Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Amphitheater > The Colosseum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 10-25-2006, 08:43 PM
ceptimus's Avatar
ceptimus ceptimus is offline
puzzler
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: XVMMDCCXCI
Images: 28
Default Re: Triangle puzzle

I made some progress with IRON MAN's problem, though I don't have a solution yet...

To make the notation simpler, I renamed y and z so that IRON MAN's x+y is my y and IRON MAN's x+z is my z. Thus my x, y and z are simply the distances of the point from the three corners of the triangle.

I get this formula for the length of one side, L, given the distances: x, y, z of a point from the three corners:

L4 - (x2 + y2 + z2)L2 + (x4 + y4 + z4 - x2y2 - x2z2 - y2z2) = 0

As this is a quartic, I don't fancy my chances of rearranging it to get a formula for x. :P
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-25-2006, 11:50 PM
IRON MAN's Avatar
IRON MAN IRON MAN is offline
Invincible Armour-clad Superhero
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Gender: Male
Posts: CMLXXXIX
Default Re: Triangle puzzle

It's an interesting problem isn't it?

I have asked this of several people with varying mathematics ability and nobody can seem to derive an answer. It also seems to be beyond my personal mathematical abilities.

While it may be discouraging to tell you that I do not know the answer, let me offer you some encouragement.

It is conspicuously obvious that there can always only be one answer for x for any given values of, (my), y and z.

Nice idea redefining y and z to simplify the process, I never thought of that, (and you should see some of the monster formulae I've got). But of course, one would have to split them up again to simplify for x.

Since you display an interest in this problem, and have the ability to derive that first step, I'll tell you how I arrived at this problem in the first place.

When I was in high school science class in about 1986, the teacher demonstrated how earthquake epicentres are triangulated by working out the distance the shock wave travelled before arriving at each seismic station.

Plotted on a common time scale you would get three sets of shock waves like this:

Earthquakes contain both primary waves, (P), and secondary waves, (S), that travel at different speeds, so the distance a set of shock waves have travelled can be directly derived from the delay between both those waves, taking into account the composition of the material they are travelling through.

Thus, it is a simple matter to plot a circle around each station at the distance each detected, and by plotting three stations triangulate the epicentre, sometimes resulting in a "triangle of error". The epicentre need not be inside the triangle formed by the stations to be triangulated.

This got me thinking. Why do you need the S-waves at all? There should be sufficient available information to derive the epicentre without the added benefit of this information, and the problem boils down to the geometric problem I presented.


There is indeed only one value for x when y and z have specific values. The information we seek appears lost to us initially, because the first inkling we get of an earthquake is at time=0 when it hits the first station and we have no idea how long it took to get there. But knowing that the missing time/distance, (x), is a component of the other two readings, (x+y), and (x+z), gives us the information we need in order to leave x with a single unique value for each location, and value of y and z.

Obviously we can instantly figure out that if the earthquake occurred directly underneath station A then we would get:

y = 10
z = 10

and therefore x=0.

Or if the earthquake occurred directly in the middle of an equal lateral triangle, it would hit all stations at the same time, and therefore:

y=0
z=0

Therefore x must equal the distance from the apex to the centre-point.

Now obviously A wont always be the first station to detect the earthquake, so you might get:

x=14
y=27
z=0

In this case the answer you would be after is z, and the answer in this case lies outside the equal lateral triangle also. But obviously the formula would be the same except you would change the x and z terms around.

Now obviously we have a couple of options:

1. We can plug random values of x into the formula and try to home in on the answer that way.

2. We can do the calculations prior and put them in a look up table.

3. We can work out the formula and derive the exact answer to a potentially infinite number of decimal places for any point extending off to infinity anywhere on that plane.

Having access to fast computers might make one opt for the lazy option 1 or 2, but that still doesn't solve the problem.

And here's the best bit of all. This formula has endless practical value.

Imagine a security system with 3 microphones or seismic detectors that can instantly triangulate your position in a building by the noises you make and your footsteps.

Better yet imagine putting this concept in 3 dimensions, (a tetrahedron of sensors), and being able to instantly work out the location of any object emitting a particular type of energy/radiation, at any range, (with decreasing accuracy over distance in the real world).


