Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm working on a proof that looks like this:

Let $n$ be a positive integer. Given an equilateral triangle, place $n$ points on each side, dividing the side into $n+1$ equal segments.

Use the points to draw $n$ line segments parallel to each side of the triangle ($3n$ line segments in all).

Prove by induction that this will always divide the triangle into exactly $(n+1)^2$ little equilateral triangles.

But I am unsure of how to proceed past the base case.

share|cite|improve this question

From a triangle with $(n+1)$-fold subdivision you can remove $n+1$ small triangles that have an edge on the base line and the $n$ triangles between them that have a vertex on the base line. The result is a triangle with $n$-fold subdivision. Thus if $f(n)$ denotes the number of small triangles, we have $$f(n+1)=f(n)+(n+1)+n.$$

share|cite|improve this answer


If you split sides of $\triangle ABC$ in $n$ parts, then $\triangle AB'C'$ is a triangle whose edges were splitted in $(n-1)$ parts.



share|cite|improve this answer
thanks you for this, although i am not sure how to continue forward with a proof using this. any other suggustions? – Anders Bijou Dec 9 '12 at 22:42
@AndersBijou Well, you have a base for $n = 1$, you assume that your theorem is true for all $n < k$, and then you need to prove that it is true for $n = k$. To prove the step combine the hint and the assumption, then count the missing triangles from the last row. Finally, add everything and check if left- and right-hand sides are equal. – dtldarek Dec 9 '12 at 22:50
Sorry, I posted something which made no sense, much like this proof for me. – Anders Bijou Dec 9 '12 at 23:23
@AndersBijou I would say your solution is close to what I would have written. What doesn't make sense for you? – dtldarek Dec 9 '12 at 23:28
The solution was incorrect as the last line was incorrect. And now i've accidentally totally deleted it. – Anders Bijou Dec 9 '12 at 23:29

HINT: Your induction hypothesis is that when you divide the triangle with $n$ points on a side, and have $(n+1)^2$ small triangles. You want to show that when you divide it with $n+1$ points on a side, you get $(n+2)^2$ small triangles.

Imagine that you’ve divided it with $n+1$ points on a side. Show that if you ignore the bottom row of small triangles, the rest is an equilateral triangle that has been divided with $n$ points on a side. (You just have to check that its bottom edge has been divided with $n$ points into $n+1$ pieces.) By the induction hypothesis there are then $(n+1)^2$ small triangles above the bottom row of small triangles. Now show that the bottom row contains just enough small triangles to make up the difference between $(n+1)^2$ and $(n+2)^2$, i.e., $(n+2)^2-(n+1)^2$.

enter image description here

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.