel sides. This leads to different trapezoids with different areas ($frac54 sqrt{7}$ and $frac34 sqrt{15}$, respectively, if I do it correctly).
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:48
3
"A great deal hinges on whether 'trapezoid' is defined inclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides) or exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides)." Stuff hinges on more than that! Outside North America, a trapezoid is a quadrilateral with no parallel sides (at least one pair would be a "trapezium" in that nomenclature).
– David Richerby
Feb 6 '18 at 22:29
2
2
You're right. I was thinking this through in response to your comment. One way to see it geometrically rather than algebraically is to imagine the two parallel edges joined at one pair of ends by a third edge. As you rotate that edge around a semicircle, changing the angles it makes with the parallel sides, the distance between the other ends of the parallel edges varies continuously with no repeat values.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:12
You're right. I was thinking this through in response to your comment. One way to see it geometrically rather than algebraically is to imagine the two parallel edges joined at one pair of ends by a third edge. As you rotate that edge around a semicircle, changing the angles it makes with the parallel sides, the distance between the other ends of the parallel edges varies continuously with no repeat values.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:12
1
1
This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
– Seyed
Feb 5 '18 at 22:22
This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
– Seyed
Feb 5 '18 at 22:22
8
8
On the other hand, the question does not even specify which two of the four lengths correspond to the pair of parallel sides. If you are only given four lengths, do they determine a unique trapezoid?
– Rahul
Feb 6 '18 at 6:41
On the other hand, the question does not even specify which two of the four lengths correspond to the pair of parallel sides. If you are only given four lengths, do they determine a unique trapezoid?
– Rahul
Feb 6 '18 at 6:41
2
2
@Rahul For some "lucky" values of the four length, you can deduce which two are parallel, and there is a unique area. But in general, there is more than one way of choosing the parallel sides. Given lengths $1,2,2,4$, you can either take $4$ and $1$ as the parallel sides, or you can take $4$ and $2$ as the parallel sides. This leads to different trapezoids with different areas ($frac54 sqrt{7}$ and $frac34 sqrt{15}$, respectively, if I do it correctly).
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:48
@Rahul For some "lucky" values of the four length, you can deduce which two are parallel, and there is a unique area. But in general, there is more than one way of choosing the parallel sides. Given lengths $1,2,2,4$, you can either take $4$ and $1$ as the parallel sides, or you can take $4$ and $2$ as the parallel sides. This leads to different trapezoids with different areas ($frac54 sqrt{7}$ and $frac34 sqrt{15}$, respectively, if I do it correctly).
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:48
3
3
"A great deal hinges on whether 'trapezoid' is defined inclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides) or exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides)." Stuff hinges on more than that! Outside North America, a trapezoid is a quadrilateral with no parallel sides (at least one pair would be a "trapezium" in that nomenclature).
– David Richerby
Feb 6 '18 at 22:29
"A great deal hinges on whether 'trapezoid' is defined inclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides) or exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides)." Stuff hinges on more than that! Outside North America, a trapezoid is a quadrilateral with no parallel sides (at least one pair would be a "trapezium" in that nomenclature).
– David Richerby
Feb 6 '18 at 22:29
|
show 3 more comments
To add a derivation that puts the square root factor in a Heronian context ...
For $c := |overline{CD}| neq |overline{AB}| =: a$,
$$|square ABCD| = frac12 (a+c) cdot h = frac12 (a+c) cdot frac{2 |triangle AC^prime D|}{|overline{C^prime D}|} = frac{a+c}{|a-c|};|triangle AC^prime D|$$
Then, applying Heron's Formula to a triangle with side-lengths $b$, $d$, $c-a$, we have
$$|triangle AC^prime D| = frac14sqrt{((c-a)+b+d)(-(c-a)+b+d)((c-a)-b+d)((c-a)+b-d);}$$
answered Feb 6 '18 at 7:15
Blue
47.6k870151
1
This derivation is far better than my own!
– mweiss
Feb 6 '18 at 15:05
add a comment |
To add a derivation that puts the square root factor in a Heronian context ...
For $c := |overline{CD}| neq |overline{AB}| =: a$,
$$|square ABCD| = frac12 (a+c) cdot h = frac12 (a+c) cdot frac{2 |triangle AC^prime D|}{|overline{C^prime D}|} = frac{a+c}{|a-c|};|triangle AC^prime D|$$
Then, applying Heron's Formula to a triangle with side-lengths $b$, $d$, $c-a$, we have
$$|triangle AC^prime D| = frac14sqrt{((c-a)+b+d)(-(c-a)+b+d)((c-a)-b+d)((c-a)+b-d);}$$
answered Feb 6 '18 at 7:15
Blue
47.6k870151
1
This derivation is far better than my own!
– mweiss
Feb 6 '18 at 15:05
add a comment |
To add a derivation that puts the square root factor in a Heronian context ...
For $c := |overline{CD}| neq |overline{AB}| =: a$,
$$|square ABCD| = frac12 (a+c) cdot h = frac12 (a+c) cdot frac{2 |triangle AC^prime D|}{|overline{C^prime D}|} = frac{a+c}{|a-c|};|triangle AC^prime D|$$
Then, applying Heron's Formula to a triangle with side-lengths $b$, $d$, $c-a$, we have
$$|triangle AC^prime D| = frac14sqrt{((c-a)+b+d)(-(c-a)+b+d)((c-a)-b+d)((c-a)+b-d);}$$
answered Feb 6 '18 at 7:15
Blue
47.6k870151
To add a derivation that puts the square root factor in a Heronian context ...
