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

Another math homework question:

There are two concentrical squares, ABCD and EFGH. AB = 5 and EF = 1 .

Draw the equidistant lines of those two squares. Clearly state how you do this.

My first approach was to simply draw a square inbetween the smaller and the bigger square with a side size of 3. But the corners make me uncertain that I am doing it right.

share|cite|improve this question
Are the sides of squares parallel? Moreover, there might be no equidistant line (which is infinite), but there surely will be some equidistant points (in general, their set would be a union of segments and fragments of parabolas). – dtldarek Mar 28 '13 at 11:49

I guess we should define the distance between two sets, a possible way of doing this (getting ideas from the distance between a set and a point) is

Given a metric space $(X,d)$ we define the distance between two subsets $A,B$ as $d(A,B) := \inf \{d(a,b) : a \in A, b \in B\}$.

So let A be the bigger square, and B the smaller one. Of course we are in a metric space, indeed we know the length of the edges of the two squares (i.e. we can define $d(A,B)$).

Therefore I believe that drawing a square, say C, (exactly) between them is correct, indeed the distance, for example, between the lower left vertex in A and the lower left vertex in C is bigger (by the Pythagorean theorem) than $d(A,C)$ (the same argument applies with B and C).

I think this is a matter of definitions, I may have misunderstood the problem!

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.