Difference between revisions of "Menelaus' Theorem"
m |
|||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
<math>\frac{AR}{RB}\cdot\frac{QC}{QA}=-\frac{PC}{PB}\implies \frac{AR}{RB}\cdot\frac{QC}{QA}\cdot\frac{PB}{PC}=-1</math> | <math>\frac{AR}{RB}\cdot\frac{QC}{QA}=-\frac{PC}{PB}\implies \frac{AR}{RB}\cdot\frac{QC}{QA}\cdot\frac{PB}{PC}=-1</math> | ||
+ | ==Proof Using [[Barycentric Coordinates]]== | ||
+ | Disclaimer: This proof is not nearly as elegant as the above one. It uses a bash-type approach, as [[barycentric coordinate]] proofs tend to be. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Suppose we give the points <math>P, Q, R</math> the following coordinates: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <math>P: (0,P,1-P)</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <math>R: (R,1-R,0)</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <math>Q: (1-Q,0,Q)</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | The line through <math>R</math> and <math>P</math> is given by: | ||
+ | <center><math>\begin{vmatrix} X & 0 & R \\ Y & P & 1-R\\ Z & 1-P & 0 \end{vmatrix} = 0</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </center> | ||
+ | Which yields, after simplification, | ||
+ | |||
+ | <center> <math>-X\cdot(R-1)(P-1)+Y\cdotR(1-P)-Z\cdotPR = 0</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <math>Z\cdotPR = -X\cdot(R-1)(P-1)+Y\cdotR(1-P)</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Plugging in the coordinates for <math>Q</math> yields: | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <math>(Q-1)(R-1)(P-1) = QPR</math> | ||
+ | </center> | ||
+ | |||
+ | QED | ||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
* [[Ceva's Theorem]] | * [[Ceva's Theorem]] |
Revision as of 00:30, 29 May 2013
This article is a stub. Help us out by expanding it.
Menelaus's Theorem deals with the collinearity of points on each of the three sides (extended when necessary) of a triangle. It is named for Menelaus of Alexandria.
Statement
A necessary and sufficient condition for points on the respective sides
(or their extensions) of a triangle
to be collinear is that

where all segments in the formula are directed segments.
![[asy] defaultpen(fontsize(8)); pair A=(7,6), B=(0,0), C=(10,0), P=(4,0), Q=(6,8), R; draw((0,0)--(10,0)--(7,6)--(0,0),blue+0.75); draw((7,6)--(6,8)--(4,0)); R=intersectionpoint(A--B,Q--P); dot(A^^B^^C^^P^^Q^^R); label("A",A,(1,1));label("B",B,(-1,0));label("C",C,(1,0));label("P",P,(0,-1));label("Q",Q,(1,0));label("R",R,(-1,1)); [/asy]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/8/6/a/86a254a29864a11196f5bbd900856e311e41be6b.png)
Proof
Draw a line parallel to through
to intersect
at
:
![[asy] defaultpen(fontsize(8)); pair A=(7,6), B=(0,0), C=(10,0), P=(4,0), Q=(6,8), R, K=(5.5,0); draw((0,0)--(10,0)--(7,6)--(0,0),blue+0.75); draw((7,6)--(6,8)--(4,0)); draw(A--K, dashed); R=intersectionpoint(A--B,Q--P); dot(A^^B^^C^^P^^Q^^R^^K); label("A",A,(1,1));label("B",B,(-1,0));label("C",C,(1,0));label("P",P,(0,-1));label("Q",Q,(1,0));label("R",R,(-1,1)); label("K",K,(0,-1)); [/asy]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/f/b/d/fbd7bf9ba4bcb21c083f9f6aef5d813523b36c8f.png)
Multiplying the two equalities together to eliminate the factor, we get:
Proof Using Barycentric Coordinates
Disclaimer: This proof is not nearly as elegant as the above one. It uses a bash-type approach, as barycentric coordinate proofs tend to be.
Suppose we give the points the following coordinates:
The line through and
is given by:

Which yields, after simplification,
$Z\cdotPR = -X\cdot(R-1)(P-1)+Y\cdotR(1-P)$ (Error compiling LaTeX. Unknown error_msg)
Plugging in the coordinates for yields:
QED