Now I don't want to get all geeky on you, but can you say, "Tricorder" boys and girls?

Better yet, you could add a different type of sensor in another tetrahedron within the same space, say you have seismic, and radiation.


Going straight to the logical conclusion you could have an entire sphere of tetrahedrons within each other all in the same space, each slightly offset, (the individual orientation of each one obviously doesn't matter).

The size of those tetrahedrons, (distance sensors are apart), would have a bearing on the accuracy also.

The accuracy with which they were placed in their positions would also have a bearing if you were relying on the tetrahedron being perfect.

However, if a formula could be devised for a "non-equal lateral" tetrahedron, then that is simply a matter of calibration, perhaps even self-calibration if additional sensors were added and/or mathematical derivation used so the device could triangulate the location of it's own sensors in relation to one another.


Ta-da!

Time for the Mark II?
__________________
IRON MAN
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-26-2006, 04:46 AM
IRON MAN's Avatar
IRON MAN IRON MAN is offline
Invincible Armour-clad Superhero
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Gender: Male
Posts: CMLXXXIX
Default Re: Triangle puzzle

Coincidently, I made up an excel document to assist me with verifying any formulae I came up with against seven known points.

I ended up just mucking around putting in any old nonsense that seemed about right and at one stage wound up with 5 verified points and the other values as multiples of the input factors or numbers like SQR(2) and shit like that.

It's just circumstantial of course, but seems to suggest that there may well be a solution. So tantalisingly close I can almost taste it.

__________________
IRON MAN
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-26-2006, 11:55 PM
IRON MAN's Avatar
IRON MAN IRON MAN is offline
Invincible Armour-clad Superhero
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Gender: Male
Posts: CMLXXXIX
Default Re: Triangle puzzle

Another application is robotic vision. With this a robot could actually "see" in accurate and genuine 3D - passively and/or actively - on a wide spectrum with minimum processing delay.

It would sure as shit beat trying to replicate our own vision with all it's flaws giving only the impression of 3D from a couple of 2D images.

If the robot could see in 3D there is no necessity to do additional processing to convert the image it sees - as we do. Also it would be immune to the optical illusions and other visual errors that we suffer from.

Human:

3D world => Sensed by our eyes in => 2 x 2-Dimensional images => Converted by our brains to => Fake 3D impression/approximation.

I sure don't envy anyone trying to replicate that system in robotics. That's a lot of processing requiring, (a lot of gap filling and data reconstruction).

Wouldn't it be better to go this route:

3D world => Sensed with enough information to process it quickly into => True and accurate 3D information.

Of course you don't need this formula just for that. You could probably use an algorithm to narrow down the answer to quite a few decimal places pretty quickly, (as pointed out by a friend of mine), and there is practical value in that.

But it sure would be cool to get the answer in one hit.

You would basically only have to identify similar waveform characteristics from each sensor, which is easier if they are clustered, rather than far away from each other, since the intensity will be about the same. But like I say the distance between them is a trade-off with accuracy.

Add active sensors, say like a bat's sonic pulse and radar system and you have a pile of incoming data on four 2-dimensional channels within a very short space of time.

There is also another precedent for this in nature. There is a desert scorpion that senses not only the angle, but distance to it's prey by the differential between seismic vibrations it receives through it's legs - all planted in the sand at different points.

Since the damn thing is practically blind, it's pretty impressive to see it jump exactly the right distance onto it's prey with pinpoin accuracy, (although I also figure the intensity of the vibration is an additional factor in the "calculation" of distance - there's no penalty for cheating in natural selection). Especially considering it can't use it's eyes to calibrate that sense, (like I'm assuming we do with our directional sense for sound).

It is also interesting to note, that by simply recording the incoming data trains on the 4 sensors on a common timescale, (only twice as taxing as recording a couple of high fidelity stereo channels). You would then be able to extract any available information later, even if you didn't notice it, (process it out), at the time of recording. You effectively have a recording of your 3-dimensional environment and it just depends on the resolution, sensitivity, (at the time), and the processing power, (either applied at the time or afterward), as to how much information you can actually extract.

