Parabola Magic

I worked on more calculus exercises today, then did some experimenting with graphs using Desmos. What I discovered is that adding a line to a parabola will always produce a congruent parabola. So far, I haven’t been able to find any other type of curve that has this property. For all other curves, adding a line also adds “tiltiness” to the graph, so that the result is not congruent to the original.

Here is an example using a parabola. The original parabola appears in green, the line in red, and their sum in blue. Click here for an interactive version of this figure.

Parabolic Function

We know that these parabolas are congruent because the coefficient of the $x^2$ term does not change. (It is called $a$ in the interactive graph.) This coefficient is equal to $\frac{1}{4p}$, where $p$ is the distance of the vertex of the parabola from both the focus and the directrix. It is this distance that determines the curvature of the parabola.

(To see that $a$ does equal $\frac{1}{4p}$, try converting the general equation for a parabola $(x-h)^2=4p(y-k)$ into the general equation $y=ax^2+bx+c$. That’s another thing I did today.)

Below is a gallery of some of the other curves I tried. Again, the original graphs are in green, the line in red, and their sum in blue. You can see how each result has greater tiltiness than the original in one way or another.

I haven’t yet been able to explain why parabolas have this congruence property while other types of curve do not nor tried to understand what other implications it may have, but I find it magical.1

  • Cubic Function
  • Quartic Function
  • Root Function
  • Elliptical Function 1
  • Hyperbolic Function 1
  • Rational Function
  • Exponential Function
  • Trig Function
  1. To do. ↩︎

Shopping is Hard (Let’s Do Math)

Today I visited four thrift shops looking for various clothing items I need. It was exhausting. Between that and some other things I needed to do today, I wasn’t up for either calc exercises or explorations.

I ended up reading more of Infinite Powers. It was fun to be doing that with a sharper mind than I often do, especially today, when the section I read covered Archimedes’s Method. I can’t adequately explain it here, but it is a way of doing geometry by imagining shapes as physical objects acting on levers. This allowed Archimedes to discover the relationships between their areas or volumes. It’s pretty wild. “Give me a lever” and I will not only move the Earth, I’ll discover the volume of the sphere, too.

Sphere versus Cube

Today I was able to spend more than an hour on calculus exercises. (Yay!) Now I am pondering the following:

The volume of a sphere of radius $r$ is given by $V=\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3$. The surface area of the same sphere is given by $A=4\pi r^2$, the derivative of the formula for the volume. This makes sense, as a small change in volume involves adding a thin layer to the surface of the sphere. In the limit, that layer will be identical to the sphere’s surface.

On the other hand, the surface area of a cube of side length $x$ is given by $A=6x^2$. This is not the derivative of $V=x^3$, the formula for the cube’s volume. Why?1

  1. To do. ↩︎

Return to the Triangle of Doom

I felt better today. I worked for about an hour on exercises in Analysis with an Introduction to Proof and for another half hour on a question about logarithms that occurred to me while doing one of the exercises. I also spent quite a bit of time on a puzzle I call the Triangle of Doom. (It is more widely known as the Hardest Easy Geometry Problem.) I first encountered and worked on it in 2006, but before today I hadn’t looked at it in a long time.

The puzzle is to find the the value of $x$ in the figure below without using trigonometry.1 (Image source)

Doom Plain

I didn’t solve the Triangle of Doom today, but I had some ideas.

The measures of many of the angles are easy to find using familiar geometry: vertical angles, supplementary angles, and the fact that the angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees.

Doom With Angles Measures

Adding the fact that if two angles of a triangle are equal, then the sides that subtend them are also equal, reveals that the whole triangle is isosceles and that it also contains two smaller isosceles triangles, as highlighted below in blue and green. I suspect these isosceles triangles will have some role in the solution.

Doom Isosceles Triangles 1

Something I’m not sure the significance of is that there also appear to be two similar triangles in the figure, as highlighted below in yellow. I cannot yet prove that these are similar—that would be to solve the puzzle—but tests using the Desmos geometry tool left me nearly sure. (You can check out my interactive drawing here for however long the link lasts.) The relationship might be a coincidence, though, since it is not preserved when three isosceles triangles overlap in the same way but with different angle measures.

