5

Can you prove the claim given below?

Inspired by Conway circle theorem I have formulated the following claim:

Let $a,b,c$ be the side lengths and $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ inside angles of the triangle $\Delta ABC$ . Let $P$ be a point on the extension of the segment $BA$ beyond $A$ such that $AP=\frac{a}{2}$ , let $Q$ be a point on the extension of the segment $CA$ beyond $A$ such that $AQ=\frac{a}{2}$ , let $R$ be a point on the extension of the segment $CB$ beyond $B$ such that $BR=\frac{b}{2}$ , let $S$ be a point on the extension of the segment $AB$ beyond $B$ such that $BS=\frac{b}{2}$ , let $T$ be a point on the extension of the segment $AC$ beyond $C$ such that $CT=\frac{c}{2}$ and let $U$ be a point on the extension of the segment $BC$ beyond $C$ such that $CU=\frac{c}{2}$ . Construct an ellipse $e$ through points $P,Q,R,S,T$ . If $\alpha \le \beta \le \gamma$ or $\beta \le \gamma \le \alpha$ or $ \gamma \le \alpha \le \beta$ then $U \in e$ .

enter image description here

GeoGebra applet that demonstrates this claim can be found here.

Blue
  • 75,673
Pedja
  • 12,883
  • Did you find the surrounding Conway conic's eccentricity $e$ as a function of such extensions $ ( pa,pb,pc) $ with a const $; p?$ So that if $p=\frac12, e=? $ – Narasimham Oct 02 '20 at 05:38
  • And if $p\rightarrow \infty, e=0$ again? – Narasimham Oct 02 '20 at 05:43
  • If by "$U\in e$" you mean that $U$ is on the curve, not merely in the bounded region, then my calculations indicate that $U\in e$ if and only if $\triangle ABC$ is isosceles. There seems to be an interesting generalization when allowing the extensions to be arbitrary ratios; I'll post about it in a bit. – Blue Oct 02 '20 at 05:59
  • @Blue Isn't an ellipse a plane curve by the definition... – Pedja Oct 02 '20 at 06:17
  • @PeđaTerzić: "Isn't an ellipse a plane curve by the definition[?]" ... Well, people can be a little loose with the usage, so it's helpful to double-check. Your applet, for instance, reports "$U\in e = \text{true}$" for $\alpha\approx 10^\circ$ and $\beta\approx 165^\circ$, when $U$ is visibly in the ellipse's interior; this could be due to round-off error in your calculations or some graphical glitch in GeoGebra, or it could be that you intended the interior to count. So, I wanted to clarify. – Blue Oct 02 '20 at 06:24
  • @Blue I see.... – Pedja Oct 02 '20 at 06:27
  • @PeđaTerzić, Is that what Reference 3 on the link of Conway circle theorem? – Ng Chung Tak Oct 02 '20 at 06:38
  • @NgChungTak Yes, this claim is inspired by Conway circle theorem.... – Pedja Oct 02 '20 at 06:56
  • @Narasimham I don't understand your question... – Pedja Oct 02 '20 at 06:57

2 Answers2

2

Given non-degenerate $\triangle ABC$, define points $A^+$, $B^+$, $C^+$, $A^-$, $B^-$, $C^-$ via $$\begin{align} A^+ = A + \alpha^+(B-A)\frac{a}{c} &\qquad A^-=A+\alpha^-(C-A)\frac{a}{b} \\[4pt] B^+ = B + \beta^+(C-B)\frac{b}{a} &\qquad B^-=B+ \beta^-(A-B)\frac{b}{c} \\[4pt] C^+ = C + \gamma^+(A-C)\frac{c}{b} &\qquad C^-=C+\gamma^-(B-C)\frac{c}{a} \\[4pt] \end{align} \tag{1}$$ for arbitrary values $\alpha^{\pm}$, $\beta^{\pm}$, $\gamma^{\pm}$. (That is, $A^+$ and $A^-$ are the translates of $A$ in directions $\overrightarrow{AB}$ and $\overrightarrow{AC}$ by signed distances $a\alpha^+$ and $a\alpha^-$, respectively.) Conway considers the case $\alpha^{\pm}=\beta^{\pm}=\gamma^{\pm}=-1$; OP considers $\alpha^{\pm}=\beta^{\pm}=\gamma^{\pm}=-1/2$. (In the cases where $\alpha^{\pm}=0$, $\beta^{\pm}=0$, or $\gamma^{\pm}=0$, some pair of the six points coincide with the corresponding vertex of the triangle.)

