USA(J)MO 2017 #3
Let $ABC$ be an equilateral triangle, and point $P$ on it's circumcircle. Let $PA$ and $BC$ intersect at $D$, $PB$ and $AC$ intersect at $E$, and $PC$ and $AB$ intersect at $F$. Prove that the area of $\bigtriangleup DEF$ is twice the area of $\bigtriangleup ABC$
The study of mathematics, like the Nile, begins in minuteness but ends in magnificence.
- Charles Caleb Colton
- Charles Caleb Colton
- Thanic Nur Samin
- Posts:176
- Joined:Sun Dec 01, 2013 11:02 am
Re: USA(J)MO 2017 #3
We use barycentric coordinates.
Let $P\equiv (p:q:r)$. Now, we know that $pq+qr+rp=0$ [The equation of circumcircle for equilateral triangles].
Now, $D\equiv (0:q:r), E\equiv (p:0:r), F\equiv (p:q:0)$.
So, the area of $\triangle DEF$ divided by the area of $\triangle ABC$ is:
$$\dfrac{1}{(p+q)(q+r)(r+p)} \times \begin{vmatrix}
0 & q & r\\
p & 0 & r\\
p & q & 0
\end{vmatrix}$$
$$=\dfrac{2pqr}{(p+q+r)(pq+qr+rp)-pqr}$$
$$=\dfrac{2pqr}{-pqr}=-2$$.
The reason of negativity is that we took signed area.
Therefore the area of $DEF$ is twice the area of $ABC$.
Let $P\equiv (p:q:r)$. Now, we know that $pq+qr+rp=0$ [The equation of circumcircle for equilateral triangles].
Now, $D\equiv (0:q:r), E\equiv (p:0:r), F\equiv (p:q:0)$.
So, the area of $\triangle DEF$ divided by the area of $\triangle ABC$ is:
$$\dfrac{1}{(p+q)(q+r)(r+p)} \times \begin{vmatrix}
0 & q & r\\
p & 0 & r\\
p & q & 0
\end{vmatrix}$$
$$=\dfrac{2pqr}{(p+q+r)(pq+qr+rp)-pqr}$$
$$=\dfrac{2pqr}{-pqr}=-2$$.
The reason of negativity is that we took signed area.
Therefore the area of $DEF$ is twice the area of $ABC$.
Last edited by Thanic Nur Samin on Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hammer with tact.
Because destroying everything mindlessly isn't cool enough.
Because destroying everything mindlessly isn't cool enough.
Re: USA(J)MO 2017 #3
There's a typo in the determinant: zero for you~Thanic Nur Samin wrote:We use barycentric coordinates.
Let $P\equiv (p:q:r)$. Now, we know that $pq+qr+rp=0$ [The equation of circumcircle for equilateral triangles].
Now, $D\equiv (0:q:r), E\equiv (p:0:r), F\equiv (p:q:0)$.
So, the area of $\triangle DEF$ divided by the area of $\triangle ABC$ is:
$$\dfrac{1}{(p+q)(q+r)(r+p)} \times \begin{vmatrix}
0 & q & p\\
p & 0 & r\\
p & q & 0
\end{vmatrix}$$
$$=\dfrac{2pqr}{(p+q+r)(pq+qr+rp)-pqr}$$
$$=\dfrac{2pqr}{-pqr}=-2$$.
The reason of negativity is that we took signed area.
Therefore the area of $DEF$ is twice the area of $ABC$.
Re: USA(J)MO 2017 #3
For those who loves synthetic geometry
Throughout the proof signed area will be used.
Lemma: Let $ABC$ be an equilateral triangle, and point $P$ on its circumcircle. Let $PB$ and $AC$ intersect at $E$, and $PC$ and $AB$ intersect at $F$.Then $ {[EPF]}={[ABPC]}$
Proof: Let the tangent to $(ABC)$ at $A$ meet $BP$ at $J$ .Then applying pascal's theorem on hexagon $AACPBB$ we get $JF \parallel BB \parallel AC$ . So
$${[EPF]}={[ECF]}-{[ECP]}={[ECJ]}-{[ECP]}={[PCJ]}={[PCB]}+{[BCJ]}={[PCB]}+{[BCA]}={[BPCA]}={[ABPC]}$$.
