Is there a formula to calculate the area of a trapezoid knowing the length of all its sides?











up vote
22
down vote

favorite
7












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.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 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 at 22:27















up vote
22
down vote

favorite
7












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.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 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 at 22:27













up vote
22
down vote

favorite
7









up vote
22
down vote

favorite
7






7





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.










share|cite|improve this question















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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Feb 7 at 9:26

























asked Feb 5 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 at 22:27














  • 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 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 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 at 22:27










11 Answers
11






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
38
down vote



accepted










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.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 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 at 22:12






  • 1




    This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
    – Seyed
    Feb 5 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 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 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 at 22:29


















up vote
10
down vote













To add a derivation that puts the square root factor in a Heronian context ...



enter image description here



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
$$|triangle AC^prime D| = frac14sqrt{((c-a)+b+d)(-(c-a)+b+d)((c-a)-b+d)((c-a)+b-d);}$$






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    This derivation is far better than my own!
    – mweiss
    Feb 6 at 15:05




















up vote
7
down vote













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 $19,23,29,31$:



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
    – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
    Feb 6 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 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 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 at 15:05












  • @Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
    – g.kov
    Feb 7 at 15:17


















up vote
6
down vote













This is how to calculate the area of a trapezoid when the four sides are known:
enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 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 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 at 23:22






  • 4




    @Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
    – Martin Bonner
    Feb 6 at 12:53






  • 1




    Wikipedia Link
    – steven gregory
    Feb 6 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 at 8:30


















up vote
5
down vote













Hint (if we know the parallel sides):



enter image description here



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 $A=frac {a+b}{2}h$






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
    – Curtis Bechtel
    Feb 6 at 16:36










  • Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
    – Emilio Novati
    Feb 6 at 17:01


















up vote
4
down vote













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 $1$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I dont understood.How?
    – Newuser
    Feb 5 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 at 21:55










  • @mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
    – Ethan Bolker
    Feb 5 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 at 16:08




















up vote
2
down vote













enter image description here



-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 :



enter image description here



A thread and two pins:



enter image description here



We instill the pins on some flat table:



enter image description here



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.



enter image description here



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






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    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 $b$,



    enter image description here



    consider the triangle with base $|b-a|$ and sides $c$ and $d$:



    enter image description here



    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,
    $$
    bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{text{Area of Trapezoid}=frac{b+a}{|b-a|}sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}}
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • 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
      yesterday


















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 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 at 12:55










    • @MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
      – saulspatz
      Feb 6 at 14:31


















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
      – mweiss
      yesterday










    • Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
      – AmbretteOrrisey
      yesterday










    • Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
      – AmbretteOrrisey
      yesterday


















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    It depends on your definition of trapezoid. If it includes parallelograms, then No: here are two trapezoids, same side-lengths, different area:



    enter image description here






    share|cite|improve this answer























      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',
      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
      });


      }
      });














       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      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








      up vote
      38
      down vote



      accepted










      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 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 at 22:12






      • 1




        This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
        – Seyed
        Feb 5 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 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 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 at 22:29















      up vote
      38
      down vote



      accepted










      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 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 at 22:12






      • 1




        This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
        – Seyed
        Feb 5 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 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 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 at 22:29













      up vote
      38
      down vote



      accepted







      up vote
      38
      down vote



      accepted






      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer














      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.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Feb 5 at 22:15

























      answered Feb 5 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 at 22:12






      • 1




        This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
        – Seyed
        Feb 5 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 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 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 at 22:29














      • 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 at 22:12






      • 1




        This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
        – Seyed
        Feb 5 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 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 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 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 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 at 22:12




      1




      1




      This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
      – Seyed
      Feb 5 at 22:22




      This is the address: 1728.org/quadtrap.htm
      – Seyed
      Feb 5 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 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 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 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 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 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 at 22:29










      up vote
      10
      down vote













      To add a derivation that puts the square root factor in a Heronian context ...



      enter image description here



      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
      $$|triangle AC^prime D| = frac14sqrt{((c-a)+b+d)(-(c-a)+b+d)((c-a)-b+d)((c-a)+b-d);}$$






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 1




        This derivation is far better than my own!
        – mweiss
        Feb 6 at 15:05

















      up vote
      10
      down vote













      To add a derivation that puts the square root factor in a Heronian context ...



      enter image description here



      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
      $$|triangle AC^prime D| = frac14sqrt{((c-a)+b+d)(-(c-a)+b+d)((c-a)-b+d)((c-a)+b-d);}$$






