You're undercounting some triangles and missing the acute condition. For n = 4, there is more than one triangle with base 4 and height 4, for example: [(0, 0), (4, 0), (1, 4)]; [(0, 0), (4, 0), (2, 4)]; (and [(0, 0), (4, 0), (3, 4)] but it's congruent to the first so we don't count it). Furthermore, a triangle with base 16 and height 1 might be non-acute.
Nope :( The sequence starts with 1 because there is just one triangle with an area of 2 that satisfies the conditions. I ended up with a sequence similar to your previous one when I forgot to take the absolute value of area -- x1(y2-y3) + x2(y3-y1) + x3*(y1-y2))/2 . That could be a possibility in case you were using the same formula. In your first result - 1, 3, 6, 14.... , first two are right, third over-counted and rest are undercounted.
Close enough but wrong :) I went the same route as you did and realized my mistake after a while. Base and altitude values can be fractional/irrational too.
17 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 52.7 ms ] threadhttp://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/ponderthis/index.shtml
http://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/ponderthis/challenges/July...
Could be wrong because I forgot what congruent really means.
PS : I bruteforced my way to the answer.
And the proof is so simple and elegant.