Via coordinates, it's not difficult (using, say, this determinant) to show that the points $A^\pm$, $B^\pm$, $C^\pm$ lie on a common conic (which may-or-may-not be an ellipse) if and only if $$\begin{align} 0 &= (a - (b^+ + c^-)) \; (b - (c^+ + a^-))\;(c - (a^+ + b^-)) \\[4pt] &\phantom{=}\cdot\left( \alpha^+ \beta^+ \gamma^+ (a - c^-) (b - a^-) (c - b^-) - \alpha^- \beta^- \gamma^- (a - b^+) (b - c^+) (c - a^+) \right) \end{align} \tag{2}$$ where $a^\pm := a\alpha^\pm$, $b^\pm := b \beta^\pm$, $c^\pm:= c \gamma^\pm$.

Each of the first three factors of $(2)$ corresponds to a trivial case where two of our six points coincide (as the translated distances of two vertices add to the length of the side between them). The interesting condition, therefore, is

$$\alpha^+ \beta^+ \gamma^+ (a - c^-) (b - a^-) (c - b^-) \;=\; \alpha^- \beta^- \gamma^- (a - b^+) (b - c^+) (c - a^+) \tag{$\star$}$$

For $\alpha^\pm=\beta^\pm=\gamma^\pm=:\lambda \neq 0$ (the zero case is trivial), this reduces to $$(1+\lambda)(a - b) (a - c) (b - c) = 0 \tag{$\star\star$}$$ Thus, for $\lambda=-1$, the six points lie on the ellipse, regardless of the shape of the original triangle; this is part of Conway's Theorem. (Showing that the conic is actually a circle in this case take a little more work.) For non-zero $\lambda\neq -1$ (in particular for OP's $\lambda=-1/2$), the six points lie on a common conic if and only if $\triangle ABC$ is isosceles. $\square$

Blue
  • 75,673
  • @PeđaTerzić: Approximate computations? All calculators are subject to errors using "floating point" (ie, decimal) arithmetic; and I suspect GeoGebra's "element of" tester allows some wiggle room. ... It is a little surprising to me that the construction isn't visibly incorrect for less-dramatic triangles. A proper error analysis may be in order, but a definitive answer would seem to require knowing exactly how GeoGebra performs its internal calculations, both in generating its conic equations and in doing its "element" tests. I'll leave that investigation to others. – Blue Oct 02 '20 at 09:26
  • 1
    Your result was also my first assumption, but the GeoGebra applet led me to the wrong conclusion. – Pedja Oct 02 '20 at 09:28
1

Assume the claim is true.

Let us say we are able to construct an ellipse $e$ with points $P, Q, R, S, T, U$ lying on it as described. We also have the Conway circle $k$ of the triangle $\triangle ABC$. By definition $P, Q, R, S, T, U$ lie on $k$. However, the maximum number of intersection points between a circle $k$ and ellipse $e$ is 4, if $e \ne k$ and hence impossible to have $P, Q, R, S, T$ lie on both $e$ and $k$. So, we have a contradiction.

Therefore, the original claim must be false.

vvg
  • 3,311
  • The $P$, $Q$, $R$, $S$, $T$, $U$ that may-or-may-not all lie on OP's conic $e$ definitely do not lie on the Conway Circle. They are the midpoints of segments determined by the Conway points and the vertices of the triangle. – Blue Oct 02 '20 at 13:19