11

I am struggling a bit with the following (elementary) question:

How to prove that every regular tetrahedron admits a circumsphere, i.e. there exist a sphere on which all four vertices lie.


I would like to find a slick elegant proof, which is elementary and "computation-free" as possible.

One possible way is perhaps to prove that all $4$ medians intersect and that the intersection point has equal distance to all vertices. (some triangles should be congruent, I guess).

But I am not sure how to do that.

In particular I prefer a proof that do not mention the notion of inner product, and do not use explicit coordinates of a particular tetrahedron. (of course, if one considers a specific set of vertices in $\mathbb{R}^3$, this can be verified directly. But I want a more conceptual geometric proof).

The best would be an elementary proof you can present to high-school students:)


A more algebraic approach would be to consider $x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4 \in \mathbb{R}^3$ to be the vertices of a regular tetrahedron, i.e. $|x_i-x_j|$ is constant for $i \neq j$. After translating we may assume that $\sum x_i=0$, and we need to prove that $|x_i|^2$ does not depend on $i$. But I am not sure how to do it.

Asaf Shachar
  • 25,111
  • "One possible way is perhaps to prove that all 4 medians intersect and that the intersection point has equal distance to all vertices."-- I think what you are referring to is the barycenter. This works for direct calculation, though conceptually/geometrically introducing 1 round of barycentric subdivision and looking at symmetries of the tetrahedron (tetrahedral group) could be enlightening. – user8675309 Apr 26 '22 at 19:06
  • 1
    How about "All vertices have equal distance to one another amd to the barycenter" – bandybabboon Apr 27 '22 at 07:19
  • I don’t think anyone has mentioned that Symmetric Group, Sym(n), acts regularly on the flags of a regular n-1 simplex. Using the fact that the group fixes cells of the same rank and the symmetric group has a nice representation in terms of permutation matrices (which are necessarily isometries) probably gives a nice approach. – Rob Nicolaides May 09 '22 at 23:32

7 Answers7

11

Inscribe the regular tetrahedron in a cube, then circumscribe a sphere on the cube.

A regular tetrahedron has a circumsphere

  • 3
    Thanks, that is a known idea (inscribe the regular tetrahedron in a cube), and intuitively clear. However, proving formally that the tetrahedron is inscribed in a cube, is not entirely obvious I think, at least not without computation. (I upvoted anyway, just mentioning my thoughts.) – Asaf Shachar Apr 26 '22 at 20:20
  • 7
    Starting from a cube and "taking alternate vertices" we recover a regular tetrahedron because each edge is a diagonal of a square and the cube's faces are congruent. Granting that a regular tetrahedron is unique up to scaling and Euclidean motion (which admittedly may be a large leap!), every regular tetrahedron is inscribed in a cube. – Andrew D. Hwang Apr 26 '22 at 21:00
  • 2
    OK, next what to do with a non-regular tetrahedron? – GEdgar Apr 26 '22 at 21:21
  • 3
    @GEdgar This approach naturally doesn't generalize, but the question body does stipulate regular (though the title doesn't). Given Asaf's mention of "high-school students," this picture seemed worth mentioning as a complement to your elegant (+1) computation. – Andrew D. Hwang Apr 26 '22 at 21:44
  • 1
    You are right, the OP text does specify "regular". That makes the solution easier, as your solution shows. – GEdgar Apr 27 '22 at 00:36
  • How does this 'prove' a sphere gets admitted from a tetrahedron? The points don't intersect – Barb Apr 27 '22 at 08:26
  • 1
    @Barb The cube is uniquely determined by the (regular) tetrahedron and the sphere is uniquely determined by the cube. Each vertex of the tetrahedron is a vertex of the cube and each vertex of the cube lies on the sphere. – Andrew D. Hwang Apr 27 '22 at 12:33
  • 1
    Why is the fact that a cube has a circumsphere any more obvious than that a regular tetrahedron has one? – Kyle Miller Apr 27 '22 at 16:21
  • @KyleMiller For me, it's the three orthogonal planes of reflection symmetry parallel to pairs of opposite faces: The resulting group of Euclidean motions acts transitively on the cube's vertices, so each vertex is equidistant from the point where the planes meet. – Andrew D. Hwang Apr 27 '22 at 20:12
  • @AndrewD.Hwang oh! I thought proof would require you to prove that it does. I mean it should be obvious if $V = \frac {a^3}{6\sqrt 2}$ is a radical so removing it you have $V = \frac {2^.5a^3}{12}$. Its like me saying at this point, every square has a circle so a sphere must exist but wouldn't I need to show that and not just say it or draw it for it to be considered proof. – Barb Apr 28 '22 at 07:02
  • 1
    @Barb My prior comment to you was a sequence of assertions addressed to your note that "the points don't intersect." <> The proof itself may be fleshed out using geometric observations ("alternate vertices" and "three orthogonal planes of symmetry") noted above, but the spirit of this answer was Behold!. – Andrew D. Hwang Apr 28 '22 at 12:09
10

Here's a sketch of a proof that is visually obvious, if you have the right pictures in your head, but to make it precise it seems like it requires some fancier ideas (continuity and some limiting processes). I'll just share it in case it's useful somehow.