Doom Similar Triangles
  1. To do. ↩︎

The Proof at Last

More low-level depression and concentration problems today, but I did do a bit of watching and reading. I also finished writing up the proof below, which I know you’ve all be waiting for. As I explained yesterday, I’ve tried to make it a bit more readable than other proofs I’ve posted recently.


Bare Figure

Proposition: If $\triangle ABC$ is an equilateral triangle inscribed in a circle and $D$ is a point on the circle between $A$ and $C$, then $AD+CD=BD$.

Place a point $E$ on $\overline{BD}$ so that the distance from $D$ to $E$ is the same as the distance from $D$ to $C$, as shown below.

Draw the segment $\overline {CE}$.

Screenshot
Annotated Figure Alt

Since the original triangle, $\triangle ABC$, is equilateral, its three angles must be equal by the proposition from the post Easy Lemmas.

The sum of the measures of the three angles of a triangle is $\pi$ radians. Thus, when the three angles are equal, each one must measure $\frac{\pi}{3}$. It follows that the angles of $\triangle ABC$ have this measure: $\angle BAC=\angle ABC=\angle ACB=\frac{\pi}{3}$.

Because they are both subtended by arc $BC$, by the second proposition from the post Angles and Arcs, $\angle BAC$, the leftmost of the angles of the original equilateral triangle, is equal to $\angle BDC$, the rightmost of the angles with their verticies at $D$.

Similarly, because they are both subtended by arc $AB$, $\angle ACB$, the rightmost of the angles of the original equilateral triangle, is equal to $\angle ADB$, the leftmost of the angles with their verticies at $D$.

It follows that the two angles with their verticies at $D$, $\angle BDC$ and $\angle ADB$, both measure $\frac{\pi}{3}$.

Consider the newly formed triangle $\triangle CDE$. Two of its sides, $\overline{CD}$ and $\overline{DE}$, are equal by construction (i.e. because of the way point $E$ was chosen). Thus, the two angles subtended by those sides, $\angle CED$ and $\angle DCE$, are equal to one another by the lemma from the post Revenge of the Squares, Part 1.

Furthermore, since $\angle CDE$, the other angle of $\triangle CDE$, is one of the angles that measures $\frac{\pi}{3}$, it follows that $\angle CED$ and $\angle DCE$ together must measure $\pi-\frac{\pi}{3}=\frac{2\pi}{3}$ and that each one individually must measure $\frac{\pi}{3}$.

Hence the three angles of $\triangle CDE$ are all equal, from which it follows, by the proposition in the post Easy Lemmas, that $\triangle CDE$ is equilateral.

Now consider $\angle BEC$, the angle supplementary to $\angle CED$, the uppermost of the angles of $\triangle CDE$. Since the angles of $\triangle CDE$ all measure $\frac{\pi}{3}$, the supplementary angle $\angle BEC$, must measure $\frac{2\pi}{3}$.

Note that, since each one measures $\frac{\pi}{3}$, the sum of $\angle ADB$ and $\angle BDC$, the two equal angles with their verticies at $D$, is also $\frac{2\pi}{3}$. Thus, the measure of $\angle ADC$, the large angle they form, is also $\frac{2\pi}{3}$.

Figure With Highlighting

Yet that means that the two triangles highlighted above in yellow, $\triangle BCE$ and $\triangle ACD$, are congruent by the side-side-angle property, which applies when the angle in question is greater than or equal to $\frac{\pi}{2}$. The triangles’ large angles, $\angle BEC$ and $\angle ACD$, are equal, as just shown, and measure $\frac{2\pi}{3}$; their long sides, $\overline {BC}$ and $\overline {AC}$, are equal, since both are sides of the original equilateral triangle $\triangle ABC$; and another pair of their sides, $\overline {CE}$ and $\overline {CD}$, are equal because both are sides of the new, smaller equilateral triangle $\triangle CDE$.