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 1




        This derivation is far better than my own!
        – mweiss
        Feb 6 at 15:05















      up vote
      10
      down vote










      up vote
      10
      down vote









      To add a derivation that puts the square root factor in a Heronian context ...



      enter image description here



      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
      $$|triangle AC^prime D| = frac14sqrt{((c-a)+b+d)(-(c-a)+b+d)((c-a)-b+d)((c-a)+b-d);}$$






      share|cite|improve this answer














      To add a derivation that puts the square root factor in a Heronian context ...



      enter image description here



      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
      $$|triangle AC^prime D| = frac14sqrt{((c-a)+b+d)(-(c-a)+b+d)((c-a)-b+d)((c-a)+b-d);}$$







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Feb 6 at 9:48

























      answered Feb 6 at 7:15









      Blue

      46.6k869147




      46.6k869147








      • 1




        This derivation is far better than my own!
        – mweiss
        Feb 6 at 15:05
















      • 1




        This derivation is far better than my own!
        – mweiss
        Feb 6 at 15:05










      1




      1




      This derivation is far better than my own!
      – mweiss
      Feb 6 at 15:05






      This derivation is far better than my own!
      – mweiss
      Feb 6 at 15:05












      up vote
      7
      down vote













      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 $19,23,29,31$:



      enter image description here






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
        – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
        Feb 6 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 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 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 at 15:05












      • @Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
        – g.kov
        Feb 7 at 15:17















      up vote
      7
      down vote













      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 $19,23,29,31$:



      enter image description here






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
        – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
        Feb 6 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 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 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 at 15:05












      • @Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
        – g.kov
        Feb 7 at 15:17













      up vote
      7
      down vote










      up vote
      7
      down vote









      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 $19,23,29,31$:



      enter image description here






      share|cite|improve this answer












      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 $19,23,29,31$:



      enter image description here







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered Feb 6 at 15:22









      g.kov

      6,0171718




      6,0171718












      • Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
        – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
        Feb 6 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 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 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 at 15:05












      • @Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
        – g.kov
        Feb 7 at 15:17


















      • Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
        – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
        Feb 6 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 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 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 at 15:05












      • @Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
        – g.kov
        Feb 7 at 15:17
















      Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
      – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
      Feb 6 at 15:53




      Yeah, I was just writing a comment to mweiss's answer about the same thing.
      – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
      Feb 6 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 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 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 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 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 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 at 15:05














      @Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
      – g.kov
      Feb 7 at 15:17




      @Henry: This is probably an interesting new question.
      – g.kov
      Feb 7 at 15:17










      up vote
      6
      down vote













      This is how to calculate the area of a trapezoid when the four sides are known:
      enter image description here






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 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 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 at 23:22






      • 4




        @Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
        – Martin Bonner
        Feb 6 at 12:53






      • 1




        Wikipedia Link
        – steven gregory
        Feb 6 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 at 8:30















      up vote
      6
      down vote













      This is how to calculate the area of a trapezoid when the four sides are known:
      enter image description here






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 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 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 at 23:22






      • 4




        @Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
        – Martin Bonner
        Feb 6 at 12:53






      • 1




        Wikipedia Link
        – steven gregory
        Feb 6 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 at 8:30













      up vote
      6
      down vote










      up vote
      6
      down vote









      This is how to calculate the area of a trapezoid when the four sides are known:
      enter image description here






      share|cite|improve this answer














      This is how to calculate the area of a trapezoid when the four sides are known:
      enter image description here







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Feb 5 at 23:50

























      answered Feb 5 at 22:09









      Seyed

      6,21831322




      6,21831322








      • 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 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 at 23:22






      • 4




        @Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
        – Martin Bonner
        Feb 6 at 12:53






      • 1




        Wikipedia Link
        – steven gregory
        Feb 6 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 at 8:30














      • 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 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 at 23:22






      • 4




        @Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
        – Martin Bonner
        Feb 6 at 12:53






      • 1




        Wikipedia Link
        – steven gregory
        Feb 6 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 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 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 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 at 23:22




      You need to assume that $a$ is not $c$ since you have $(a-c)^2$ in a denominator.
      – Somos
      Feb 5 at 23:22




      4




      4




      @Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
      – Martin Bonner
      Feb 6 at 12:53




      @Somos : Which is precisely the condition that the trapezium is not a parallelogram.
      – Martin Bonner
      Feb 6 at 12:53




