11

Inspired by this question, I was wondering if one can generalize to the case of an $n$-gon.

For example, when $n=5$ we have this picture:

enter image description here

where $ABCDE$ is a regular pentagon, $AA_1=BB_1=\cdots=EE_1$. Also $A,A_1,B_1$ are colinear in that order, and so on.

Can we conclude that $A_1B_1C_1D_1E_1$ is regular? Or is there a counterexample for that?

Quang Hoang
  • 15,854
  • You can prove that the triangles on the outer edge are similar, and I think it follows that the inside is a regular polygon. – Zubin Mukerjee Oct 24 '14 at 03:42
  • 1
    @Zubin: How do you prove that the triangles are similar? If you could do that, the result would follow almost immediately. – TonyK Oct 24 '14 at 04:58

4 Answers4

8

Update

Won't include the trig as rather lengthy, but included as visual complement to give genreal idea:

Note that a shutter on a traditional camera works on this same principal:

enter image description here

Note also that Narasimham's observation of the paths taken offer visual proof of the conjecture, and for greater $n$, are quite visually compelling:

Related


Code at Narasimham's request:

Manipulate[
Show[\[Theta] = LambertW[1]//N; length = -10; g = 0.2; 
tt = {1.337, 1.236, 1.18, 1.144, 1.121, 1.104, 1.091, 1.081, 1.073, 
1.066, 1.061, 1.056, 1.052, 1.049, 1.046, 1.043, 1.041, 1.039};
r = c*(rr = 
  If[n < 2*Pi, 
   Pi + n*(-1 + 2*Pi) + 
    n*ArcTan[
      Cos[1] + Cos[1 - (4*Pi)/n] + 2*Cos[1 - (2*Pi)/n] - 
       2*Sqrt[2]*
        Sqrt[(3 + Cos[(2*Pi)/n])*Sin[Pi/n]^2*Sin[1 - (2*Pi)/n]^2],
       4*Cos[Pi/n]^2*Sin[1 - (2*Pi)/n] + 
       2*Sqrt[2]*Cot[1 - (2*Pi)/n]*
        Sqrt[(3 + Cos[(2*Pi)/n])*Sin[Pi/n]^2*
          Sin[1 - (2*Pi)/n]^2]], 
   Pi + n*(-1 + 2*Pi) + 
    n*ArcTan[
      Cos[1] + Cos[1 - (4*Pi)/n] + 2*Cos[1 - (2*Pi)/n] + 
       2*Sqrt[2]*
        Sqrt[(3 + Cos[(2*Pi)/n])*Sin[Pi/n]^2*Sin[1 - (2*Pi)/n]^2],
       4*Cos[Pi/n]^2*Sin[1 - (2*Pi)/n] - 
       2*Sqrt[2]*Cot[1 - (2*Pi)/n]*
        Sqrt[(3 + Cos[(2*Pi)/n])*Sin[Pi/n]^2*
          Sin[1 - (2*Pi)/n]^2]]]);
 aa = Table[{Cos[1 + (2*k*Pi)/n]*Cos[\[Theta]] - 
  Sin[1 + (2*k*Pi)/n]*Sin[\[Theta]], 
 Cos[\[Theta]]*Sin[1 + (2*k*Pi)/n] + 
  Cos[1 + (2*k*Pi)/n]*Sin[\[Theta]]}, {k, Join[{n}, Range[n]]}]; 
 li = Table[{(2*
    Sin[r/n]*(-Sin[1 + ((2*s + 1)*Pi)/n + \[Theta]] + 
      Cos[Pi/n]*Sin[(n + (2*s + 1)*Pi + r + n*\[Theta])/n]))/(3 + 
    Cos[Pi/n]^2 - 4*Cos[Pi/n]*Cos[r/n] - 
    Sin[Pi/n]^2), (2*(Cos[1 + ((2*s + 1)*Pi)/n + \[Theta]] - 