Given 3 non-collinear points in 3-dimensional space, then there is a circle that contains those three points (there is a plane that contains the three points, and inside that plane they are the vertices of a triangle, so we can take its circumcircle).

Given a circle in 3-dimensional space, consider the line that passes through its center and that is orthogonal to the plane that contains the circle. For every point on this line (except the circle's center) there is a sphere that contains the circle and this point. (We can construct it by considering the sphere as a surface of revolution about the line, then reasoning about the 2D cross-section.) Here's an illustration, showing a sphere containing the circle and its two points of intersection with the orthogonal line, and observe that, holding the circle constant, the sphere is purely a function of the intersection point P.

A sphere containing a circle and a point P on the line through the circle's center.

Now, given four points in 3D space that form a tetrahedron (it does not have to be a regular tetrahedron, just non-degenerate: every triple of points is non-collinear and the four points do not lie in a plane), take three of them and form the circle and its orthogonal line as above. The fourth point lies to one side of the plane that runs through the circle -- cutting the line at the center point of the circle, take the ray that is on the same side of the plane as the fourth point. For a point on this ray close enough to the circle's center point, the fourth point is outside the corresponding sphere, and for a point on this ray far enough away from the circle's center point, the fourth point lies inside the corresponding sphere. Therefore, there is some intermediate point such that the fourth point lies on the corresponding sphere. This is the circumsphere of the tetrahedron.

To be able to argue in this way about "close enough to one end of the ray or another," what you need is to see that the limit of the spheres in both cases is exactly the plane that contains the circle, and in either case what's "inside" the "sphere" is an entire half space bounded by the plane.

Kyle Miller
  • 19,353
  • For every point on this line […] there is a sphere that contains the circle and this point. This doesn’t seem right to me, unless by “contains” you mean that the sphere just encloses the circle? Otherwise there should only be two points on that line that are contained by a sphere that contains the circle (the poles, if the circle is the equator). – Seb Apr 27 '22 at 15:05
  • 1
    @Seb By "contains" I mean "contained in the set of points that constitute the sphere." I've added an illustration -- note that every intersection between a sphere and a plane gives a circle (or a point, if it's tangent), not just the plane through the sphere's center. – Kyle Miller Apr 27 '22 at 15:27
  • Great illustration, that definitely clears up my confusion. I was making the unwarranted assumption that the circle and the sphere are concentric. – Seb Apr 27 '22 at 15:37
7

A coordinate solution.
Let $(a_1,a_2,a_2), (b_1,b_2,b_3), (c_1,c_2, c_3)$, and $(d_1,d_2, d_3)$ be four (non-coplanar) points. Consider the determinant equation $$ \left|\begin{array}1 x^2+y^2+z^2 & x & y & z &1 \\ a_1^2 + a_2^2 + a_3^2 & a_1 & a_2 & a_3 & 1 \\ b_1^2 + b_2^2 + b_3^2 & b_1 & b_2 & b_3 & 1 \\ c_1^2 + c_2^2 + c_3^2 & c_1 & c_2 & c_3 & 1 \\ d_1^2 + d_2^2 + d_3^2 & d_1 & d_2 & d_3 & 1 \end{array}\right| = 0 . \tag1$$ Note that the four points $(a_1,a_2,a_2), (b_1,b_2,b_3), (c_1,c_2, c_3)$, and $(d_1,d_2, d_3)$ satisfy the equation. Expanding by the first row, we see that $(1)$ is an equation of the form $$ A(x^2+y^2+z^2) + Bx + Cy + Dz + E = 0. $$ Since the four points to not lie in a plane, $A \ne 0$. So the graph of $(1)$ is: a sphere, or a single point, or empty. Because the four points satisfy the equation, the only possibility is a sphere.

