#2: Knowing that the length of the screens is 3.5 inch, and the aspect ratios are 16:9 and 4:3 can't we find the width ourselves? Use a little math please: If 3.5 is the "9" in 16:9 what is the 16? 16 divided by 9 = 1.77 to find the 16, we will multiply 3.5 by 1.77 which is 6.195 inches the top screen's width is 6.195 inches. for the other screen we will use the same method. 3.5 is the "3" in 4:3 so what is the 4? 4/3 = 1.33 3.5 times 1.33 4.655 inches is width of bottom screen. EDIT: I removed #1 cause it was stupid.

The top screen is in 15:9 not 16:9. Resolution has been announced as 800x240 I believe. What does the screen size really matter anyway? We know the length doesn't matter about the width.

OOPs. doeo fail. :/ 800x240 for the top screen? on other thoughts, nice btw the length IS related to the width.

Actually, screens are always measured diagonally. It is 3.5" from the top left corner to the bottom right corner, so you're using the wrong sort of math. You need to calculate the base and leg of a right triangle, with the only known value being the hypotenuse, so it'll take a bit more than simple algebra/geometry. The screen measures ~1.74" vertically and ~3.00" horizontally, according to my calculations.

No... the width can't be more than the diagonal. 3.53^2 inch diag = (15*x)^2 + (9*x)^2 (pythagora's) 12.4609 = 225*x^2 + 81*x^2 12.4609 = (225 + 81) * x^2 12.4609 = 306 * x^2 12.4609 / 306 = x^2 0.0407 = x^2 0.2018 = x SO, since we now know x, we can multiply it to the 15:9 to get width and height. Width: 0.2018*15 = 3.027 Height: 0.2018*9 = 1.8162 Now, this is IF it is 15:9... I don't know... if it is 16:9 it is a bit different....

The fatal flaw in OP's logic is that he assumed the width was the long side. Generally the length is the longer side. Issac's math seems correct, but I'm too tired to follow along with it all.