For $c := |overline{CD}| neq |overline{AB}| =: a$,
$$|square ABCD| = frac12 (a+c) cdot h = frac12 (a+c) cdot frac{2 |triangle AC^prime D|}{|overline{C^prime D}|} = frac{a+c}{|a-c|};|triangle AC^prime D|$$
Then, applying Heron's Formula to a triangle with side-lengths $b$, $d$, $c-a$, we have
$$|triangle AC^prime D| = frac14sqrt{((c-a)+b+d)(-(c-a)+b+d)((c-a)-b+d)((c-a)+b-d);}$$
answered Feb 6 '18 at 7:15
Blue
47.6k870151
edited Feb 6 '18 at 9:48
answered Feb 6 '18 at 7:15
Blue
47.6k870151
answered Feb 6 '18 at 7:15
Blue
47.6k870151
answered Feb 6 '18 at 7:15
Blue
47.6k870151
47.6k870151
1
This derivation is far better than my own!
– mweiss
Feb 6 '18 at 15:05
add a comment |
1
This derivation is far better than my own!
– mweiss
Feb 6 '18 at 15:05
1
1
This derivation is far better than my own!
– mweiss
Feb 6 '18 at 15:05
This derivation is far better than my own!
– mweiss
Feb 6 '18 at 15:05
add a comment |
A note for the case when only two sides are parallel,
just the set of four side lengths do not determine the area.
An additional information is needed to define,
which pair of sides are parallel.
An illustrative example for side lengths $19,23,29,31$:
answered Feb 6 '18 at 15:22
g.kov
6,0971718
Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:53
I was expecting a slightly different diagram, like your first in terms of which sides have which length, but with $29$ parallel to $31$ instead of $19$ parallel to $23$
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 12:35
1
@Henry: Well, have you tried to construct it with side of length 29 parallel to side of length 31 with the other two 19, 23?
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 13:33
@g.kov - good point, as in effect I would need to construct a $19,23,2$ triangle. So does this suggest that given the order of the sides and them all being different, there would only be one possibility (and its reflection) for a pair of parallel sides, and so only one area?
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 15:05
@Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 15:17
add a comment |
A note for the case when only two sides are parallel,
just the set of four side lengths do not determine the area.
An additional information is needed to define,
which pair of sides are parallel.
An illustrative example for side lengths $19,23,29,31$:
answered Feb 6 '18 at 15:22
g.kov
6,0971718
Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:53
I was expecting a slightly different diagram, like your first in terms of which sides have which length, but with $29$ parallel to $31$ instead of $19$ parallel to $23$
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 12:35
1
@Henry: Well, have you tried to construct it with side of length 29 parallel to side of length 31 with the other two 19, 23?
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 13:33
@g.kov - good point, as in effect I would need to construct a $19,23,2$ triangle. So does this suggest that given the order of the sides and them all being different, there would only be one possibility (and its reflection) for a pair of parallel sides, and so only one area?
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 15:05
@Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 15:17
add a comment |
A note for the case when only two sides are parallel,
just the set of four side lengths do not determine the area.
An additional information is needed to define,
which pair of sides are parallel.
An illustrative example for side lengths $19,23,29,31$:
answered Feb 6 '18 at 15:22
g.kov
6,0971718
A note for the case when only two sides are parallel,
just the set of four side lengths do not determine the area.
An additional information is needed to define,
which pair of sides are parallel.
An illustrative example for side lengths $19,23,29,31$:
answered Feb 6 '18 at 15:22
g.kov
6,0971718
answered Feb 6 '18 at 15:22
g.kov
6,0971718
answered Feb 6 '18 at 15:22
g.kov
6,0971718
answered Feb 6 '18 at 15:22
g.kov
6,0971718
6,0971718
Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:53
I was expecting a slightly different diagram, like your first in terms of which sides have which length, but with $29$ parallel to $31$ instead of $19$ parallel to $23$
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 12:35
1
@Henry: Well, have you tried to construct it with side of length 29 parallel to side of length 31 with the other two 19, 23?
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 13:33
@g.kov - good point, as in effect I would need to construct a $19,23,2$ triangle. So does this suggest that given the order of the sides and them all being different, there would only be one possibility (and its reflection) for a pair of parallel sides, and so only one area?
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 15:05
@Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 15:17
add a comment |
Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:53
I was expecting a slightly different diagram, like your first in terms of which sides have which length, but with $29$ parallel to $31$ instead of $19$ parallel to $23$
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 12:35
1
@Henry: Well, have you tried to construct it with side of length 29 parallel to side of length 31 with the other two 19, 23?
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 13:33
@g.kov - good point, as in effect I would need to construct a $19,23,2$ triangle. So does this suggest that given the order of the sides and them all being different, there would only be one possibility (and its reflection) for a pair of parallel sides, and so only one area?
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 15:05
@Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 15:17
Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:53
Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Feb 6 '18 at 15:53
I was expecting a slightly different diagram, like your first in terms of which sides have which length, but with $29$ parallel to $31$ instead of $19$ parallel to $23$
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 12:35
I was expecting a slightly different diagram, like your first in terms of which sides have which length, but with $29$ parallel to $31$ instead of $19$ parallel to $23$
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 12:35
1
1
@Henry: Well, have you tried to construct it with side of length 29 parallel to side of length 31 with the other two 19, 23?
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 13:33
@Henry: Well, have you tried to construct it with side of length 29 parallel to side of length 31 with the other two 19, 23?
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 13:33
@g.kov - good point, as in effect I would need to construct a $19,23,2$ triangle. So does this suggest that given the order of the sides and them all being different, there would only be one possibility (and its reflection) for a pair of parallel sides, and so only one area?