GEdgar
  • 111,679
  • Thanks. That is an interesting solution, which I certainly did not expect. Can you say how did you think about this determinant? Very cool. – Asaf Shachar Apr 26 '22 at 19:09
  • This is a classical 19th century method. Determinants were a big subject (separate from matrices). – GEdgar Apr 26 '22 at 21:19
  • Thanks, that is a cool trick. I do wonder whether this specific matrix has any geometric interpretation. The determinant clearly does -- it's value is $Ar^2+c$ where $r$ is the distance of $x,y,z$ from the center of the sphere. BTW, I find it interesting that you could basically insert any polynomial $p(x,y,z)$ of degree $\ge 2$ instead of $x^2+y^2+z^2$, and thus conclude that four no co-planar points lie on all sorts of (algebraic?) "surfaces", so there is really nothing special to the sphere here. Am I right? – Asaf Shachar Apr 27 '22 at 05:17
  • Here is another example of this determinant method: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/163931/442 – GEdgar Apr 27 '22 at 11:57
7

A very simple non-mathematical proof:

How many coordinates are necessary to determine a sphere?

Four points are needed to define a sphere, a tetrahedron has four vertexes. Thus, by definition a sphere must exist assuming a non-degenerate case.

2

Using plane geometry, you get that the three line segment bisector planes of the triangle $\mathcal T = \{x_1,x_2,x_3\}$ intersect in a line $\mathcal L$ orthogonal to the plane containing $x_1,x_2,x_3$ and passing through the circumcenter of $\mathcal T$.

Now consider the three line segment bisector planes of $[x_1,x_4]$, $[x_2,x_4]$ and $[x_3,x_4]$ and the three respectives intersection points $P_1, P_2, P_3$ with $\mathcal L$. As $ P_1 \in \mathcal L$, $P_1$ is equidistant of $x_1, x_2, x_3$. It is also equidistant of $x_4$. Repeating this observation to $P_2,P_3$, you get that $P_1=P_2=P_3$ and the desired conclusion.

2

We'll show that a tetrahedron $ABCD$ can be inscribed in a sphere. Let $O_1$ and $O_2$ be the circumcenters of $\triangle ABC$ and $\triangle ABD$, respectively. Draw line $\ell_1$ through $O_1$ perpendicular to face $ABC$ and line $\ell_2$ through $O_2$ perpendicular to face $ABD$. Since $O_1A=O_1B=O_1C$, the points on line $\ell_1$ are equidistant from vertices $A,B,C$. Similarly, the points on $\ell_2$ are equidistant from vertices $A,B,D$. So the points on both $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ are equidistant from $A$ and $B$, hence lines $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ lie in a plane (the perpendicular bisector plane of segment $AB$). Thus, $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ are either parallel or they intersect. Suppose they're parallel. Since $\ell_1$ is perpendicular to face $ABC$, $\ell_2$ is also perpendicular to face $ABC$. So we get that faces $ABD$ and $ABC$ are perpendicular to line $\ell_2$, which implies that the two faces are parallel, a contradiction. Therefore, $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ intersect. Let $O$ be their intersection point. We have $OA=OB=OC$ since $O$ is on $\ell_1$ and $OA=OB=OD$ since $O$ is on $\ell_2$. Then $OA=OB=OC=OD$ and the tetrahedron can be inscribed in a sphere with center $O$ and radius $OA$.

bjorn93
  • 6,787
2

Consider the center of mass of the tetrahedron. Because the tetrahedron is regular, you can't distinguish any vertex from any other - they all look exactly the same and can be carried to each other by an isometry that leaves the tetrahedron unchanged. So in particular, "distance from the center of mass" is not a property you could use to distinguish vertices from one another - they must all have the same distance, and thus lie on a sphere centered at that point.

  • Thanks, that is a nice idea, and agree with your basic claim. However, I am afraid there might be a "circular logic" here in disguise: How can you prove that every vertex can be carried to another by an isometry, without establishing first that these vertices lie on a sphere? It seems to me in order to construct such an orthogonal map, you need to know this in advance. You are welcomed to see my argument here for details: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/4439096/104576 – Asaf Shachar Apr 29 '22 at 13:13
  • In fact, the "problem" with your approach can be stated more simply: If you assume that there exists an orthogonal map permuting the vertices, then clearly they all have the same norm, hence lie on a sphere. So this approach seems to me to implicitly assume the goal in advance. – Asaf Shachar Apr 29 '22 at 13:19
  • I’m taking “regular” here to mean “transitive on all flags” (though the argument given only uses vertex transitivity). You could instead define a regular tetrahedron as one with equilateral triangular faces, in which case I agree you need an extra step, but it’s pretty trivial: there’s only one way to fit three equilateral triangles around a vertex, so the solid can’t look different viewed from any one of them. – RavenclawPrefect Apr 29 '22 at 13:28
  • The plane through two vertices and the midpoint of the opposite edge is "obviously" a mirror that swaps the other two vertices, sphere or no sphere. – JBL Feb 22 '23 at 02:23