Interactive · 2 questions
Occasionally, the need arises to assign a sign to the area of a triangle, or more generally, a polygon. You may have once wanted to use the area formula for a point outside the triangle as well. (Another classic example, from physics, is calculating the work of a heat engine.)
One introduces the signed area of a (not self-intersecting) polygon as the everyday area if are oriented counterclockwise (in the positive direction) along its perimeter, and the negative of this area if it is oriented clockwise (in the negative direction).
For example, how is triangle (see the diagram) oriented? What about ?
We'll now give another definition which is computationally more helpful and turns out to be equivalent to our first, more compact definition.
What will this use?
Integrals! For those who don't know yet, this is just the 'area under a function curve', or, well, in our case, we only need the area 'under a segment'. (Imagine a coordinate system.) For a segment between and , this amount is defined to be .
Now for a polygon with vertex at , we define its area to be the sum of all the integrals of the segments (where ). One may easily check that this gives just the same definition.
This gives us an area formula using coordinates!
This theorem is called the shoelace formula because if we arrange the 's and 's in two columns and connect those who we multiply and then sum, the resulting pattern resembles a shoelace.
Specifically, for this becomes
or for those who know determinants,
which connects the Rule of Sarrus with the shoelace pattern.
This area formula is very helpful when dealing with coordinate geometry. Keep it in mind!
Can you convince yourself that the two signed area definitions are equivalent?