      Cos[Pi/n]*Cos[(n + (2*s + 1)*Pi + r + n*\[Theta])/n])*
    Sin[r/n])/(3 + Cos[Pi/n]^2 - 4*Cos[Pi/n]*Cos[r/n] - 
    Sin[Pi/n]^2)}, {s, 1, n}]; 
 list = Join[Drop[li, n - 2], Take[li, n - 2]];
 Graphics[{Opacity[If[TrueQ[JamesBond] == True, 1, 0]], Black, 
 Polygon[{{-(1 + g), -(1 + g)}, {1 + g, -(1 + g)}, {1 + g, 
   1 + g}, {-(1 + g), 1 + g}}], {Red, Thick, 
 Opacity[If[TrueQ[JamesBond] == True, 0, 
   If[TrueQ[circles] == True, 1, 0]]], Circle[]}, {Red, Thick, 
 Opacity[If[TrueQ[JamesBond] == True, 0, 
   If[TrueQ[circles] == True, 1, 0]]], Circle[{0, 0}, Cos[Pi/n]]},
 Opacity[If[TrueQ[JamesBond] == True, 0, 1]], Thick, Blue, 
Line[aa], Opacity[If[TrueQ[JamesBond] == True, 1, 0]], White, 
Polygon[list], Opacity[1], 
If[TrueQ[JamesBond] == True, White, Blue], Thick, 
bb = Table[Line[{aa[[u]], list[[u]]}], {u, 1, n}], 
Opacity[If[TrueQ[JamesBond] == True, 0, 1]], Red, 
PointSize[Large], Point[list], 
If[TrueQ[JamesBond] == True, White, Red], 
Opacity[If[TrueQ[JamesBond] == True, 1, 
  If[TrueQ[lines] == True, 1, 0]]], 
Table[Line[{bb[[u, 1, 
    1]], {bb[[u, 1, 2, 
      1]] + ((bb[[u, 1, 2, 1]] - bb[[u, 1, 1, 1]])*length)/
      Sqrt[Abs[(bb[[u, 1, 1, 1]] - 
            bb[[u, 1, 1, 2]])*2 + (bb[[u, 1, 1, 2]] - 
            bb[[u, 1, 2, 2]])*2]], 
    bb[[u, 1, 2, 
      2]] + ((bb[[u, 1, 2, 2]] - bb[[u, 1, 1, 2]])*length)/
      Sqrt[Abs[(bb[[u, 1, 1, 1]] - 
            bb[[u, 1, 1, 2]])*2 + (bb[[u, 1, 1, 2]] - 
            bb[[u, 1, 2, 2]])*2]]}}], {u, 1, n}]}], 
 PlotRange -> {{-(1 + g), 1 + g}, {-(1 + g), 1 + g}}], {{c, 
 If[TrueQ[min] == True, 1.18, 1]}, 
If[TrueQ[min] == True, Evaluate[tt[[n - 2]]], 1],
Dynamic[
1*n*(Pi/If[n < 2*Pi, 
   Pi + n*(-1 + 2*Pi) + 
    n*ArcTan[
      Cos[1] + Cos[1 - (4*Pi)/n] + 2*Cos[1 - (2*Pi)/n] - 

       2*Sqrt[2]*
        Sqrt[(3 + Cos[(2*Pi)/n])*Sin[Pi/n]^2*Sin[1 - (2*Pi)/n]^2],
       4*Cos[Pi/n]^2*Sin[1 - (2*Pi)/n] + 
       2*Sqrt[2]*Cot[1 - (2*Pi)/n]*
        Sqrt[(3 + Cos[(2*Pi)/n])*Sin[Pi/n]^2*
          Sin[1 - (2*Pi)/n]^2]], 
   Pi + n*(-1 + 2*Pi) + 
    n*ArcTan[
      Cos[1] + Cos[1 - (4*Pi)/n] + 2*Cos[1 - (2*Pi)/n] + 
       2*Sqrt[2]*
        Sqrt[(3 + Cos[(2*Pi)/n])*Sin[Pi/n]^2*Sin[1 - (2*Pi)/n]^2],
       4*Cos[Pi/n]^2*Sin[1 - (2*Pi)/n] - 
       2*Sqrt[2]*Cot[1 - (2*Pi)/n]*
        Sqrt[(3 + Cos[(2*Pi)/n])*Sin[Pi/n]^2*
          Sin[1 - (2*Pi)/n]^2]]])]}, {{n, 5}, 3, 20, 
 1}, {{circles, False}, {True, False}}, {{lines, False}, {True, 
 False}}, {{JamesBond, False}, {True, False}}, {{min, False}, {True,  False}}]