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 15:05
@g.kov - good point, as in effect I would need to construct a $19,23,2$ triangle. So does this suggest that given the order of the sides and them all being different, there would only be one possibility (and its reflection) for a pair of parallel sides, and so only one area?
– Henry
Feb 7 '18 at 15:05
@Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 15:17
@Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
– g.kov
Feb 7 '18 at 15:17
add a comment |
This is how to calculate the area of a trapezoid when the four sides are known:
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:09
Seyed
6,71341424
2
Could you explain the derivation of that formula for $h$, or cite a source? It looks like it comes from a method similar to the one I derived in my answer, but has a nice symmetric form to it.
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 22:16
5
You need to assume that $a$ is not $c$ since you have $(a-c)^2$ in a denominator.
– Somos
Feb 5 '18 at 23:22
4
@Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:53
1
Wikipedia Link
– steven gregory
Feb 6 '18 at 13:18
1
Don't put plain English text in italics in formulae! I see that the formula is made in Microsoft Word. Write your English text within double quotes to tell Word to treat it as normal text.
– Andreas Rejbrand
Feb 7 '18 at 8:30
add a comment |
This is how to calculate the area of a trapezoid when the four sides are known:
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:09
Seyed
6,71341424
2
Could you explain the derivation of that formula for $h$, or cite a source? It looks like it comes from a method similar to the one I derived in my answer, but has a nice symmetric form to it.
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 22:16
5
You need to assume that $a$ is not $c$ since you have $(a-c)^2$ in a denominator.
– Somos
Feb 5 '18 at 23:22
4
@Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:53
1
Wikipedia Link
– steven gregory
Feb 6 '18 at 13:18
1
Don't put plain English text in italics in formulae! I see that the formula is made in Microsoft Word. Write your English text within double quotes to tell Word to treat it as normal text.
– Andreas Rejbrand
Feb 7 '18 at 8:30
add a comment |
This is how to calculate the area of a trapezoid when the four sides are known:
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:09
Seyed
6,71341424
This is how to calculate the area of a trapezoid when the four sides are known:
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:09
Seyed
6,71341424
edited Feb 5 '18 at 23:50
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:09
Seyed
6,71341424
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:09
Seyed
6,71341424
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:09
Seyed
6,71341424
6,71341424
2
Could you explain the derivation of that formula for $h$, or cite a source? It looks like it comes from a method similar to the one I derived in my answer, but has a nice symmetric form to it.
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 22:16
5
You need to assume that $a$ is not $c$ since you have $(a-c)^2$ in a denominator.
– Somos
Feb 5 '18 at 23:22
4
@Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:53
1
Wikipedia Link
– steven gregory
Feb 6 '18 at 13:18
1
Don't put plain English text in italics in formulae! I see that the formula is made in Microsoft Word. Write your English text within double quotes to tell Word to treat it as normal text.
– Andreas Rejbrand
Feb 7 '18 at 8:30
add a comment |
2
Could you explain the derivation of that formula for $h$, or cite a source? It looks like it comes from a method similar to the one I derived in my answer, but has a nice symmetric form to it.
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 22:16
5
You need to assume that $a$ is not $c$ since you have $(a-c)^2$ in a denominator.
– Somos
Feb 5 '18 at 23:22
4
@Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:53
1
Wikipedia Link
– steven gregory
Feb 6 '18 at 13:18
1
Don't put plain English text in italics in formulae! I see that the formula is made in Microsoft Word. Write your English text within double quotes to tell Word to treat it as normal text.
– Andreas Rejbrand
Feb 7 '18 at 8:30
2
2
Could you explain the derivation of that formula for $h$, or cite a source? It looks like it comes from a method similar to the one I derived in my answer, but has a nice symmetric form to it.
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 22:16
Could you explain the derivation of that formula for $h$, or cite a source? It looks like it comes from a method similar to the one I derived in my answer, but has a nice symmetric form to it.
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 22:16
5
5
You need to assume that $a$ is not $c$ since you have $(a-c)^2$ in a denominator.
– Somos
Feb 5 '18 at 23:22
You need to assume that $a$ is not $c$ since you have $(a-c)^2$ in a denominator.
– Somos
Feb 5 '18 at 23:22
4
4
@Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:53
@Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:53
1
1
Wikipedia Link
– steven gregory
Feb 6 '18 at 13:18
Wikipedia Link
– steven gregory
Feb 6 '18 at 13:18
1
1
Don't put plain English text in italics in formulae! I see that the formula is made in Microsoft Word. Write your English text within double quotes to tell Word to treat it as normal text.
– Andreas Rejbrand
Feb 7 '18 at 8:30
Don't put plain English text in italics in formulae! I see that the formula is made in Microsoft Word. Write your English text within double quotes to tell Word to treat it as normal text.