Really gives new meaning to the term, "Tricorder", doesn't it? Maybe it should be, "Quadcorder", to be more precise. :)

Examples:

1. You might be able to distinguish the sound and location of a minor metal deformation in a machine that was not large enough to appear to be a problem at the time, but you discern it from the, "black box", recording after a major failure.

2. You might be able to filter out an unnoticed individual background conversation in a busy public place, based on specifying the location of the speakers afterward.

That last one is an interesting example of kinda working this idea backwards too. Which makes you wonder if there is a useful application for a device that emits a pulse from 4 points at a specific time, in order to get them to intersect at an exact point in 3-Dimensional space.

If you figure any of this stuff out, by all means go make a million dollars with it. I wont lose any sleep as long as I can buy the resultant consumer products, and I'll be the first in line.

I just want my goddamn tricorder! :beam:
__________________
IRON MAN
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:25 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: Triangle puzzle

I had a brief crack at that puzzle, based on the original 'seismic waves' idea, presented by Iron Man.

So you treat each point of his triangle as the centre of a circle. The one at the bottom left has radius r+y, the bottom right r+z, and the top point has radius r. (Basically, realise I have replaced his x with r).

You know the equations for each of these circles (they will be related to L). But for that you need a coordinate system. So I placed the origin at the bottom left corner. As I needed x and y for my coordinates, I renamed the quantity y as a, and z as b. These are constants, so it makes more sense to use a conventional notation.

So when I wrote them down I got:


x2 + y2 = (r+a)2
(x - Lcos(pi/3))2 + (y-Lsin(pi/3))2 = r2
(x-L)2 + y2 = (r+b)2

I may have done this wrong; I did it very rushed. But these are three simultaneous equations, with three unknowns (r, x and y). (x,y) will be with the coordinates of the place where all three circles meet. r will be the unknown quantity in the question (Iron Man's 'x').

With three unknowns and three equations, this should be solvable for r, provided the constants a, b and L are supplied.

It might not be particularly nice to solve, but it is (in principle) doable. Personally, I'd use a computer to solve them.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-27-2006, 04:14 PM
ceptimus's Avatar
ceptimus ceptimus is offline
puzzler
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: XVMMDCCXCI
Images: 28
Default Re: Triangle puzzle

I've got complicated expressions for x, and the coordinates of the intersection point. The one for x has just "x =" on the left hand side, but also includes various functions of x on the right hand side. :sadcheer: Looking at the various power terms for x, it looks as though the expression (given enough algebraic manipulation) will simplify to a quartic.

However, quartics are not particularly nice things to deal with, so I agree with Dragar that a numerical approach using a computer program is probably the most practical way to solve the problem...

...but that's not what IRON MAN asked for, so I'll keep plugging away at the algebra, hoping that the x4 and x3 terms will magically cancel out, leaving some nice tractable equations. :crossed:
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-01-2006, 08:47 PM
ceptimus's Avatar
ceptimus ceptimus is offline
puzzler
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: XVMMDCCXCI
Images: 28
Default Re: Triangle puzzle

I made a utility to draw IRON MAN's triangle. You have to specify the width (pixels) of the diagram, and the x and y coordinates of the point (taking the bottom left corner as the origin and scaling to a side length of 1.0). Here I'm just testing whether the triangle will render in a forum post. Quote this post to see how it works.
This example is asking for a triangle 600 pixels wide, and I worked out the coordinates so that the three lines to the centre have lengths: 3, 4, 5 (and the side would therefore be 6.76643).



I'll post my numerical solver when I've tidied it up a bit. That solver uses this diagram utility to do display the results.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-21-2006, 09:02 PM
Shake's Avatar
Shake Shake is offline
mostly harmless
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nunya
Gender: Male
Posts: VDCXCII
Images: 13
Default Re: Triangle puzzle

I drew in a couple of lines parallel to the base and extended some other lines outside of the original triangle, but eventually came to the answer of theta being 30º, also. Too bad I can't draw it out here.
__________________
Through with oligarchy? Ready to get the money out of politics? Want real progressives in office who will work for the people and not the donors? Want to help grow The Squad?

Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Amphitheater > The Colosseum


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.38273 seconds with 14 queries