It follows that the remaining sides, $\overline {BE}$ and $\overline{AD}$, are equal, as well. Hence $BE=AD$.

As above, $DE=CD$ by construction.

Thus $AD+CD=BE+DE$. Yet $\overline {BE}$ and $\overline {DE}$ together make up the larger segment $\overline {BD}$. Therefore $AD+CD=BD$ and the theorem of is proven.


With the addition of SSA for right and obtuse angles, I think I might have a complete set of triangle congruence properties to prove.1

I could almost have done this proof without assigning measures to the angles. Equality between $\angle BEC$ and $\angle ADC$ could be established using the property of triangles illustrated below, and I think I could have shown that they are obtuse as well. Without angle measures, though, I couldn’t think of a way to show that, with two sides of $\triangle CDE$ equal by construction, not only must the angles they subtended be equal to one another, but both must be equal to the third angle.

Triangle Property

Let me know what you thought of this verbose-mode proof. I found it a little difficult to write without an audience clearly in mind.

  1. To do. ↩︎

Readability

I was listless today and not very productive. I made multiple stabs at sitting down to do exercises, but I couldn’t concentrate on them. In the end, I watched some videos and started writing up my proof of the inscribed triangle proposition from last week. I hoped to post that this evening, but the writing took longer than I was able to spend blogging today. I’m trying to make this proof more readable than my other recent geometric proofs, and that absorbs a lot of time. Let me know if you think such an effort is worthwhile. It’s felt to me as if the recent proofs tended toward being obscure jumbles of letters.

Angles and Arcs

My back is somewhat better today. I spent an hour on exercises in Analysis with an Introduction to Proof and I plan to read some more of Infinite Powers this evening, as well.

I’m also ready to prove the proposition about inscribed angles from my post Groundwork. It turns out that proposition falls right out of another that reader Tim McL suggested starting with when I said I knew little about the geometry of circles.


Proposition: If a central angle and an inscribed angle are subtended by the same arc of a circle, then the measure of the central angle is twice that of the inscribed angle.

Let $A$ and $B$ be points on a circle with center $D$.

Draw the central angle subtended by arc $AB$.

Draw an inscribed angle also subtended by arc $AB$ and let its vertex be called $C$.

Join $\overline {CD}$.

Arc Angles Case One

Now suppose that the sides of the two angles intersect only at $A$ and $B$ (as in the figure above).

Since $\overline{BD}$ and $\overline{CD}$ are both radii of the circle, $BD=CD$, from which it follows that $\angle CBD = \angle BCD$ (as I’ve proven previously).

Similarly, $\overline{AD}$ and $\overline{CD}$ are both radii of the circle, so $AD=CD$ and $\angle CAD = \angle ACD$.

Futhermore, since the sum of the angles of a triangle is $\pi$ radians, $2\angle BCD + \angle BDC = \pi$ and $2\angle ACD + \angle ADC = \pi$.

It is also true that $\angle BCD + \angle ADC + \angle ADB = 2\pi$.1

Combining these equations will yield $\angle ADB = 2(\angle BCD + \angle ACD)$.

But $\angle ACB = \angle BCD + \angle ACD$, so $\angle ADB = 2\angle ACB$, and the theorem is proven for this case.

Arc Angles Case Two

Suppose instead that sides of the angles intersect other than at $A$ and $B$, as shown above. (Note that this argument does apply in the edge case where $\overline{BC}$ intersects $\overline{AD}$ at $D$.)

Then, $\angle ACB =\angle ACD-\angle BCD$ and $\angle ADB = \angle BDC – \angle ADC$.

As above, $2\angle BCD + \angle BDC = \pi$ and $2\angle ACD + \angle ADC = \pi$.

Combining these equations will yield $\angle ADB = 2(\angle ACD – \angle BCD)$.

Hence $\angle ADB = 2\angle ACB$, and the theorem is proven for this case, as well.