      1




      1




      Wikipedia Link
      – steven gregory
      Feb 6 at 13:18






      Wikipedia Link
      – steven gregory
      Feb 6 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 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 at 8:30










      up vote
      5
      down vote













      Hint (if we know the parallel sides):



      enter image description here



      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 $A=frac {a+b}{2}h$






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
        – Curtis Bechtel
        Feb 6 at 16:36










      • Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
        – Emilio Novati
        Feb 6 at 17:01















      up vote
      5
      down vote













      Hint (if we know the parallel sides):



      enter image description here



      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 $A=frac {a+b}{2}h$






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
        – Curtis Bechtel
        Feb 6 at 16:36










      • Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
        – Emilio Novati
        Feb 6 at 17:01













      up vote
      5
      down vote










      up vote
      5
      down vote









      Hint (if we know the parallel sides):



      enter image description here



      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 $A=frac {a+b}{2}h$






      share|cite|improve this answer














      Hint (if we know the parallel sides):



      enter image description here



      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 $A=frac {a+b}{2}h$







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Feb 6 at 17:01

























      answered Feb 5 at 22:46









      Emilio Novati

      50.7k43372




      50.7k43372












      • Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
        – Curtis Bechtel
        Feb 6 at 16:36










      • Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
        – Emilio Novati
        Feb 6 at 17:01


















      • Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
        – Curtis Bechtel
        Feb 6 at 16:36










      • Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
        – Emilio Novati
        Feb 6 at 17:01
















      Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
      – Curtis Bechtel
      Feb 6 at 16:36




      Shouldn't the second line be $ sqrt{b^2 - left( a - c - x right)^2} = CF $
      – Curtis Bechtel
      Feb 6 at 16:36












      Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
      – Emilio Novati
      Feb 6 at 17:01




      Yes! Thank you. I edit the typo...:)
      – Emilio Novati
      Feb 6 at 17:01










      up vote
      4
      down vote













      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 $1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • I dont understood.How?
        – Newuser
        Feb 5 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 at 21:55










      • @mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
        – Ethan Bolker
        Feb 5 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 at 16:08

















      up vote
      4
      down vote













      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 $1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • I dont understood.How?
        – Newuser
        Feb 5 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 at 21:55










      • @mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
        – Ethan Bolker
        Feb 5 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 at 16:08















      up vote
      4
      down vote










      up vote
      4
      down vote









      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 $1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer














      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 $1$.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Feb 5 at 21:56

























      answered Feb 5 at 21:52









      Ethan Bolker

      39.2k543102




      39.2k543102












      • I dont understood.How?
        – Newuser
        Feb 5 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 at 21:55










      • @mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
        – Ethan Bolker
        Feb 5 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 at 16:08




















      • I dont understood.How?
        – Newuser
        Feb 5 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 at 21:55










      • @mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
        – Ethan Bolker
        Feb 5 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 at 16:08


















      I dont understood.How?
      – Newuser
      Feb 5 at 21:54






      I dont understood.How?
      – Newuser
      Feb 5 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 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 at 21:55












      @mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
      – Ethan Bolker
      Feb 5 at 22:14




      @mweiss You're right. See my comment on your answer.
      – Ethan Bolker
      Feb 5 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 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 at 16:08












      up vote
      2
      down vote













      enter image description here



      -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 :



      enter image description here



      A thread and two pins:



      enter image description here



      We instill the pins on some flat table:



      enter image description here



      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.



      enter image description here



      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






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        2
        down vote













        enter image description here



        -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 :



        enter image description here



        A thread and two pins:



        enter image description here



        We instill the pins on some flat table:



        enter image description here



        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.



        enter image description here



        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






        share|cite|improve this answer























          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          enter image description here



          -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 :



          enter image description here



          A thread and two pins:



          enter image description here



          We instill the pins on some flat table:



          enter image description here



          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.



          enter image description here



          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






          share|cite|improve this answer












          enter image description here



          -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 :



          enter image description here



          A thread and two pins:



          enter image description here



          We instill the pins on some flat table:



          enter image description here



          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.



