39th IMO

Discussion on International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO)
sourav das
Posts:461
Joined:Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:05 am
Location:Dhaka
Contact:
39th IMO

Unread post by sourav das » Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:18 pm

Problem 1. In the convex quadrilateral ABCD, the diagonals AC and BD are perpendicular and the opposite sides AB and DC are not parallel. Suppose that the point P, where the perpendicular bisectors of AB and DC meet, is inside
ABCD . Prove that ABCD is a cyclic quadrilateral if and only if the triangles ABP and CDP have equal areas.
You spin my head right round right round,
When you go down, when you go down down......
(-$from$ "$THE$ $UGLY$ $TRUTH$" )

User avatar
Tahmid Hasan
Posts:665
Joined:Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:34 pm
Location:Khulna,Bangladesh.

Re: 39th IMO

Unread post by Tahmid Hasan » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:01 pm

the 'if' part.first we consider ABCD is cyclic.then $P$ is the circumcenter.
now,$\triangle APB= \frac{1}{2} BP.AP.sin \angle APB= \frac{1}{2}.R^2.sin \angle APB$
and $\triangle CPD= \frac{1}{2}CP.PD.sin \angle CPD$
$=\frac{1}{2}.R^2.sin 2 \angle CBD$
$=\frac{1}{2}R^2.sin 2 (\angle 90^\circ-\angle ACB)$
$=\frac{1}{2}R^2.sin (180^\circ-\angle APB)$
$=\frac{1}{2}.R^2.sin \angle APB$
$=\triangle APB$
now for the only if part,
for the sake of contradiction we consider the existence of a cyclic quadrilateral $ABCD$ for which the area of $\triangle APB,\triangle CPD$ are not equal.but the 'if' process can be done here and proven $\triangle APB=\triangle CPD$,so a contradiction.
বড় ভালবাসি তোমায়,মা

User avatar
nayel
Posts:268
Joined:Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:38 pm
Location:Dhaka, Bangladesh or Cambridge, UK

Re: 39th IMO

Unread post by nayel » Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:16 pm

Just a little note: your "if" part is actually the "only if". :)
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein

sourav das
Posts:461
Joined:Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:05 am
Location:Dhaka
Contact:

Re: 39th IMO

Unread post by sourav das » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:11 am

Tahmid Hasan wrote:now for the only if part,for the sake of contradiction we consider the existence of a cyclic quadrilateral $ABCD$ for which the area of $\triangle APB,\triangle CPD$ are not equal.but the 'if' process can be done here and proven $\triangle APB=\triangle CPD$,so a contradiction.
Completely wrong. You don't assume any quadrilateral $ABCD$ which satisfy $\triangle APB=\triangle CPD$ ( not cyclic quadrilateral ). Here you actually count only if part twice. ;)
You spin my head right round right round,
When you go down, when you go down down......
(-$from$ "$THE$ $UGLY$ $TRUTH$" )

Post Reply