Problem : So , $${[DFE}]={[EPF]}+{[FPD]}+{[DPE]}$$
$$={[ABPC]}+{[BCPA]}+{[CAPB]} $$
$$ =\{ {[BPA]}+{[APC]} \}+\{ {[ABC]}-{[APC]} \} + \{ {[ABC]}-{[BPA]} \} $$
$$=2{[ABC]} $$
Throughout the proof signed area will be used.
Lemma: Let $ABC$ be an equilateral triangle, and point $P$ on its circumcircle. Let $PB$ and $AC$ intersect at $E$, and $PC$ and $AB$ intersect at $F$.Then $ {[EPF]}={[ABPC]}$
Proof: Let the tangent to $(ABC)$ at $A$ meet $BP$ at $J$ .Then applying pascal's theorem on hexagon $AACPBB$ we get $JF \parallel BB \parallel AC$ . So
$${[EPF]}={[ECF]}-{[ECP]}={[ECJ]}-{[ECP]}={[PCJ]}={[PCB]}+{[BCJ]}={[PCB]}+{[BCA]}={[BPCA]}={[ABPC]}$$.
Problem : So , $${[DFE}]={[EPF]}+{[FPD]}+{[DPE]}$$
$$={[ABPC]}+{[BCPA]}+{[CAPB]} $$
$$ =\{ {[BPA]}+{[APC]} \}+\{ {[ABC]}-{[APC]} \} + \{ {[ABC]}-{[BPA]} \} $$
$$=2{[ABC]} $$
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
- Thamim Zahin
- Posts:98
- Joined:Wed Aug 03, 2016 5:42 pm
Re: USA(J)MO 2017 #3
How did you get that idea?joydip wrote:
Proof: Let the tangent to $(ABC)$ at $A$ meet $BP$ at $J$ .Then applying pascal's theorem on hexagon $AACPBB$ we get $JF \parallel BB \parallel AC$ . So
I think we judge talent wrong. What do we see as talent? I think I have made the same mistake myself. We judge talent by the trophies on their showcases, the flamboyance the supremacy. We don't see things like determination, courage, discipline, temperament.
- Atonu Roy Chowdhury
- Posts:64
- Joined:Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:57 pm
- Location:Chittagong, Bangladesh
Re: USA(J)MO 2017 #3
WLOG $P$ lies on the shorter arc $BC$ . So, $[DEF]=[AEF]-[ABC]-[BDF]-[CDE]$
$\angle BAD = \alpha $
Use Sine Law to find $BD$,$DC$,$BF$,$CE$ in terms of $a$ and sine of $\alpha$ and $60-\alpha$, where $a$ is the length of the sides of $\triangle ABC$ . Then we'll use these lengths to find $[AEF]$,$[BDF]$ and $[CDE]$ . We've to prove $[DEF] =\frac{\sqrt3}{2} a^2$
After some simplification, we get
$\frac{(\sin^2 \alpha + \sin^2 (60 - \alpha) )( \sin \alpha + \sin (60-\alpha) ) - \sin^3 \alpha -\sin^3(60-\alpha)}{\sin \alpha \sin (60-\alpha)(\sin \alpha + \sin (60-\alpha))}=1$ which is obviously true, and so we are done.
$\angle BAD = \alpha $
Use Sine Law to find $BD$,$DC$,$BF$,$CE$ in terms of $a$ and sine of $\alpha$ and $60-\alpha$, where $a$ is the length of the sides of $\triangle ABC$ . Then we'll use these lengths to find $[AEF]$,$[BDF]$ and $[CDE]$ . We've to prove $[DEF] =\frac{\sqrt3}{2} a^2$
After some simplification, we get
$\frac{(\sin^2 \alpha + \sin^2 (60 - \alpha) )( \sin \alpha + \sin (60-\alpha) ) - \sin^3 \alpha -\sin^3(60-\alpha)}{\sin \alpha \sin (60-\alpha)(\sin \alpha + \sin (60-\alpha))}=1$ which is obviously true, and so we are done.
This was freedom. Losing all hope was freedom.
- Thanic Nur Samin
- Posts:176
- Joined:Sun Dec 01, 2013 11:02 am
Re: USA(J)MO 2017 #3
Edited. Latexing a determinant is a pain in the first place, locating these typos are difficultZawadx wrote: There's a typo in the determinant: zero for you~
It was correct in my paper, so if I had submitted, it wouldn't have been a zero, rather a seven.
Hammer with tact.
Because destroying everything mindlessly isn't cool enough.
Because destroying everything mindlessly isn't cool enough.