– Andreas Rejbrand
Feb 7 '18 at 8:30
add a comment |
Hint (if we know the parallel sides):
From The picture:
take: $a=AB, b=BC, c=CD, d=DA,x=AE$
so we have:
$
h=ED=sqrt{d^2-x^2}=sqrt{b^2-(a-c-x)^2}=CF
$
solve for $x$ and find $h=sqrt{d^2-x^2}$
Find the area $A=frac {a+b}{2}h$
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:46
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
– Curtis Bechtel
Feb 6 '18 at 16:36
Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
– Emilio Novati
Feb 6 '18 at 17:01
add a comment |
Hint (if we know the parallel sides):
From The picture:
take: $a=AB, b=BC, c=CD, d=DA,x=AE$
so we have:
$
h=ED=sqrt{d^2-x^2}=sqrt{b^2-(a-c-x)^2}=CF
$
solve for $x$ and find $h=sqrt{d^2-x^2}$
Find the area $A=frac {a+b}{2}h$
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:46
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
– Curtis Bechtel
Feb 6 '18 at 16:36
Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
– Emilio Novati
Feb 6 '18 at 17:01
add a comment |
Hint (if we know the parallel sides):
From The picture:
take: $a=AB, b=BC, c=CD, d=DA,x=AE$
so we have:
$
h=ED=sqrt{d^2-x^2}=sqrt{b^2-(a-c-x)^2}=CF
$
solve for $x$ and find $h=sqrt{d^2-x^2}$
Find the area $A=frac {a+b}{2}h$
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:46
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
Hint (if we know the parallel sides):
From The picture:
take: $a=AB, b=BC, c=CD, d=DA,x=AE$
so we have:
$
h=ED=sqrt{d^2-x^2}=sqrt{b^2-(a-c-x)^2}=CF
$
solve for $x$ and find $h=sqrt{d^2-x^2}$
Find the area $A=frac {a+b}{2}h$
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:46
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
edited Feb 6 '18 at 17:01
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:46
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:46
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
answered Feb 5 '18 at 22:46
Emilio Novati
51.5k43472
51.5k43472
Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
– Curtis Bechtel
Feb 6 '18 at 16:36
Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
– Emilio Novati
Feb 6 '18 at 17:01
add a comment |
Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
– Curtis Bechtel
Feb 6 '18 at 16:36
Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
– Emilio Novati
Feb 6 '18 at 17:01
Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
– Curtis Bechtel
Feb 6 '18 at 16:36
Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
– Curtis Bechtel
Feb 6 '18 at 16:36
Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
– Emilio Novati
Feb 6 '18 at 17:01
Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
– Emilio Novati
Feb 6 '18 at 17:01
add a comment |
There can't be such a formula. The side lengths do not determine the area.
Think about all the rhombi with four sides of length $1$. They are all trapezoids (even parallelograms) with the same side lengths but different areas, which can be anything between $0$ and $1$.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:52
Ethan Bolker
41.6k547110
I dont understood.How?
– Newuser
Feb 5 '18 at 21:54
3
If "trapezoid" is defined exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides, so that parallelograms are not trapezoids) then do the side lengths determine the figure?
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 21:55
@mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:14
1
if these conditions are met $a+c+d > b$ , $a+c < b$ , $a+d < b$ , there should be a unique trapzoid in universe with these parameters. and of course with a calculable area.
– Abr001am
Feb 6 '18 at 16:08
add a comment |
There can't be such a formula. The side lengths do not determine the area.
Think about all the rhombi with four sides of length $1$. They are all trapezoids (even parallelograms) with the same side lengths but different areas, which can be anything between $0$ and $1$.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:52
Ethan Bolker
41.6k547110
I dont understood.How?
– Newuser
Feb 5 '18 at 21:54
3
If "trapezoid" is defined exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides, so that parallelograms are not trapezoids) then do the side lengths determine the figure?
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 21:55
@mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:14
1
if these conditions are met $a+c+d > b$ , $a+c < b$ , $a+d < b$ , there should be a unique trapzoid in universe with these parameters. and of course with a calculable area.
– Abr001am
Feb 6 '18 at 16:08
add a comment |
There can't be such a formula. The side lengths do not determine the area.
Think about all the rhombi with four sides of length $1$. They are all trapezoids (even parallelograms) with the same side lengths but different areas, which can be anything between $0$ and $1$.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:52
Ethan Bolker
41.6k547110
There can't be such a formula. The side lengths do not determine the area.
Think about all the rhombi with four sides of length $1$. They are all trapezoids (even parallelograms) with the same side lengths but different areas, which can be anything between $0$ and $1$.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:52
Ethan Bolker
41.6k547110
edited Feb 5 '18 at 21:56
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:52
Ethan Bolker
41.6k547110
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:52
Ethan Bolker
41.6k547110
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:52
Ethan Bolker
41.6k547110
41.6k547110
I dont understood.How?
– Newuser
Feb 5 '18 at 21:54
3
If "trapezoid" is defined exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides, so that parallelograms are not trapezoids) then do the side lengths determine the figure?
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 21:55
@mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:14
1
if these conditions are met $a+c+d > b$ , $a+c < b$ , $a+d < b$ , there should be a unique trapzoid in universe with these parameters. and of course with a calculable area.
– Abr001am
Feb 6 '18 at 16:08
add a comment |
I dont understood.How?
– Newuser
Feb 5 '18 at 21:54
3
If "trapezoid" is defined exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides, so that parallelograms are not trapezoids) then do the side lengths determine the figure?
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 21:55
@mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:14
1
if these conditions are met $a+c+d > b$ , $a+c < b$ , $a+d < b$ , there should be a unique trapzoid in universe with these parameters. and of course with a calculable area.
– Abr001am
Feb 6 '18 at 16:08
I dont understood.How?
– Newuser
Feb 5 '18 at 21:54
I dont understood.How?
– Newuser
Feb 5 '18 at 21:54
3
3
If "trapezoid" is defined exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides, so that parallelograms are not trapezoids) then do the side lengths determine the figure?
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 21:55
If "trapezoid" is defined exclusively (i.e. as a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides, so that parallelograms are not trapezoids) then do the side lengths determine the figure?
– mweiss
Feb 5 '18 at 21:55
@mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:14
@mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
– Ethan Bolker
Feb 5 '18 at 22:14
1
1
if these conditions are met $a+c+d > b$ , $a+c < b$ , $a+d < b$ , there should be a unique trapzoid in universe with these parameters. and of course with a calculable area.
