Mixing
New Proof of Pythagorean Theorem (using inscribed circle)?
$begingroup$
I was solving an easy problem for fun when I stumbled onto this, and was wondering if this was a correct and possibly a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem.
Given right triangle $triangle ABC$, and side lengths $a$, $b$, and $c$. Inscribe in $triangle ABC$ a circle, which has radius $r$, and origin point $O$. Connect $O$ to vertices $A$, $B$ and $C$, such that you form $overline{AO}$, $overline{BO}$, and $overline{CO}$. This creates three trianlges: $triangle ABO$, $triangle BCO$, and $triangle ACO$. Obviously the area of these three new triangles equals that of $triangle ABC$. Notice that the radius, $r$, of the inscribed circle is the height of the three new triangles. Adding the areas together, we get: $$frac{ar}{2}+frac{br}{2}+frac{cr}{2}=frac{ab}{2}$$ Solving for $r$, you get: $$r=frac{ab}{a+b+c}$$
Now look at this picture:
By the property of tangential distances, we know that: $$(a-r)+(b-r)=c$$ So solving for $r$ again, we get: $$r=frac{a+b-c}{2}$$ Now setting the two equations equal to $r$ equal to each other and some slight algebra: begin{align}
frac{a+b-c}{2}&=frac{ab}{a+b+c}
\ 2ab&=a^2+ab-ac+ab+b^2-bc+ac+bc-c^2
\ 2ab&=a^2+2ab+b^2-c^2
\ c^2&=a^2+b^2
end{align}
Q.E.D.
Thoughts?
geometry proof-verification proof-writing circle
edited Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
Blue
48.4k870154
asked Jul 9 '16 at 1:25
Drunk DerivingDrunk Deriving
1126
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was solving an easy problem for fun when I stumbled onto this, and was wondering if this was a correct and possibly a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem.
Given right triangle $triangle ABC$, and side lengths $a$, $b$, and $c$. Inscribe in $triangle ABC$ a circle, which has radius $r$, and origin point $O$. Connect $O$ to vertices $A$, $B$ and $C$, such that you form $overline{AO}$, $overline{BO}$, and $overline{CO}$. This creates three trianlges: $triangle ABO$, $triangle BCO$, and $triangle ACO$. Obviously the area of these three new triangles equals that of $triangle ABC$. Notice that the radius, $r$, of the inscribed circle is the height of the three new triangles. Adding the areas together, we get: $$frac{ar}{2}+frac{br}{2}+frac{cr}{2}=frac{ab}{2}$$ Solving for $r$, you get: $$r=frac{ab}{a+b+c}$$
Now look at this picture:
By the property of tangential distances, we know that: $$(a-r)+(b-r)=c$$ So solving for $r$ again, we get: $$r=frac{a+b-c}{2}$$ Now setting the two equations equal to $r$ equal to each other and some slight algebra: begin{align}
frac{a+b-c}{2}&=frac{ab}{a+b+c}
\ 2ab&=a^2+ab-ac+ab+b^2-bc+ac+bc-c^2
\ 2ab&=a^2+2ab+b^2-c^2
\ c^2&=a^2+b^2
end{align}
Q.E.D.
Thoughts?
geometry proof-verification proof-writing circle
edited Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
Blue
48.4k870154
asked Jul 9 '16 at 1:25
Drunk DerivingDrunk Deriving
1126
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
Compare proofs #33, #34, #42, #45 on Cut-the-Knot's "Pythagorean Theorem" page.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Jul 9 '16 at 1:30
1
$begingroup$
Nicely done. This is indeed proof #42 from the link @Blue posted. It actually surprised me to read that it's only been found in recent decades.
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
$begingroup$
I knew it was close to #33, but failed to see #42. That is surprising that it only was first seen in 1988, when it is one of the more straight forward proofs.
$endgroup$
– Drunk Deriving
Jul 9 '16 at 1:40
$begingroup$
I wouldn't say it is one of the most straightforward, it involves much more steps than for example proof number 3 of the same document...
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jul 9 '16 at 3:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was solving an easy problem for fun when I stumbled onto this, and was wondering if this was a correct and possibly a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem.
