Art of Problem Solving
AoPS Online
Math texts, online classes, and more
for students in grades 5-12.
Visit AoPS Online ‚
Books for Grades 5-12 Online Courses
Beast Academy
Engaging math books and online learning
for students ages 6-13.
Visit Beast Academy ‚
Books for Ages 6-13 Beast Academy Online
AoPS Academy
Small live classes for advanced math
and language arts learners in grades 2-12.
Visit AoPS Academy ‚
Find a Physical Campus Visit the Virtual Campus

Difference between revisions of "1972 IMO Problems/Problem 2"

m (→‎Solution)
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
The above solution was posted and copyrighted by grobber. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [https://aops.com/community/p369049]
 
The above solution was posted and copyrighted by grobber. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [https://aops.com/community/p369049]
 +
 +
 +
==Remarks (added by pf02, March 2025)==
 +
 +
The construction described in the solution above is correct
 +
(in the sense that it describes a legitimate way of dissecting
 +
an inscribable quadrilateral into four inscribable quadrilaterals).
 +
However, the solution is incomplete and sloppily written.
 +
 +
Below I will discuss and complete the solution given above.
 +
Then, I will give a second solution.  And finally, I will
 +
discuss the cases when <math>n = 2, n = 3</math>.
 +
 +
 +
==Discussion and completion of the above solution==
 +
 +
The first issue is the fact that a construction is described,
 +
but there is no proof, not even a hint, why the the quadrilaterals
 +
are inscribable.
 +
 +
The second issue is the vagueness of "close enough" used twice
 +
in the proof.  The first time it is used, "<math>E, F</math> sufficiently
 +
close to <math>A, D</math> respectively" is not needed (indeed, and segment
 +
<math>EF</math> parallel to <math>AD</math> would do), so there is no need to make
 +
this more precise.  The second time it is used, namely "<math>V</math>
 +
close enough to <math>F</math> (or <math>U</math> close enough to <math>D</math>) that we can
 +
find a circle passing through <math>U, D</math> (or <math>F, V</math>)" is indeed
 +
needed, and it is not at all clear what "close enough" should
 +
be, or that this is at all possible.  I will come back to this
 +
shortly.
 +
 +
The third (and maybe most serious) issue is that it is not shown,
 +
and not clear at all, that the four quadrilaterals obtained are
 +
inscribable.  I will give the proof shortly.
 +
 +
The fourth issue is poor wording.  We don't need to "add as many
 +
trapezoids as we want".  We want to dissect the one isosceles
 +
trapezoid into as many isosceles trapezoids as we want by lines
 +
parallel to its bases.
 +
 +
[[File:prob_1972_2.png|600px]]
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
TO BE CONTINUED.  SAVING MID WAY, SO I DON'T LOOSE WORK DONE SO FAR.
 +
  
 
== See Also == {{IMO box|year=1972|num-b=1|num-a=3}}
 
== See Also == {{IMO box|year=1972|num-b=1|num-a=3}}

Revision as of 16:29, 26 March 2025

Problem

Prove that if $n \geq 4$, every quadrilateral that can be inscribed in a circle can be dissected into $n$ quadrilaterals each of which is inscribable in a circle.

Solution

Our initial quadrilateral will be $ABCD$.

For $n=4$, we do this:

Take $E\in AB,F\in CD,\ EF\|AD$ with $E,F$ sufficiently close to $A,D$ respectively. Take $U\in AD,V\in EF$ such that $AEVU$ is an isosceles trapezoid, with $V$ close enough to $F$ (or $U$ close enough to $D$) that we can find a circle passing through $U,D$ (or $F,V$) which cuts the segments $UV,DF$ in $X,Y$. Our four cyclic quadrilaterals are $BCFE,\ AEVU,\ VFYX,\ YXUD$.

For $n\ge 5$ we do the exact same thing as above, but now, since we have an isosceles trapezoid, we can add as many trapezoids as we want by dissecting the one trapezoid with lines parallel to its bases.

The above solution was posted and copyrighted by grobber. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [1]


Remarks (added by pf02, March 2025)

The construction described in the solution above is correct (in the sense that it describes a legitimate way of dissecting an inscribable quadrilateral into four inscribable quadrilaterals). However, the solution is incomplete and sloppily written.

Below I will discuss and complete the solution given above. Then, I will give a second solution. And finally, I will discuss the cases when $n = 2, n = 3$.


Discussion and completion of the above solution

The first issue is the fact that a construction is described, but there is no proof, not even a hint, why the the quadrilaterals are inscribable.

The second issue is the vagueness of "close enough" used twice in the proof. The first time it is used, "$E, F$ sufficiently close to $A, D$ respectively" is not needed (indeed, and segment $EF$ parallel to $AD$ would do), so there is no need to make this more precise. The second time it is used, namely "$V$ close enough to $F$ (or $U$ close enough to $D$) that we can find a circle passing through $U, D$ (or $F, V$)" is indeed needed, and it is not at all clear what "close enough" should be, or that this is at all possible. I will come back to this shortly.

The third (and maybe most serious) issue is that it is not shown, and not clear at all, that the four quadrilaterals obtained are inscribable. I will give the proof shortly.

The fourth issue is poor wording. We don't need to "add as many trapezoids as we want". We want to dissect the one isosceles trapezoid into as many isosceles trapezoids as we want by lines parallel to its bases.

Prob 1972 2.png




TO BE CONTINUED. SAVING MID WAY, SO I DON'T LOOSE WORK DONE SO FAR.


See Also

1972 IMO (Problems) • Resources
Preceded by
Problem 1 		1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 Followed by
Problem 3
All IMO Problems and Solutions
Retrieved from "https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=1972_IMO_Problems/Problem_2&oldid=246107"