– Abr001am
Feb 6 '18 at 16:08
if these conditions are met $a+c+d > b$ , $a+c < b$ , $a+d < b$ , there should be a unique trapzoid in universe with these parameters. and of course with a calculable area.
– Abr001am
Feb 6 '18 at 16:08
add a comment |
-For the trapzoid abcd to have parallel sides it requires all these conditions to be set for uniqueness of area:
- $a+b+c>d$, $b+a<d$, $c+a<d$.
-Neverthless, a trapzoid with non parallel sides can not be defined just by his side lengths, but a fifth coordinate added should.
In this experience we show how come multiple trapzoid shapes can be formed with same lengths of edges.
Imagine we bring a fork and a knife to start dining on some digestable geometrical concepts :
A thread and two pins:
We instill the pins on some flat table:
Then take the fork and the knife, choose two fixed points in the string, then pull it from these points with those tools without changing the fulcrum points.
Distance of the chord from the pinpoints to the coordinates of fulcrums dosn't change, while the shape of the trapzoid changes infinitely!
now envisage that $h_1$ is figured by the fork, $h_2$ symbolised by the knife, h1 is directly relative to h2 always regarding the same side lengths. We will show in the following trigonometric relations:
- $costheta=b`/a$,
$sintheta=(h_2-h_1)/a implies sqrt{1-(b`/a)^2}=(h_2-h_1)/a$ - $b``/d= sqrt{1-(h_2/d)^2}$
- $(b-b`-b``)/c= sqrt{1-(h_1/c)^2}$
Since there is 4 unknowns $b`,b``,h_1,h_2$ we can formulate $h_1$ in function of $h_2$ and 4 side constants.
Credits for the images goes to canstockphoto.com
answered Feb 7 '18 at 2:02
Abr001am
649613
add a comment |
-For the trapzoid abcd to have parallel sides it requires all these conditions to be set for uniqueness of area:
- $a+b+c>d$, $b+a<d$, $c+a<d$.
-Neverthless, a trapzoid with non parallel sides can not be defined just by his side lengths, but a fifth coordinate added should.
In this experience we show how come multiple trapzoid shapes can be formed with same lengths of edges.
Imagine we bring a fork and a knife to start dining on some digestable geometrical concepts :
A thread and two pins:
We instill the pins on some flat table:
Then take the fork and the knife, choose two fixed points in the string, then pull it from these points with those tools without changing the fulcrum points.
Distance of the chord from the pinpoints to the coordinates of fulcrums dosn't change, while the shape of the trapzoid changes infinitely!
now envisage that $h_1$ is figured by the fork, $h_2$ symbolised by the knife, h1 is directly relative to h2 always regarding the same side lengths. We will show in the following trigonometric relations:
- $costheta=b`/a$,
$sintheta=(h_2-h_1)/a implies sqrt{1-(b`/a)^2}=(h_2-h_1)/a$ - $b``/d= sqrt{1-(h_2/d)^2}$
- $(b-b`-b``)/c= sqrt{1-(h_1/c)^2}$
Since there is 4 unknowns $b`,b``,h_1,h_2$ we can formulate $h_1$ in function of $h_2$ and 4 side constants.
Credits for the images goes to canstockphoto.com
answered Feb 7 '18 at 2:02
Abr001am
649613
add a comment |
-For the trapzoid abcd to have parallel sides it requires all these conditions to be set for uniqueness of area:
- $a+b+c>d$, $b+a<d$, $c+a<d$.
-Neverthless, a trapzoid with non parallel sides can not be defined just by his side lengths, but a fifth coordinate added should.
In this experience we show how come multiple trapzoid shapes can be formed with same lengths of edges.
Imagine we bring a fork and a knife to start dining on some digestable geometrical concepts :
A thread and two pins:
We instill the pins on some flat table:
Then take the fork and the knife, choose two fixed points in the string, then pull it from these points with those tools without changing the fulcrum points.
Distance of the chord from the pinpoints to the coordinates of fulcrums dosn't change, while the shape of the trapzoid changes infinitely!
now envisage that $h_1$ is figured by the fork, $h_2$ symbolised by the knife, h1 is directly relative to h2 always regarding the same side lengths. We will show in the following trigonometric relations:
- $costheta=b`/a$,
$sintheta=(h_2-h_1)/a implies sqrt{1-(b`/a)^2}=(h_2-h_1)/a$ - $b``/d= sqrt{1-(h_2/d)^2}$
- $(b-b`-b``)/c= sqrt{1-(h_1/c)^2}$
Since there is 4 unknowns $b`,b``,h_1,h_2$ we can formulate $h_1$ in function of $h_2$ and 4 side constants.
Credits for the images goes to canstockphoto.com
answered Feb 7 '18 at 2:02
Abr001am
649613
-For the trapzoid abcd to have parallel sides it requires all these conditions to be set for uniqueness of area:
- $a+b+c>d$, $b+a<d$, $c+a<d$.
-Neverthless, a trapzoid with non parallel sides can not be defined just by his side lengths, but a fifth coordinate added should.
In this experience we show how come multiple trapzoid shapes can be formed with same lengths of edges.
Imagine we bring a fork and a knife to start dining on some digestable geometrical concepts :
A thread and two pins:
We instill the pins on some flat table:
Then take the fork and the knife, choose two fixed points in the string, then pull it from these points with those tools without changing the fulcrum points.