After proving this proposition, I looked up how Euclid did it. His solution was largely the same. It was slightly more elegant, using the property of triangles illustrated below to cut out some of the algebra, but not so elegant as to dispense with the cases.

Triangle Property


Proposition: If two inscribed angles are subtended by the same arc of a circle, then they are equal.

I’m just going to sketch a proof of this. By the proposition above, the blue and green inscribed angles subtended by arc $AB$ both have half the measure of the red central angle subtended by the same arc. Therefore, they must be equal to each other.

Three Arc Angles 1


Footnotes

  1. Do I need to prove this? I have an idea of how I would do it, but it seem so fundamental. ↩︎

Ow

My back pain continued today. I did manage to get some things done, but was too tired to do any math besides reading more of Infinite Powers.

One thing Strogatz relates in that book is that Greek mathematicians emphasized geometry partly because they had no way of expressing irrational numbers, such as $\pi$, except in geometric terms: as lengths, areas, and their ratios. If you think about it, that has not changed much. We may have discovered more contexts in which $\pi$ or $\phi$ crop up, but we can still only express them exactly as solutions to particular problems. Any effort to write them down in isolation is only an approximation.

Easy Lemmas

Today I worked on exercises in Analysis with an Introduction to Proof and did a little mathematical puttering.

I’m also ready today to start sharing my work on the proposition about the inscribed equilateral triangle. I’ll start by proving that a triangle is equilateral if and only if its three angles are equal.


First, recall from my post Revenge of the Squares, Part 1 that the angles opposite (i.e. subtended by) the equal sides of an isosceles triangle are also equal. The proof of the following related lemma is very similar.

Lemma: If two angles of a triangle are equal, then the sides that subtend them are also equal.

Triangle Before
Triangle After 1

Consider the triangle $\triangle ABC$ with $\angle ACB\cong\angle ABC$.

Draw a line bisecting $\angle BAC$ and extend it to intersect $\overline{BC}$. Let the point of intersection be called $D$.

Now, by the angle-angle-side property, $\triangle ACD\cong\triangle ABD$, since $\angle ACB\cong\angle ABC$, $\angle CAD\cong\angle BAD$, and $\overline{AD}$ is shared.

Therefore, $AC=AB$. $\overline {AC}$ and $\overline {AB}$ are the sides that subtend the equal angles $\angle ACB$ and $\angle ABC$, so the lemma is proven.

(Note that I have added AAS to my list of triangle congruence properties to prove.1)


Proposition: A triangle is equilateral if and only if its three angles are equal.

Equilateral Triangle

Consider a triangle $\triangle ABC$.

Assume that $\triangle ABC$ is equilateral.

Then, since $AB=AC$, $\angle ACB\cong\angle ABC$, by the theorem cited above. Similarly, since $AC=BC$, $\angle ABC\cong\angle BAC$.

It follows that $\angle ACB\cong\angle ABC\cong\angle BAC$.

Thus, if $\triangle ABC$ is equilateral, then its three angles are equal.

Assume instead that the three angles of $\triangle ABC$ are equal.

Then, by the lemma, since $\angle ACB\cong\angle ABC$, $AB=AC$. Similarly, since $\angle ABC\cong\angle BAC$, $AC=BC$.

It follows that $AB=AC=BC$.

Thus, if the three angles of $\triangle ABC$ are equal, then it is equilateral.

This proves the equivalence.


Stay tuned tomorrow for some circle geometry.

  1. To do. ↩︎

Easy Living

My mental state remained good today, but I also slept a lot. I did some housekeeping on the blog to make it easier for me to return to questions I’ve raised but not answered. My study time was devoted to work on the proposition about inscribed angles subtended by the same arc and to considering whether and how my other recent proofs depend on the parallel postulate. The proof of the inscribed triangle proposition does depend on it, I believe. It is not necessary to the proof that the sum of the angles of a triangle is $\pi$ radians, but it is necessary that it is the same for all triangles, which is not the case in some systems of geometry.