CTK Exchange
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Awards
Reciprocal links
Terms of use
Privacy Policy

Interactive Activities

Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Games & Puzzles
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
My Logo
Math Poll
Other Math sit's
Guest book
News sit's

Recommend this site

Manifesto: what CTK is about Search CTK Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page

CTK Exchange

Subject: "the most elementary theorem of Euclidean Geometry"     Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy     Email this topic to a friend    
Conferences The CTK Exchange High school Topic #344
Reading Topic #344
alexbadmin
Charter Member
1827 posts
Apr-30-06, 08:41 AM (EST)
Click to EMail alexb Click to send private message to alexb Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
"the most elementary theorem of Euclidean Geometry"
 
   I am at a difficulty understanding D. Pedoe's remark concerning this theorem, see the attached file.

What I do not understand is how the theorem about the circumscribed quadrilaterals is relevant here. Refering to the diagram, the theorem would say something like

AC + EF = CF + AE,

which would be difinitely equivalent to

AB + FD = BF + AD.

Not quite was is required by Urquhart's theorem. What am I missing?

Thanks,
Alex

Attachments
https://www.cut-the-knot.org/htdocs/dcforum/User_files/4454bd864eab16db.gif

  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
mr_homm
Member since May-22-05
May-01-06, 06:11 AM (EST)
Click to EMail mr_homm Click to send private message to mr_homm Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: the most elementary theorem of Euclidean Geometry"
In response to message #0
 
   Hi Alex,

...
>AC + EF = CF + AE,
...
> What am I missing?

I think I've got it, after looking up various circumscribed quadrilateral properties to see which one you were referring to (my geometry is rusty in this area). Clearly you are referring to the theorem that the sums of opposite sides are equal for such quadrilaterals, but all the proofs I found showed the quadrilateral actually enclosing the circle. In the diagram you attached, the circle must clearly touch the 4 lines on the right side of the diagram. However, the lines do not enclose the circle. If lines AC and AE were tipped so that they met on the right at A', then the quadrilateral would actually surround the circle.

What you have here is a variation on the circumscribed quadrilateral, and I think you can account for the fact that it does not actually enclose the circle by thinking about directed line segments: the lines AC and AE "should" meet at the right in A', and the reversal causes the line segments AC and AE to reverse direction. Treating them as directed line segments gives

(-AC) + EF = CF + (-AE),

which correctly reduces to

AE + EF = AC + CF

as required by the theorem.

Mind you, I haven't actually checked that the quadrilateral theorem reverses signs like this, but I have a VERY strong hunch that this is the root of the trouble.

As to the general thrust of Dan Pedoe's comments, here is my way of thinking about why the circles are "inevitable" based on the pedagogy I use in teaching physics:

When an object is restrained at a point so that it cannot move, there must be a force, and if it cannot rotate, then there must be a torque to hold it'steady. Conversely, where a point is completely free to move, there is no force and where it is free to rotate, there is no torque. In short, where you do see motion, there is not constraint, and where you do not see motion, there is constraint. Obvious, but often overlooked by students.

In geometry similarly, when you see extension, there is no constraint. Circles extend around all angles from the center, so they do not constrain angle. All points are the same distance from the center, so circles show no extension in the radial direction, and so they do constrain distance. Lines, on the other hand extend to all distances from a given point, but with no variation in angle, hence they constrain angle but not length.

It is a kind of visual paradox: the aspect of the geometric object that you can see is its extension, but this constrains nothing, so has no logical content to be used in proof. The aspect you cannot see is what provides logical content. Hence with lines we see length but they are used in proofs related to angle, and with circles, we see angular extension, but they are used in proofs related to distance.

To this way of thinking, it is not surprising that circles are inevitable in a proof dealing with lengths of lines.

--Stuart Anderson


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
alexbadmin
Charter Member
1827 posts
May-01-06, 10:58 AM (EST)
Click to EMail alexb Click to send private message to alexb Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: the most elementary theorem of Euclidean Geometry"
In response to message #1
 
   Thank you, Stuart.

I missed the whole point of directed distances.

Alex


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

You may be curious to have a look at the old CTK Exchange archive.
Please do not post there.

|Front page| |Contents|

Copyright © 1996-2018 Alexander Bogomolny

Search:
Keywords:

Google
Web CTK