Distance of the chord from the pinpoints to the coordinates of fulcrums dosn't change, while the shape of the trapzoid changes infinitely!
now envisage that $h_1$ is figured by the fork, $h_2$ symbolised by the knife, h1 is directly relative to h2 always regarding the same side lengths. We will show in the following trigonometric relations:
- $costheta=b`/a$,
$sintheta=(h_2-h_1)/a implies sqrt{1-(b`/a)^2}=(h_2-h_1)/a$ - $b``/d= sqrt{1-(h_2/d)^2}$
- $(b-b`-b``)/c= sqrt{1-(h_1/c)^2}$
Since there is 4 unknowns $b`,b``,h_1,h_2$ we can formulate $h_1$ in function of $h_2$ and 4 side constants.
Credits for the images goes to canstockphoto.com
answered Feb 7 '18 at 2:02
Abr001am
649613
answered Feb 7 '18 at 2:02
Abr001am
649613
answered Feb 7 '18 at 2:02
Abr001am
649613
answered Feb 7 '18 at 2:02
Abr001am
649613
649613
add a comment |
add a comment |
I derived the formula for the area using the same procedure as is used to show Heron's Formula. Looking at the end formula, I realized that the formula follows quite simply from Heron's Formula.
Given a trapezoid with unequal parallel bases $a$ and $b$,
consider the triangle with base $|b-a|$ and sides $c$ and $d$:
Using $s=frac{|b-a|+c+d}2$, the area of the triangle is
$$
text{Area of Triangle}=sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}
$$
The altitude of the trapezoid and the triangle are the same, so the area is proportional to the average of the lengths of the bases. That is,
$$
bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{text{Area of Trapezoid}=frac{b+a}{|b-a|}sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}}
$$
answered Nov 20 '18 at 12:42
robjohn♦
264k27303624
I get it now. I had some difficulty at first ... but then I visualised it as two seperate triangles made by drawing a diagonal across the trapezium: one with a as base (or lid, rather) & the other with b as base: the former has area a/|b-a| × that of your Heron triange - the latter b/|b-a| × it; so the sum of them, the area of the trapezium, is (b+a)/|b-a| × it! Neat!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:34
add a comment |
I derived the formula for the area using the same procedure as is used to show Heron's Formula. Looking at the end formula, I realized that the formula follows quite simply from Heron's Formula.
Given a trapezoid with unequal parallel bases $a$ and $b$,
consider the triangle with base $|b-a|$ and sides $c$ and $d$:
Using $s=frac{|b-a|+c+d}2$, the area of the triangle is
$$
text{Area of Triangle}=sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}
$$
The altitude of the trapezoid and the triangle are the same, so the area is proportional to the average of the lengths of the bases. That is,
$$
bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{text{Area of Trapezoid}=frac{b+a}{|b-a|}sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}}
$$
answered Nov 20 '18 at 12:42
robjohn♦
264k27303624
I get it now. I had some difficulty at first ... but then I visualised it as two seperate triangles made by drawing a diagonal across the trapezium: one with a as base (or lid, rather) & the other with b as base: the former has area a/|b-a| × that of your Heron triange - the latter b/|b-a| × it; so the sum of them, the area of the trapezium, is (b+a)/|b-a| × it! Neat!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:34
add a comment |
I derived the formula for the area using the same procedure as is used to show Heron's Formula. Looking at the end formula, I realized that the formula follows quite simply from Heron's Formula.
Given a trapezoid with unequal parallel bases $a$ and $b$,
consider the triangle with base $|b-a|$ and sides $c$ and $d$:
Using $s=frac{|b-a|+c+d}2$, the area of the triangle is
$$
text{Area of Triangle}=sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}
$$
The altitude of the trapezoid and the triangle are the same, so the area is proportional to the average of the lengths of the bases. That is,
$$
bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{text{Area of Trapezoid}=frac{b+a}{|b-a|}sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}}
$$
answered Nov 20 '18 at 12:42
robjohn♦
264k27303624
I derived the formula for the area using the same procedure as is used to show Heron's Formula. Looking at the end formula, I realized that the formula follows quite simply from Heron's Formula.
Given a trapezoid with unequal parallel bases $a$ and $b$,
consider the triangle with base $|b-a|$ and sides $c$ and $d$:
Using $s=frac{|b-a|+c+d}2$, the area of the triangle is
$$
text{Area of Triangle}=sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}
$$
The altitude of the trapezoid and the triangle are the same, so the area is proportional to the average of the lengths of the bases. That is,
$$
bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{text{Area of Trapezoid}=frac{b+a}{|b-a|}sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}}
$$
answered Nov 20 '18 at 12:42
robjohn♦
264k27303624
edited Nov 22 '18 at 17:33
answered Nov 20 '18 at 12:42
robjohn♦
264k27303624
answered Nov 20 '18 at 12:42
robjohn♦
264k27303624
answered Nov 20 '18 at 12:42
robjohn♦
264k27303624
264k27303624
I get it now. I had some difficulty at first ... but then I visualised it as two seperate triangles made by drawing a diagonal across the trapezium: one with a as base (or lid, rather) & the other with b as base: the former has area a/|b-a| × that of your Heron triange - the latter b/|b-a| × it; so the sum of them, the area of the trapezium, is (b+a)/|b-a| × it! Neat!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:34
add a comment |
I get it now. I had some difficulty at first ... but then I visualised it as two seperate triangles made by drawing a diagonal across the trapezium: one with a as base (or lid, rather) & the other with b as base: the former has area a/|b-a| × that of your Heron triange - the latter b/|b-a| × it; so the sum of them, the area of the trapezium, is (b+a)/|b-a| × it! Neat!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:34
I get it now. I had some difficulty at first ... but then I visualised it as two seperate triangles made by drawing a diagonal across the trapezium: one with a as base (or lid, rather) & the other with b as base: the former has area a/|b-a| × that of your Heron triange - the latter b/|b-a| × it; so the sum of them, the area of the trapezium, is (b+a)/|b-a| × it! Neat!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:34
I get it now. I had some difficulty at first ... but then I visualised it as two seperate triangles made by drawing a diagonal across the trapezium: one with a as base (or lid, rather) & the other with b as base: the former has area a/|b-a| × that of your Heron triange - the latter b/|b-a| × it; so the sum of them, the area of the trapezium, is (b+a)/|b-a| × it! Neat!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:34
add a comment |
I think you mean Brahmagupta's formula, not Heron's formula. There is no formula for the area of trapezoid given the lengths of the sides, because the sides alone do not determine the area. This is true even for a parallelogram. Imagine a parallelogram made of four sticks, joined together by pins at the corners. Then you can slide it closed by moved the top side parallel to the bottom side. You'll get zero area when the top and bottom coincide, and maximum are when you have a rectangle.