Given right triangle $triangle ABC$, and side lengths $a$, $b$, and $c$. Inscribe in $triangle ABC$ a circle, which has radius $r$, and origin point $O$. Connect $O$ to vertices $A$, $B$ and $C$, such that you form $overline{AO}$, $overline{BO}$, and $overline{CO}$. This creates three trianlges: $triangle ABO$, $triangle BCO$, and $triangle ACO$. Obviously the area of these three new triangles equals that of $triangle ABC$. Notice that the radius, $r$, of the inscribed circle is the height of the three new triangles. Adding the areas together, we get: $$frac{ar}{2}+frac{br}{2}+frac{cr}{2}=frac{ab}{2}$$ Solving for $r$, you get: $$r=frac{ab}{a+b+c}$$
Now look at this picture:
By the property of tangential distances, we know that: $$(a-r)+(b-r)=c$$ So solving for $r$ again, we get: $$r=frac{a+b-c}{2}$$ Now setting the two equations equal to $r$ equal to each other and some slight algebra: begin{align}
frac{a+b-c}{2}&=frac{ab}{a+b+c}
\ 2ab&=a^2+ab-ac+ab+b^2-bc+ac+bc-c^2
\ 2ab&=a^2+2ab+b^2-c^2
\ c^2&=a^2+b^2
end{align}
Q.E.D.
Thoughts?
geometry proof-verification proof-writing circle
edited Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
Blue
48.4k870154
asked Jul 9 '16 at 1:25
Drunk DerivingDrunk Deriving
1126
$endgroup$
I was solving an easy problem for fun when I stumbled onto this, and was wondering if this was a correct and possibly a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem.
Given right triangle $triangle ABC$, and side lengths $a$, $b$, and $c$. Inscribe in $triangle ABC$ a circle, which has radius $r$, and origin point $O$. Connect $O$ to vertices $A$, $B$ and $C$, such that you form $overline{AO}$, $overline{BO}$, and $overline{CO}$. This creates three trianlges: $triangle ABO$, $triangle BCO$, and $triangle ACO$. Obviously the area of these three new triangles equals that of $triangle ABC$. Notice that the radius, $r$, of the inscribed circle is the height of the three new triangles. Adding the areas together, we get: $$frac{ar}{2}+frac{br}{2}+frac{cr}{2}=frac{ab}{2}$$ Solving for $r$, you get: $$r=frac{ab}{a+b+c}$$
Now look at this picture:
By the property of tangential distances, we know that: $$(a-r)+(b-r)=c$$ So solving for $r$ again, we get: $$r=frac{a+b-c}{2}$$ Now setting the two equations equal to $r$ equal to each other and some slight algebra: begin{align}
frac{a+b-c}{2}&=frac{ab}{a+b+c}
\ 2ab&=a^2+ab-ac+ab+b^2-bc+ac+bc-c^2
\ 2ab&=a^2+2ab+b^2-c^2
\ c^2&=a^2+b^2
end{align}
Q.E.D.
Thoughts?
geometry proof-verification proof-writing circle
geometry proof-verification proof-writing circle
edited Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
Blue
48.4k870154
asked Jul 9 '16 at 1:25
Drunk DerivingDrunk Deriving
1126
edited Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
Blue
48.4k870154
asked Jul 9 '16 at 1:25
Drunk DerivingDrunk Deriving
1126
edited Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
Blue
48.4k870154
edited Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
Blue
48.4k870154
edited Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
Blue
48.4k870154
48.4k870154
asked Jul 9 '16 at 1:25
Drunk DerivingDrunk Deriving
1126
asked Jul 9 '16 at 1:25
Drunk DerivingDrunk Deriving
1126
asked Jul 9 '16 at 1:25
Drunk DerivingDrunk Deriving
1126
1126
4
$begingroup$
Compare proofs #33, #34, #42, #45 on Cut-the-Knot's "Pythagorean Theorem" page.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Jul 9 '16 at 1:30
1
$begingroup$
Nicely done. This is indeed proof #42 from the link @Blue posted. It actually surprised me to read that it's only been found in recent decades.
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
$begingroup$
I knew it was close to #33, but failed to see #42. That is surprising that it only was first seen in 1988, when it is one of the more straight forward proofs.
$endgroup$
– Drunk Deriving
Jul 9 '16 at 1:40
$begingroup$
I wouldn't say it is one of the most straightforward, it involves much more steps than for example proof number 3 of the same document...