paths calculated separately with

n = 10;
Show[\[Theta] = LambertW[1]//N;
aa = Table[{Cos[1 + (2 k \[Pi])/n] Cos[\[Theta]] - 
 Sin[1 + (2 k \[Pi])/n] Sin[\[Theta]], 
Cos[\[Theta]] Sin[1 + (2 k \[Pi])/n] + 
 Cos[1 + (2 k \[Pi])/n] Sin[\[Theta]]}, {k, Join[{n}, Range[n]]}];

Graphics[{Thick, Blue, Line[aa]}], Show[\[Theta] = LambertW[1];

 Graphics[Thick, Blue, Line[aa]], 
  r = c*(Pi + 20*(-1 + 2*Pi) + 
  20*ArcTan[(4*Cos[Pi/20]^2*Sin[1 - Pi/10] - 
       2*Sqrt[2*(3 + Sqrt[5/8 + Sqrt[5]/8])]*Cos[1 - Pi/10]*
        Sin[Pi/20])/(Cos[1] + Cos[1 - Pi/5] + 2*Cos[1 - Pi/10] + 
       2*Sqrt[2*(3 + Sqrt[5/8 + Sqrt[5]/8])]*Sin[1 - Pi/10]*
        Sin[Pi/20])]);

  Table[ParametricPlot[\[Theta] = LambertW[1]//N; {(
  2 Sin[r/n] (-Sin[1 + ((2 s + 1) \[Pi])/n + \[Theta]] + 
    Cos[\[Pi]/n] Sin[(n + (2 s + 1) \[Pi] + r + n \[Theta])/n]))/(
  3 + Cos[\[Pi]/n]^2 - 4 Cos[\[Pi]/n] Cos[r/n] - Sin[\[Pi]/n]^2), (
  2 (Cos[1 + ((2 s + 1) \[Pi])/n + \[Theta]] - 
    Cos[\[Pi]/n] Cos[(n + (2 s + 1) \[Pi] + r + n \[Theta])/
      n]) Sin[r/n])/(
  3 + Cos[\[Pi]/n]^2 - 4 Cos[\[Pi]/n] Cos[r/n] - 
  Sin[\[Pi]/n]^2)}, {c, 0, 0.5}, Axes -> False, PlotRange -> All, 
  PlotStyle -> {Red, Thick}], {s, 1, n}]]]

just change n as desired.


Original answer

Idea

Since all regular polygons can be inscribed in the unit circle, a circle can then be inscribed in the polygon (dashed) and a further polygon inside that. If lines then join the vertices of the outer polygon to the corresponding ones of the inner polygon, the outer polygon can be fixed while the inner is rotated. The adjoining lines will then form a third polygon that decreases in size to $0$ when the inner polygon is rotated a half turn. Since the outer is fixed, the relation follows.

Details

A polygon inscribed in a unit circle has vertices at $$e^{i(1 + 2\pi k/n)}$$ for all $k=1$ to $n$, where $n$ is the number of sides of the polygon. This can be described in cartesian coordinates as $$\{\Re\ e^{i(1 + 2\pi k/n)},\Im\ e^{i(1 + 2\pi k/n)}\}.$$ The polygon can then be rotated about the origin so that the uppermost vertex lies on the $y$-axis by multiplying by matrix

\begin{pmatrix} \Re \ e^{i\Omega} & -\Im \ e^{i\Omega}\\ \Im \ e^{i\Omega}& \Re \ e^{i\Omega}\\ \end{pmatrix}

where $\Omega$ is the Omega constant.

A smaller circle, with radius $\Re \ e^{i\pi/n}$, where $n$ is the number of sides of the polygon, can then be inscribed inside it.