In the case of Brahmagupta's formula, the quadrilateral is circumscribable, and you can't change the sides like that.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:56
saulspatz
14k21329
2
"This is true even for a parallelogram" - in fact, as other answers show, it is true only for a parallelogram. For a trapezium which is not a parallelogram the size lengths do determine the area (provided you are told which are the lengths of the parallel sides).
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:55
@MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
– saulspatz
Feb 6 '18 at 14:31
@saulspatz In the United States, at least, that is the norm at the pre-college level, and has been for more than a century. See my answer on MESE at matheducators.stackexchange.com/a/13766/29 for a historical survey.
– mweiss
Nov 27 '18 at 1:29
add a comment |
I think you mean Brahmagupta's formula, not Heron's formula. There is no formula for the area of trapezoid given the lengths of the sides, because the sides alone do not determine the area. This is true even for a parallelogram. Imagine a parallelogram made of four sticks, joined together by pins at the corners. Then you can slide it closed by moved the top side parallel to the bottom side. You'll get zero area when the top and bottom coincide, and maximum are when you have a rectangle.
In the case of Brahmagupta's formula, the quadrilateral is circumscribable, and you can't change the sides like that.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:56
saulspatz
14k21329
2
"This is true even for a parallelogram" - in fact, as other answers show, it is true only for a parallelogram. For a trapezium which is not a parallelogram the size lengths do determine the area (provided you are told which are the lengths of the parallel sides).
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:55
@MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
– saulspatz
Feb 6 '18 at 14:31
@saulspatz In the United States, at least, that is the norm at the pre-college level, and has been for more than a century. See my answer on MESE at matheducators.stackexchange.com/a/13766/29 for a historical survey.
– mweiss
Nov 27 '18 at 1:29
add a comment |
I think you mean Brahmagupta's formula, not Heron's formula. There is no formula for the area of trapezoid given the lengths of the sides, because the sides alone do not determine the area. This is true even for a parallelogram. Imagine a parallelogram made of four sticks, joined together by pins at the corners. Then you can slide it closed by moved the top side parallel to the bottom side. You'll get zero area when the top and bottom coincide, and maximum are when you have a rectangle.
In the case of Brahmagupta's formula, the quadrilateral is circumscribable, and you can't change the sides like that.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:56
saulspatz
14k21329
I think you mean Brahmagupta's formula, not Heron's formula. There is no formula for the area of trapezoid given the lengths of the sides, because the sides alone do not determine the area. This is true even for a parallelogram. Imagine a parallelogram made of four sticks, joined together by pins at the corners. Then you can slide it closed by moved the top side parallel to the bottom side. You'll get zero area when the top and bottom coincide, and maximum are when you have a rectangle.
In the case of Brahmagupta's formula, the quadrilateral is circumscribable, and you can't change the sides like that.
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:56
saulspatz
14k21329
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:56
saulspatz
14k21329
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:56
saulspatz
14k21329
answered Feb 5 '18 at 21:56
saulspatz
14k21329
14k21329
2
"This is true even for a parallelogram" - in fact, as other answers show, it is true only for a parallelogram. For a trapezium which is not a parallelogram the size lengths do determine the area (provided you are told which are the lengths of the parallel sides).
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:55
@MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
– saulspatz
Feb 6 '18 at 14:31
@saulspatz In the United States, at least, that is the norm at the pre-college level, and has been for more than a century. See my answer on MESE at matheducators.stackexchange.com/a/13766/29 for a historical survey.
– mweiss
Nov 27 '18 at 1:29
add a comment |
2
"This is true even for a parallelogram" - in fact, as other answers show, it is true only for a parallelogram. For a trapezium which is not a parallelogram the size lengths do determine the area (provided you are told which are the lengths of the parallel sides).
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:55
@MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
– saulspatz
Feb 6 '18 at 14:31
@saulspatz In the United States, at least, that is the norm at the pre-college level, and has been for more than a century. See my answer on MESE at matheducators.stackexchange.com/a/13766/29 for a historical survey.
– mweiss
Nov 27 '18 at 1:29
2
2
"This is true even for a parallelogram" - in fact, as other answers show, it is true only for a parallelogram. For a trapezium which is not a parallelogram the size lengths do determine the area (provided you are told which are the lengths of the parallel sides).
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:55
"This is true even for a parallelogram" - in fact, as other answers show, it is true only for a parallelogram. For a trapezium which is not a parallelogram the size lengths do determine the area (provided you are told which are the lengths of the parallel sides).