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jul 9 '16 at 3:21
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
Compare proofs #33, #34, #42, #45 on Cut-the-Knot's "Pythagorean Theorem" page.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Jul 9 '16 at 1:30
1
$begingroup$
Nicely done. This is indeed proof #42 from the link @Blue posted. It actually surprised me to read that it's only been found in recent decades.
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
$begingroup$
I knew it was close to #33, but failed to see #42. That is surprising that it only was first seen in 1988, when it is one of the more straight forward proofs.
$endgroup$
– Drunk Deriving
Jul 9 '16 at 1:40
$begingroup$
I wouldn't say it is one of the most straightforward, it involves much more steps than for example proof number 3 of the same document...
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jul 9 '16 at 3:21
4
4
$begingroup$
Compare proofs #33, #34, #42, #45 on Cut-the-Knot's "Pythagorean Theorem" page.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Jul 9 '16 at 1:30
$begingroup$
Compare proofs #33, #34, #42, #45 on Cut-the-Knot's "Pythagorean Theorem" page.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Jul 9 '16 at 1:30
1
1
$begingroup$
Nicely done. This is indeed proof #42 from the link @Blue posted. It actually surprised me to read that it's only been found in recent decades.
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
$begingroup$
Nicely done. This is indeed proof #42 from the link @Blue posted. It actually surprised me to read that it's only been found in recent decades.
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
$begingroup$
I knew it was close to #33, but failed to see #42. That is surprising that it only was first seen in 1988, when it is one of the more straight forward proofs.
$endgroup$
– Drunk Deriving
Jul 9 '16 at 1:40
$begingroup$
I knew it was close to #33, but failed to see #42. That is surprising that it only was first seen in 1988, when it is one of the more straight forward proofs.
$endgroup$
– Drunk Deriving
Jul 9 '16 at 1:40
$begingroup$
I wouldn't say it is one of the most straightforward, it involves much more steps than for example proof number 3 of the same document...
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jul 9 '16 at 3:21
$begingroup$
I wouldn't say it is one of the most straightforward, it involves much more steps than for example proof number 3 of the same document...
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jul 9 '16 at 3:21
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
" By the property of tangential distances, we know that: "
And how do we know anything about the property of tangential distances?
We derived it from the Pythagorean Theorem.
I'm afraid your proof is circular.
answered Jul 9 '16 at 1:33
fleabloodfleablood
70.8k22686
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Aren't congruent triangles sufficient?
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 9 '16 at 1:38
5
$begingroup$
Show ,without Pythagoras, that the internal angles of a right triangle add to $pi.$ Now let the feet of the perpendiculars from $O$ to $AB$, and from $O$ to $AC$, be $ C' $ and $ B', $ respectively. Then $ C'O=B'O, $ while the angles $ C'OA, $ $ B'OA $ are equal. So the triangles $ C'OA $ and $ B'OA $ are congruent. ... So $ C'A=B'A.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jul 9 '16 at 2:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is important to state the axiomatic framework the OP is coming from. It appears that they are working within the confines of 'Euclidean Plane Geometry' (a.k.a. high school plane geometry), and not the $mathbb R times mathbb R$ Cartesian Coordinate Space.
The OP's proof is completely valid in that setting, and if carefully argued there is no circular reasoning.
The next section is just for fun.
Another title for the OP's question:
New Proof of Pythagorean Theorem (using the incenter of a triangle)?
(they can erase the picture of the circle).
The OP's proof doesn't rely on the concept of a circle or tangential distances.
A Theory of (tick-marked) Ray Lines could be postulated that describes the plane, and using the OP's logic, the simultaneous truth of the two equations
$$tag 1 frac{ar}{2}+frac{br}{2}+frac{cr}{2}=frac{ab}{2}$$
$$tag 2 (a−r)+(b−r)=c$$
can be argued.
You will find the two-dimensional Pythagorean Theorem to be true if you believe in the following:
$quad text{The Bisection of Two Rays Emanating from the Same Point}$
$quad text{The Perpendicular Distance From a Point to a Line}$
$quad text{The Area of a Rectangle}$
$quad text{Similar Triangles}$
$quad text{The Area of a Triangle}$
With that under your belt, you prove the following:
Theorem 1: Concurrency of Angle Bisectors of a Triangle.