The polygon to be inscribed and rotated within that will then have coordinates

\begin{align} \Re \ e^{i\pi/n} \begin{pmatrix} \Re \ e^{i\Omega_{1}} & -\Im \ e^{i\Omega_{1}}\\ \Im \ e^{i\Omega_{1}}& \Re \ e^{i\Omega_{1}}\\ \end{pmatrix} \cdot \{\Re\ e^{i(1 + 2\pi k/n)},\Im\ e^{i(1 + 2\pi k/n)}\} \end{align}

where $\Omega_{1}=\dfrac{r}{n}+\Omega$, with $r$ ranging from $0$ to $n\pi.$


Mathematica code to play with:

Manipulate[ Show[\[Theta] = LambertW[1] // N; 
c = Re[E^( I Pi/n)]; \[CapitalTheta] = r/n + \[Theta]; 
Graphics[{(*Circle[]*){Circle[{0, 0}, c]}, 
Line[aa = (Table[{{Re[E^( I \[Theta])], -Im[E^( I \[Theta])]}, 
{Im[E^( I \[Theta])], Re[E^( I \[Theta])]}}.{Re[ E^(I  (1 + 2 \[Pi] k/n))], 
Im[E^(I (1 + 2 \[Pi] k/n))]}, {k, Join[{n}, Range[n]]}])],
Line[bb = (c Table[{{Re[E^( I \[CapitalTheta])], -Im[E^( I \[CapitalTheta])]}, 
{Im[E^( I \[CapitalTheta])], 
Re[E^( I \[CapitalTheta])]}}.{ Re[E^(I ( 1 + 2 \[Pi]  k/n))], 
Im[E^(I ( 1 + 2 \[Pi]  k/n))]}, {k,Join[{n}, Range[n]]}])], 
Line[Table[{aa[[q]], bb[[q]]}, {q, 1, n}]] }], Axes -> False, 
PlotRange -> {{-1, 1}, {-1, 1}}], {{r, 0}, 0, n Pi}, {{n, 3}, 3, 20, 1}]
martin
  • 8,998
4
  1. Let's begin our discussion by setting $\angle AEE_1$ as $\alpha$, $|AA_1|=d$, and generalizing for an arbitrary perfect polygon, $\gamma$ as the angle $\angle EAB$ (which is of course $\pi(\frac{n-2}n)$ radians for an n-sided polygon), and for simplicity set $|AB|=1$.

  2. Draw a perpendicular line to $EA_1$ from A. Assume for now that the intersection point is actually on $EA_1$ and not an extension (we'll get back to this point later). Mark the intersection point as $F$, and mark $\angle FAA_1 = \beta$. We then have $|AF| = \sin \alpha$ and $d \cos \beta = \sin \alpha$, and let's define function $f$ as the resulting angle: $\angle BAB_1 = f(\alpha) = \gamma - \beta - \frac {\pi}{2} + \alpha$.

  3. Naturally in the trivial solution $f(\alpha) = \alpha$, which means for example for 5 sides $\beta = \pi / 10$.

  4. Now suppose $f(\alpha) > \alpha$. We get $$\gamma - \beta - \frac {\pi}{2} + \alpha > \alpha$$ $$\gamma - \frac {\pi}2 - \arccos(\frac{\sin \alpha}d) > 0$$ However because $f(\alpha) > \alpha$, and because both angles are acute (if $\alpha$ is not acute, $AA_1$ is opposite the largest angle in triangle $AA_1E$, which would make $|AA_1| > |EA_1| > |EE_1|$ which is a contradiction. The same argument works for $f(\alpha) < \frac {\pi}2$), $\sin(f(\alpha)) > \sin(\alpha)$.

  5. Because $\arccos$ is a monotonous decreasing function $$\arccos(\frac{\sin(f(\alpha))}d) < \arccos(\frac{\sin(\alpha)}d)$$. Therefore: $$f(f(\alpha)) = \gamma - \frac {\pi}2 - \arccos(\frac{\sin f(\alpha)}d) + f(\alpha) > \gamma - \frac {\pi}2 - \arccos(\frac{\sin \alpha}d) + f(\alpha) > f(\alpha)$$

  6. Switching the signs in the inequalities, the same argument demonstrates that if $f(\alpha) < \alpha$ then $f(f(\alpha)) < f(\alpha)$. Meaning that repeating $f$ is either monotonous decreasing, increasing or constant (in the trivial solution).