– Martin Bonner
Feb 6 '18 at 12:55
@MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
– saulspatz
Feb 6 '18 at 14:31
@MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
– saulspatz
Feb 6 '18 at 14:31
@saulspatz In the United States, at least, that is the norm at the pre-college level, and has been for more than a century. See my answer on MESE at matheducators.stackexchange.com/a/13766/29 for a historical survey.
– mweiss
Nov 27 '18 at 1:29
@saulspatz In the United States, at least, that is the norm at the pre-college level, and has been for more than a century. See my answer on MESE at matheducators.stackexchange.com/a/13766/29 for a historical survey.
– mweiss
Nov 27 '18 at 1:29
add a comment |
M Weiss put
$$A=frac{a+b}{2}csqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2} .$$
I would rather have that answer symmetrical in $c$ & $d$, which would be
$$A=frac{a+b}{4(b-a)}sqrt{(b-a)^4+2(b-a)^2(c^2+d^2)+(c^2-d^2)^2} .$$
But it's just that to my taste it looks odd that it's not symmetrical in $c$ & $d$ ... my mind just protests that it ought to be!
Or
$$A=frac{a+b}{4(b-a)}sqrt{(b-a)^2((b-a)^2+2(c^2+d^2))+(c^2-d^2)^2} ,$$
even.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 8:03
AmbretteOrrisey
57410
This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
– mweiss
Nov 23 '18 at 16:28
Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:14
Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:35
add a comment |
M Weiss put
$$A=frac{a+b}{2}csqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2} .$$
I would rather have that answer symmetrical in $c$ & $d$, which would be
$$A=frac{a+b}{4(b-a)}sqrt{(b-a)^4+2(b-a)^2(c^2+d^2)+(c^2-d^2)^2} .$$
But it's just that to my taste it looks odd that it's not symmetrical in $c$ & $d$ ... my mind just protests that it ought to be!
Or
$$A=frac{a+b}{4(b-a)}sqrt{(b-a)^2((b-a)^2+2(c^2+d^2))+(c^2-d^2)^2} ,$$
even.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 8:03
AmbretteOrrisey
57410
This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
– mweiss
Nov 23 '18 at 16:28
Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:14
Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:35
add a comment |
M Weiss put
$$A=frac{a+b}{2}csqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2} .$$
I would rather have that answer symmetrical in $c$ & $d$, which would be
$$A=frac{a+b}{4(b-a)}sqrt{(b-a)^4+2(b-a)^2(c^2+d^2)+(c^2-d^2)^2} .$$
But it's just that to my taste it looks odd that it's not symmetrical in $c$ & $d$ ... my mind just protests that it ought to be!
Or
$$A=frac{a+b}{4(b-a)}sqrt{(b-a)^2((b-a)^2+2(c^2+d^2))+(c^2-d^2)^2} ,$$
even.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 8:03
AmbretteOrrisey
57410
M Weiss put
$$A=frac{a+b}{2}csqrt{1-left( frac{(b-a)^2+c^2-d^2}{2c(b-a)} right)^2} .$$
I would rather have that answer symmetrical in $c$ & $d$, which would be
$$A=frac{a+b}{4(b-a)}sqrt{(b-a)^4+2(b-a)^2(c^2+d^2)+(c^2-d^2)^2} .$$
But it's just that to my taste it looks odd that it's not symmetrical in $c$ & $d$ ... my mind just protests that it ought to be!
Or
$$A=frac{a+b}{4(b-a)}sqrt{(b-a)^2((b-a)^2+2(c^2+d^2))+(c^2-d^2)^2} ,$$
even.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 8:03
AmbretteOrrisey
57410
edited Nov 23 '18 at 8:14
answered Nov 23 '18 at 8:03
AmbretteOrrisey
57410
answered Nov 23 '18 at 8:03
AmbretteOrrisey
57410
answered Nov 23 '18 at 8:03
AmbretteOrrisey
57410
57410
This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
– mweiss
Nov 23 '18 at 16:28
Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:14
Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:35
add a comment |
This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
– mweiss
Nov 23 '18 at 16:28
Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:14
Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:35
This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
– mweiss
Nov 23 '18 at 16:28
This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
– mweiss
Nov 23 '18 at 16:28
Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:14
Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:14
Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:35
Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
– AmbretteOrrisey
Nov 23 '18 at 21:35
add a comment |
It depends on your definition of trapezoid. If it includes parallelograms, then No: here are two trapezoids, same side-lengths, different area:
answered Feb 7 '18 at 12:23
M. Winter
18.9k62765
add a comment |
It depends on your definition of trapezoid. If it includes parallelograms, then No: here are two trapezoids, same side-lengths, different area:
answered Feb 7 '18 at 12:23
M. Winter
18.9k62765
add a comment |
It depends on your definition of trapezoid. If it includes parallelograms, then No: here are two trapezoids, same side-lengths, different area:
answered Feb 7 '18 at 12:23
M. Winter
18.9k62765
It depends on your definition of trapezoid. If it includes parallelograms, then No: here are two trapezoids, same side-lengths, different area:
answered Feb 7 '18 at 12:23
M. Winter
18.9k62765
edited Nov 20 '18 at 11:20
answered Feb 7 '18 at 12:23
M. Winter
18.9k62765
answered Feb 7 '18 at 12:23
M. Winter
18.9k62765
answered Feb 7 '18 at 12:23
M. Winter
18.9k62765
18.9k62765
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2637690%2fis-there-a-formula-to-calculate-the-area-of-a-trapezoid-knowing-the-length-of-al%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
What do you mean by "trapezoid"? In North America, it's a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides; elsewhere, it's a quadrilateral with no parallel sides.
– David Richerby
Feb 6 '18 at 22:27