In a triangle, the angle bisectors intersect at a point that is equidistant from the sides of the triangle; this point is called the incenter of the triangle.
If want to feel more comfortable before throwing out your Compass-and-Straightedge, please read
How to Bisect an Angle Using Only a Ruler
answered Jan 14 at 12:55
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1731628
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1853695%2fnew-proof-of-pythagorean-theorem-using-inscribed-circle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
" By the property of tangential distances, we know that: "
And how do we know anything about the property of tangential distances?
We derived it from the Pythagorean Theorem.
I'm afraid your proof is circular.
answered Jul 9 '16 at 1:33
fleabloodfleablood
70.8k22686
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Aren't congruent triangles sufficient?
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 9 '16 at 1:38
5
$begingroup$
Show ,without Pythagoras, that the internal angles of a right triangle add to $pi.$ Now let the feet of the perpendiculars from $O$ to $AB$, and from $O$ to $AC$, be $ C' $ and $ B', $ respectively. Then $ C'O=B'O, $ while the angles $ C'OA, $ $ B'OA $ are equal. So the triangles $ C'OA $ and $ B'OA $ are congruent. ... So $ C'A=B'A.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jul 9 '16 at 2:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
" By the property of tangential distances, we know that: "
And how do we know anything about the property of tangential distances?
We derived it from the Pythagorean Theorem.
I'm afraid your proof is circular.
answered Jul 9 '16 at 1:33
fleabloodfleablood
70.8k22686
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Aren't congruent triangles sufficient?
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 9 '16 at 1:38
5
$begingroup$
Show ,without Pythagoras, that the internal angles of a right triangle add to $pi.$ Now let the feet of the perpendiculars from $O$ to $AB$, and from $O$ to $AC$, be $ C' $ and $ B', $ respectively. Then $ C'O=B'O, $ while the angles $ C'OA, $ $ B'OA $ are equal. So the triangles $ C'OA $ and $ B'OA $ are congruent. ... So $ C'A=B'A.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jul 9 '16 at 2:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
" By the property of tangential distances, we know that: "
And how do we know anything about the property of tangential distances?
We derived it from the Pythagorean Theorem.
I'm afraid your proof is circular.
answered Jul 9 '16 at 1:33
fleabloodfleablood
70.8k22686
$endgroup$
" By the property of tangential distances, we know that: "
And how do we know anything about the property of tangential distances?
We derived it from the Pythagorean Theorem.
I'm afraid your proof is circular.
answered Jul 9 '16 at 1:33
fleabloodfleablood
70.8k22686
answered Jul 9 '16 at 1:33
fleabloodfleablood
70.8k22686
answered Jul 9 '16 at 1:33
fleabloodfleablood
70.8k22686
answered Jul 9 '16 at 1:33
fleabloodfleablood
70.8k22686
70.8k22686
6
$begingroup$
Aren't congruent triangles sufficient?
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 9 '16 at 1:38
5
$begingroup$
Show ,without Pythagoras, that the internal angles of a right triangle add to $pi.$ Now let the feet of the perpendiculars from $O$ to $AB$, and from $O$ to $AC$, be $ C' $ and $ B', $ respectively. Then $ C'O=B'O, $ while the angles $ C'OA, $ $ B'OA $ are equal. So the triangles $ C'OA $ and $ B'OA $ are congruent. ... So $ C'A=B'A.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jul 9 '16 at 2:20
add a comment |
6
$begingroup$
Aren't congruent triangles sufficient?
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 9 '16 at 1:38
5
$begingroup$
Show ,without Pythagoras, that the internal angles of a right triangle add to $pi.$ Now let the feet of the perpendiculars from $O$ to $AB$, and from $O$ to $AC$, be $ C' $ and $ B', $ respectively. Then $ C'O=B'O, $ while the angles $ C'OA, $ $ B'OA $ are equal. So the triangles $ C'OA $ and $ B'OA $ are congruent. ... So $ C'A=B'A.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jul 9 '16 at 2:20
6
6
$begingroup$
Aren't congruent triangles sufficient?
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 9 '16 at 1:38
$begingroup$
Aren't congruent triangles sufficient?