  7. But remember that if we repeat the function $f$ n-times we must get $\alpha$ again! This is because $f$ just calculates the next angle while going around the $n$-sided polygon, and after $n$ steps we just return to the original starting point. For example, in the 5-sided polygon we must have $f(f(f(f(f(\alpha)))) = \alpha$. But this is impossible if the composition of the functions is strictly increasing or decreasing.

  8. Therefore $f(\alpha) = \alpha$ for all $n$-sided regular polygons, all the triangles in the drawing are congruent and the internal polygon must be regular as well.

  9. Now we return to explaining why point $F$ must be on the line $EA_1$ and not on its extension. If this was possible, then the angle $\angle BAB_1$ would be $g(\alpha) = \gamma - \frac{\pi}2 + \beta + \alpha$ (notice the sign change before $\beta$ as opposed to $f(\alpha)$). Composition of $g$ is obviously monotonously increasing because $g(\alpha) > \alpha$.

  10. Let's mark $\delta(d) = \arcsin(d \cos(\gamma - \frac{\pi}2))$. If $\alpha > \delta(d)$, it is easy to see $f(\alpha) > \alpha$. This means that for $\alpha > \delta(d)$ both $g(\alpha) > \alpha$ and $f(\alpha) > \alpha$. Therefore we note that if $\alpha > \delta(d)$ no sequence of compositions of $f$ and $g$ can equal to $\alpha$.

  11. So if we show $g(\alpha) > \delta(d)$ for all $\frac{\pi}2 > \alpha > 0$, we know that no sequence of compositions over $g(\alpha)$ would be ever equal to $\alpha$.

  12. $$g(\alpha) = \gamma - \frac{\pi}2 + \arccos(\frac{\sin(\alpha)}d) + \alpha \ge \frac{\pi}2 - \arcsin(\frac{\sin(\alpha)}d) + \alpha$$ This inequality holds for $n > 3$ which was already proven in the original question. We'll now show: $$ \alpha + \frac{\pi}2 \ge \arcsin(\frac{\sin(\alpha)}d) + \delta(d)$$ But we know $\delta(d) \le \arcsin(d)$ because $\arcsin$ is strictly increasing, so if we prove $ \alpha + \frac{\pi}2 \ge \arcsin(\frac{\sin(\alpha)}d) + \arcsin(d)$ we proved our inequality.

  13. $$\frac{d}{d\alpha}(\arcsin(\frac{\sin(\alpha)}d) + \arcsin(d) - \alpha) = \frac{\cos \alpha}{d \sqrt{1 - \frac{\sin ^2 \alpha}{d^2}}} - 1 \ge 0$$ The last inequality is true because $\cos \alpha > d$ (because $|EA_1| > |EE_1| = |AA_1|$). Therefore $\arcsin(\frac{\sin(\alpha)}d) + \arcsin(d) - \alpha$ is strictly increasing, and the maximal value would be $\alpha = \arcsin(d)$ (the function is undefined for higher $\alpha$). But $$ \arcsin(\frac{\sin(\alpha)}d) + \arcsin(d) - \alpha = \arcsin(1) = \frac{\pi}2 $$

  14. Therefore we conclude $$ \alpha + \frac{\pi}2 \ge \arcsin(\frac{\sin(\alpha)}d) + \arcsin(d) \ge \arcsin(\frac{\sin(\alpha)}d) + \delta(d) $$ hence $$g(\alpha) \ge \frac{\pi}2 - \arcsin(\frac{\sin(\alpha)}d) + \alpha \ge \delta(d)$$

  15. Finally, we conclude that any sequence of composition of $f$ and $g$ than includes at least one $g$ must become monotonously increasing, and therefore the only solution to the problem is the one using only $f$ (and so $F$ is on the line $EA_1$). QED.

