I made a simple configuration , whose converse is also true. Though the proof is very easy , the important thing is that its converse is also true!
Problem statement: Let , . Consider a point inside . Let be its reflection in and be its reflection in . Let . Prove that .
Statement converse: Consider a quadrilateral . Consider a point inside . Let be its reflection in and be its reflection in . Let . If , then prove that , .
I have my own solution too. Please post awesome "complete" solutions below. Enjoy!
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
The very next revolutionary book in the history of mathematics - Nihar's treatises on Euclidean Geometry.
Log in to reply
Well , I think you over-understood me as the best in geometry. I am just "good" at geometry since its one of my interests. Anyway , thanks!
Log in to reply
Do you have any other postulates which you have kept a secret?
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin @Azhaghu Roopesh M @Trevor Arashiro @Sharky Kesa Please see my discovery. Thanks!
Since points A and D are "essentially useless" other than saying that we have parallel / perpendicular lines, you should remove them from the statement.
Log in to reply
Uum ... I have points A,D just for labeling the angles , segments , that is for notation convenience. I am not able to understand why are you saying to remove them.
Log in to reply
Get rid of "right trapezoid such that ....", and list the important information as AB⊥BC, BC⊥CD.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Congrats! xD
It's really nice seeing you discovering postulates at such an age.
Log in to reply
Actually this is not a postulate. This is a simple configuration whose converse is also true. Postulates/axioms are just defined and not proved. They are "used" to prove things.
What's a TONCAS 1?
Btw, the proof is simple for the positive statement. Just uses scale factors and similar triangles. And by proving the positive, the converse is proved here. I'm curious as to what your extension is. At any guess, I'd say reflecting a point about two parallel lines and having the three points form a right triangle about the intersection of the two lines.
Log in to reply
No the extension is something else. "Stay tuned" I will post it soon.
Log in to reply
Mm, k2. You piqued my interest.