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 9 '16 at 1:38
5
5
$begingroup$
Show ,without Pythagoras, that the internal angles of a right triangle add to $pi.$ Now let the feet of the perpendiculars from $O$ to $AB$, and from $O$ to $AC$, be $ C' $ and $ B', $ respectively. Then $ C'O=B'O, $ while the angles $ C'OA, $ $ B'OA $ are equal. So the triangles $ C'OA $ and $ B'OA $ are congruent. ... So $ C'A=B'A.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jul 9 '16 at 2:20
$begingroup$
Show ,without Pythagoras, that the internal angles of a right triangle add to $pi.$ Now let the feet of the perpendiculars from $O$ to $AB$, and from $O$ to $AC$, be $ C' $ and $ B', $ respectively. Then $ C'O=B'O, $ while the angles $ C'OA, $ $ B'OA $ are equal. So the triangles $ C'OA $ and $ B'OA $ are congruent. ... So $ C'A=B'A.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jul 9 '16 at 2:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is important to state the axiomatic framework the OP is coming from. It appears that they are working within the confines of 'Euclidean Plane Geometry' (a.k.a. high school plane geometry), and not the $mathbb R times mathbb R$ Cartesian Coordinate Space.
The OP's proof is completely valid in that setting, and if carefully argued there is no circular reasoning.
The next section is just for fun.
Another title for the OP's question:
New Proof of Pythagorean Theorem (using the incenter of a triangle)?
(they can erase the picture of the circle).
The OP's proof doesn't rely on the concept of a circle or tangential distances.
A Theory of (tick-marked) Ray Lines could be postulated that describes the plane, and using the OP's logic, the simultaneous truth of the two equations
$$tag 1 frac{ar}{2}+frac{br}{2}+frac{cr}{2}=frac{ab}{2}$$
$$tag 2 (a−r)+(b−r)=c$$
can be argued.
You will find the two-dimensional Pythagorean Theorem to be true if you believe in the following:
$quad text{The Bisection of Two Rays Emanating from the Same Point}$
$quad text{The Perpendicular Distance From a Point to a Line}$
$quad text{The Area of a Rectangle}$
$quad text{Similar Triangles}$
$quad text{The Area of a Triangle}$
With that under your belt, you prove the following:
Theorem 1: Concurrency of Angle Bisectors of a Triangle.
In a triangle, the angle bisectors intersect at a point that is equidistant from the sides of the triangle; this point is called the incenter of the triangle.
If want to feel more comfortable before throwing out your Compass-and-Straightedge, please read
How to Bisect an Angle Using Only a Ruler
answered Jan 14 at 12:55
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1731628
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is important to state the axiomatic framework the OP is coming from. It appears that they are working within the confines of 'Euclidean Plane Geometry' (a.k.a. high school plane geometry), and not the $mathbb R times mathbb R$ Cartesian Coordinate Space.
The OP's proof is completely valid in that setting, and if carefully argued there is no circular reasoning.
The next section is just for fun.
Another title for the OP's question:
New Proof of Pythagorean Theorem (using the incenter of a triangle)?
(they can erase the picture of the circle).
The OP's proof doesn't rely on the concept of a circle or tangential distances.
A Theory of (tick-marked) Ray Lines could be postulated that describes the plane, and using the OP's logic, the simultaneous truth of the two equations
$$tag 1 frac{ar}{2}+frac{br}{2}+frac{cr}{2}=frac{ab}{2}$$
$$tag 2 (a−r)+(b−r)=c$$
can be argued.
You will find the two-dimensional Pythagorean Theorem to be true if you believe in the following:
$quad text{The Bisection of Two Rays Emanating from the Same Point}$
$quad text{The Perpendicular Distance From a Point to a Line}$
$quad text{The Area of a Rectangle}$
$quad text{Similar Triangles}$
$quad text{The Area of a Triangle}$
With that under your belt, you prove the following:
Theorem 1: Concurrency of Angle Bisectors of a Triangle.
In a triangle, the angle bisectors intersect at a point that is equidistant from the sides of the triangle; this point is called the incenter of the triangle.
If want to feel more comfortable before throwing out your Compass-and-Straightedge, please read
How to Bisect an Angle Using Only a Ruler
answered Jan 14 at 12:55
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1731628
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is important to state the axiomatic framework the OP is coming from. It appears that they are working within the confines of 'Euclidean Plane Geometry' (a.k.a. high school plane geometry), and not the $mathbb R times mathbb R$ Cartesian Coordinate Space.