Alon Navon
  • 1,455
  • Your argument seems plausible except for one point: Nothing guarantees $F$ lies on $EA_1$ yet, i.e., what if $\angle EA_1A\ge\frac\pi2$. – Quang Hoang Oct 30 '14 at 14:15
  • I fixed my proof (even though it involved even messier trig). – Alon Navon Oct 31 '14 at 19:19
  • Also, the proof could be much shorter for $ n \ge 12$ because then $g(\alpha) \ge \frac{\pi}3$ in contradiction to the fact that if we use $g$ we can prove $d < 1$ and the angle opposite the segment length $d$ must be the smallest is the triangle. – Alon Navon Oct 31 '14 at 19:26
  • I forgot to say that your argument is much nicer with pictures, not trig. Also, $f$ and $g$ can alternates in the sequence, not necessarily just one of them. – Quang Hoang Nov 01 '14 at 00:41
  • I really don't know how to make these drawings. As for $f$ and $g$, there's no problem with them alternating (that's why I say "any sequence of composition of"), but the essential fact - that once you "use" $g$ the angles must be above the critical value $\delta(d)$ remains. So either we only have $f$, which we showed in steps 1-8 implies $f(\alpha) = \alpha$, or we have at least one $g$ somewhere in the sequence of compositions, but then the result of the sequence must be greater than $\alpha$. – Alon Navon Nov 01 '14 at 15:15
  • The idea is the circle center $A$ with radius $d$ intersect line $EE_1$ at two points, one yields $f$ and the other yields $g$. As for the composition, I think you are right, $g$, if occurs, would be much too large for the sequence to come back. – Quang Hoang Nov 01 '14 at 15:39
1

Very interesting geometric puzzle. It is true or valid for any regular polygon of n sides.Continuously changing side $AB_1$ of shrinking side polygon $A_1B_1$ rotated in the manner indicated. Rotated polygons have different size but are all regular.

EDIT2:

$AA_1B_1$ is a given straight line. The sum of all external angles $ n AB_1B$ is $ 2\pi$ for any polygon in one single rotation of $AB$,so each angle $ AB_1B$ is given as $ 2 \pi/n $ for a regular polygon due to cyclic symmetry.

Moreover, a straight line $ x \,cos \alpha + y \,sin \alpha = p $ becomes $ x \, cos (\alpha+\beta) + y \,sin (\alpha+\beta) = p $ by rotation through $\beta $, leaving external $ AB_1B$ invariant around regular polygon.

EDIT1:

Took previous ABC equilateral triangle case for inspiration only. An independent problem circumstance/statement as I have taken/assumed taken is:

Lines AB,... of a regular polygon are rotated about regular polygon corner A by equal angles $B_1 A B$,... so that intercepts $ A A_1, B B_1 $ are of equal length. Show that the enclosed reduced polygon is also regular.

Logic of method is recognizing locus containing $B_1$ is a circular arc. By Law of Sines $ AB / sin (2 \pi/n) = BB_1/ sin (B_1 A B)$ = constant suggests that polygon corner has a locus on a circle passing through A and B. The locus of A and B are circular arcs with polar offset $ 2 \pi/ n $.

It is proved that all surmises are quite correct. (Collinearity, regular polygon similarity upto side length or size, difference of $ AB_1$ and $B_1B $ being the side of rotating polygon etc.) while staying on this arc.

As the corner goes to center of arc polygon gets smaller, but extension of sides go through the vertices of un-rotated polygon!

To visualize this, construct a circle of radius $ a/( 2 sin( \pi/n))$ through $A$ and $B$. Draw two rays through polygon corner B1, mark left side by removing right side length $ B_1B $ at left ray and draw a circle through $A B_1 B$. complete construction of polygon. ( For higher n compass /ruler construction is not known, only n = 17 done by KF Gauss.). One can construct by finding chords and marking off corners.

Repeat the construction for several positions of corner point to visualize successively reducing regular polygons.

I have sketched squares in n = 4 case. Constructions of pentagons, hexagons are likewise possible, with more time.

Would be fun on Java Sketch Pad or similar dynamic geometric animation to see changing polygon positions go through one set of extended bases of polygon to fixed polygon corners/vertices. Enclosing extensions would make the setup look like the iris or light arresting diaphragm of a lens in a camera..

Incidentally the problem can also be stated like this in other words:

n-fold symmetry Polygon Iris: Between two fixed points$ A$ and $B$ a point $B_1$ is moving on a circular arc of radius $ a/( 2 sin( \pi/n))$ such that difference of $ AB_1$ and $B_1B = A_1B_1$ forms a regular n-polygon side. Show that all polygon extensions pass through vertices of regular n-polygon with this difference $ A_1B_1$ as side.

ReglrPolygonInsideAnother

Narasimham
  • 40,495
  • It seems that you also took it for granted that the angles at $B_1$ are $2\pi/n$. That's not part of the hypothesis. – Quang Hoang Nov 02 '14 at 14:10
  • @QuangHoang: I did not refer to (ABC equilateral triangle) at all, understanding it served for inspiration only.The problem as I understood is stated in the edit. – Narasimham Nov 02 '14 at 16:28
-1

I think it is true.

The construction (and hence the proof) will be easier to start with inclined angle instead of length.

enter image description here

Starting from $A$, the ray $AB_1$ is drawn inclining at angle $x_1$ to the adjacent side $AB$. Then the ray $BC_1$ with $x_2 = x_1$. The process is continued until $EA_1$ is formed.

Note that all x’s are equal. Therefore all y’s are also equal because the polygon is regular.

Then, $⊿ABB_1$ is congruent to $⊿BCC_1$ …… (ASA)

Therefore, $BB_1 = CC_1 = …$.

This further means $A_1B_1 = B_1C_1 = ….$, implying that the constructed polygon is also regular.

Mick
  • 17,141
  • When you have equal angles, everything is symmetric, and regularity follows immediately. But if you only have equal segments, symmetry is not guaranteed. – Quang Hoang Oct 24 '14 at 04:51
  • This is an entirely different question! – TonyK Oct 24 '14 at 04:56
  • @QuangHoang (and also to TonyK) Do not understand your comment. The following is a direct quote from Wiki –“In Euclidean geometry, a regular polygon is a polygon that is equiangular (all angles are equal in measure) and equilateral (all sides have the same length).” – Mick Oct 24 '14 at 16:23
  • @Mick In a way, the question asks if it's possible to construct a non-regular $A_1B_1C_1D_1E_1$ satisfying that picture. – Quang Hoang Oct 24 '14 at 16:27
  • @QuangHoang I think I have answered “yes” to the question - “Can we conclude that $A_1B_1C_1D_1E_1$ is regular?” Anyway, how did you construct $AA_1$, (and therefore the ray $AA_1$), and then (most impoartantly) $BB_1$ that cuts the previous ray at $B_1$? Just randomly without restrictions or rules? – Mick Oct 24 '14 at 17:15
  • @Mick: In your answer, you used the equal angles, which are not given. Can you explain why the (given) equal segments imply the equal angles? – Quang Hoang Oct 24 '14 at 17:30
  • By assuming that the inclined angles are equal, you are assuming the result that you are asked to prove! There is no a priori reason to expect that the angles are equal. – TonyK Oct 24 '14 at 18:28
  • @QuangHoang: I understand regular n-polygon as having sides all of equal length and each external angle = $ 2\pi/n $ – Narasimham Nov 02 '14 at 07:24
  • @QuangHoang It seems to me that Alon Navon’s work starts off also from an inclined angle (α). He consequently proved that all “similarly constructed angles” are all equal (to α). If that is the case, my post {through proving the congruence of all “similarly constructed triangles” (like $ABB_1$ and $BCC_1$ …) are congruent} can serve as a sequel to his post. Thus, we have “equal segments $AA_1, BB_1$ …” and hence equal sides of $A_1B_1 = B_1C_1 = C_1D_1 = …$, meaning a regular pentagon. – Mick Nov 02 '14 at 10:37
  • @Mick: He started off with an inclined angle ($\alpha$), then he showed that all the other angles are also $\alpha$, which you took for granted. – Quang Hoang Nov 02 '14 at 14:08