          enter image description here



          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







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Feb 7 at 2:02









          Abr001am

          649613




          649613






















              up vote
              2
              down vote













              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 $b$,



              enter image description here



              consider the triangle with base $|b-a|$ and sides $c$ and $d$:



              enter image description here



              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,
              $$
              bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{text{Area of Trapezoid}=frac{b+a}{|b-a|}sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}}
              $$






              share|cite|improve this answer























              • 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
                yesterday















              up vote
              2
              down vote













              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 $b$,



              enter image description here



              consider the triangle with base $|b-a|$ and sides $c$ and $d$:



              enter image description here



              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,
              $$
              bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{text{Area of Trapezoid}=frac{b+a}{|b-a|}sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}}
              $$






              share|cite|improve this answer























              • 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
                yesterday













              up vote
              2
              down vote










              up vote
              2
              down vote









              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 $b$,



              enter image description here



              consider the triangle with base $|b-a|$ and sides $c$ and $d$:



              enter image description here



              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,
              $$
              bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{text{Area of Trapezoid}=frac{b+a}{|b-a|}sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}}
              $$






              share|cite|improve this answer














              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 $b$,



              enter image description here



              consider the triangle with base $|b-a|$ and sides $c$ and $d$:



              enter image description here



              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,
              $$
              bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{text{Area of Trapezoid}=frac{b+a}{|b-a|}sqrt{s(s-c)(s-d)(s-|b-a|)}}
              $$







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited 2 days ago

























              answered Nov 20 at 12:42









              robjohn

              262k27300620




              262k27300620












              • 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
                yesterday


















              • 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
                yesterday
















              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
              yesterday




              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
              yesterday










              up vote
              1
              down vote













              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer

















              • 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 at 12:55










              • @MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
                – saulspatz
                Feb 6 at 14:31















              up vote
              1
              down vote













              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer

















              • 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 at 12:55










              • @MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
                – saulspatz
                Feb 6 at 14:31













              up vote
              1
              down vote










              up vote
              1
              down vote









              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              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.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Feb 5 at 21:56









              saulspatz

              12.9k21327




              12.9k21327








              • 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 at 12:55










              • @MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
                – saulspatz
                Feb 6 at 14:31














              • 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 at 12:55










              • @MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
                – saulspatz
                Feb 6 at 14:31








              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 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 at 12:55












              @MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
              – saulspatz
              Feb 6 at 14:31




              @MartinBonner True, but I've never heard the definition of a trapezoid that excludes a parallelogram.
              – saulspatz
              Feb 6 at 14:31










              up vote
              1
              down vote













              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer























              • This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
                – mweiss
                yesterday










              • Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
                – AmbretteOrrisey
                yesterday










              • Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
                – AmbretteOrrisey
                yesterday















              up vote
              1
              down vote













              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer























              • This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
                – mweiss
                yesterday










              • Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
                – AmbretteOrrisey
                yesterday










              • Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
                – AmbretteOrrisey
                yesterday













              up vote
              1
              down vote










              up vote
              1
              down vote









              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer














              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.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited yesterday

























              answered yesterday









              AmbretteOrrisey

              3568




              3568












              • This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
                – mweiss
                yesterday










              • Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
                – AmbretteOrrisey
                yesterday










              • Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
                – AmbretteOrrisey
                yesterday


















              • This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
                – mweiss
                yesterday










              • Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
                – AmbretteOrrisey
                yesterday










              • Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
                – AmbretteOrrisey
                yesterday
















              This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
              – mweiss
              yesterday




              This is definitely a better form than mine. Thank you!
              – mweiss
              yesterday












              Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
              – AmbretteOrrisey
              yesterday




              Glad you like it! That kind of symmetry is a bit of a thing with me ... I kind of - need it!
              – AmbretteOrrisey
              yesterday












              Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
              – AmbretteOrrisey
              yesterday




              Have you seen the one below though, that adapts Heron's formula?
              – AmbretteOrrisey
              yesterday










              up vote
              0
              down vote













              It depends on your definition of trapezoid. If it includes parallelograms, then No: here are two trapezoids, same side-lengths, different area:



              enter image description here






              share|cite|improve this answer



























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                It depends on your definition of trapezoid. If it includes parallelograms, then No: here are two trapezoids, same side-lengths, different area:



                enter image description here






                share|cite|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  It depends on your definition of trapezoid. If it includes parallelograms, then No: here are two trapezoids, same side-lengths, different area:



                  enter image description here






                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  It depends on your definition of trapezoid. If it includes parallelograms, then No: here are two trapezoids, same side-lengths, different area:



                  enter image description here







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Nov 20 at 11:20

























                  answered Feb 7 at 12:23









                  M. Winter

                  18.6k62765




                  18.6k62765






























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded



















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Wiesbaden

                      Marschland

                      Dieringhausen