The OP's proof is completely valid in that setting, and if carefully argued there is no circular reasoning.
The next section is just for fun.
Another title for the OP's question:
New Proof of Pythagorean Theorem (using the incenter of a triangle)?
(they can erase the picture of the circle).
The OP's proof doesn't rely on the concept of a circle or tangential distances.
A Theory of (tick-marked) Ray Lines could be postulated that describes the plane, and using the OP's logic, the simultaneous truth of the two equations
$$tag 1 frac{ar}{2}+frac{br}{2}+frac{cr}{2}=frac{ab}{2}$$
$$tag 2 (a−r)+(b−r)=c$$
can be argued.
You will find the two-dimensional Pythagorean Theorem to be true if you believe in the following:
$quad text{The Bisection of Two Rays Emanating from the Same Point}$
$quad text{The Perpendicular Distance From a Point to a Line}$
$quad text{The Area of a Rectangle}$
$quad text{Similar Triangles}$
$quad text{The Area of a Triangle}$
With that under your belt, you prove the following:
Theorem 1: Concurrency of Angle Bisectors of a Triangle.
In a triangle, the angle bisectors intersect at a point that is equidistant from the sides of the triangle; this point is called the incenter of the triangle.
If want to feel more comfortable before throwing out your Compass-and-Straightedge, please read
How to Bisect an Angle Using Only a Ruler
answered Jan 14 at 12:55
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1731628
$endgroup$
It is important to state the axiomatic framework the OP is coming from. It appears that they are working within the confines of 'Euclidean Plane Geometry' (a.k.a. high school plane geometry), and not the $mathbb R times mathbb R$ Cartesian Coordinate Space.
The OP's proof is completely valid in that setting, and if carefully argued there is no circular reasoning.
The next section is just for fun.
Another title for the OP's question:
New Proof of Pythagorean Theorem (using the incenter of a triangle)?
(they can erase the picture of the circle).
The OP's proof doesn't rely on the concept of a circle or tangential distances.
A Theory of (tick-marked) Ray Lines could be postulated that describes the plane, and using the OP's logic, the simultaneous truth of the two equations
$$tag 1 frac{ar}{2}+frac{br}{2}+frac{cr}{2}=frac{ab}{2}$$
$$tag 2 (a−r)+(b−r)=c$$
can be argued.
You will find the two-dimensional Pythagorean Theorem to be true if you believe in the following:
$quad text{The Bisection of Two Rays Emanating from the Same Point}$
$quad text{The Perpendicular Distance From a Point to a Line}$
$quad text{The Area of a Rectangle}$
$quad text{Similar Triangles}$
$quad text{The Area of a Triangle}$
With that under your belt, you prove the following:
Theorem 1: Concurrency of Angle Bisectors of a Triangle.
In a triangle, the angle bisectors intersect at a point that is equidistant from the sides of the triangle; this point is called the incenter of the triangle.
If want to feel more comfortable before throwing out your Compass-and-Straightedge, please read
How to Bisect an Angle Using Only a Ruler
answered Jan 14 at 12:55
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1731628
edited Jan 14 at 13:26
answered Jan 14 at 12:55
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1731628
answered Jan 14 at 12:55
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1731628
answered Jan 14 at 12:55
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1731628
4,1731628
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1853695%2fnew-proof-of-pythagorean-theorem-using-inscribed-circle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
$begingroup$
Compare proofs #33, #34, #42, #45 on Cut-the-Knot's "Pythagorean Theorem" page.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Jul 9 '16 at 1:30
1
$begingroup$
Nicely done. This is indeed proof #42 from the link @Blue posted. It actually surprised me to read that it's only been found in recent decades.
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 9 '16 at 1:34
$begingroup$
I knew it was close to #33, but failed to see #42. That is surprising that it only was first seen in 1988, when it is one of the more straight forward proofs.
$endgroup$
– Drunk Deriving
Jul 9 '16 at 1:40
$begingroup$
I wouldn't say it is one of the most straightforward, it involves much more steps than for example proof number 3 of the same document...
$endgroup$
– Jean Marie
Jul 9 '16 at 3:21