1. Standard memberChronicLeaky
    Don't Fear Me
    Reaping
    Joined
    28 Feb '07
    Moves
    655
    09 Nov '08 22:003 edits
    EDIT What I said before should be done in two steps, one per triangle.

    The are of a triangle with vertices (a,b), (c,d), (e,f) is 1/2*det(a b 1, c d 1, e f 1).
  2. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    09 Nov '08 23:40
    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PolygonArea.html
  3. Joined
    29 Oct '07
    Moves
    4273
    10 Nov '08 00:38
    Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
    EDIT What I said before should be done in two steps, one per triangle.

    The are of a triangle with vertices (a,b), (c,d), (e,f) is 1/2*det(a b 1, c d 1, e f 1).
    yeah u r right, its pretty much the same thing i told earlier..i simply expanded the determinant..😀
    cheers!
  4. Standard memberChronicLeaky
    Don't Fear Me
    Reaping
    Joined
    28 Feb '07
    Moves
    655
    10 Nov '08 07:34
    Originally posted by Palynka
    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PolygonArea.html
    Nice! I guess Green's theorem will give this, which is probably what OP should have gone for in the first place.
  5. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    10 Nov '08 09:211 edit
    Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
    Nice! I guess Green's theorem will give this, which is probably what OP should have gone for in the first place.
    I also didn't know about it... Cute, isn't it?

    Geometry is really not my thing, but I liked the method you posted, went looking for a proof and found this. It's funny how we (I) immediately think of integrals when dealing with curved shapes, but we tend to go for 'easier' ways when the lines are straight (obviously forgetting how easy the integrals would be!).
  6. Standard memberChronicLeaky
    Don't Fear Me
    Reaping
    Joined
    28 Feb '07
    Moves
    655
    10 Nov '08 17:32
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I also didn't know about it... Cute, isn't it?

    Geometry is really not my thing, but I liked the method you posted, went looking for a proof and found this. It's funny how we (I) immediately think of integrals when dealing with curved shapes, but we tend to go for 'easier' ways when the lines are straight (obviously forgetting how easy the integrals would be!).
    That's a good observation. I think maybe it's because we learn calculus after we already have experience measuring things like polygons (which is exhausting). I often notice how often I don't think to use big technical machinery to do things that are special cases of such machinery. Sometimes it's a case of "Yesssss, saved some work" and sometimes it puts a real hole in the like unified picture of things. I suspect that in the case of measuring polygons, with integration being the big machinery, avoiding same is in the "Yessss" category.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree