Suppose that z1,z2,z3z_1, z_2, z_3z1,z2,z3 are complex numbers which satisfy
{∣z1∣=∣z2∣=∣z3∣,z1+z2+z3=0. \begin{cases} |z_1| = |z_2| = |z_3|, \\ z_1 + z_2 + z_3 = 0. \\ \end{cases} {∣z1∣=∣z2∣=∣z3∣,z1+z2+z3=0.
Can we conclude that z1,z2,z3 z_1, z_2, z_3 z1,z2,z3 form the vertices of an equilateral triangle in the complex plane?
Note by Calvin Lin 7 years, 2 months ago
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*
_italics_
**bold**
__bold__
- bulleted- list
1. numbered2. list
paragraph 1paragraph 2
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
This is a quote
# I indented these lines # 4 spaces, and now they show # up as a code block. print "hello world"
\(
\)
\[
\]
2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
1st condition: The circumcenter of {z1, z2, z3} is {0,0}. 2nd condition: The centroid oif {z1, z2, z3} is also {0,0}. Without going into the details, only when {z1, z2, z3} are vertices of an equilateral triangle both 1) and 2) are true. This is probably just saying that one can use complex numbers to prove certain things in geometry, and vice-versa. This is what makes math so fun.
Log in to reply
Simple and sweet!!
Ah, nice interpretation!
Fantastic!
Nice one.
Following @Micheal Mendrin, we just have to prove that G≡OG\equiv OG≡O implies that ABC ABC ABC is an equilateral triangle. This is a one-shot-one-kill proof through trilinear coordinates, or through the following observation - if M MM is the midpoint of ABABAB, then GGG lies on CMCMCM while OOO lies on the perpendicular bisector through MMM, so G≡OG\equiv OG≡O implies that CM⊥ABCM\perp ABCM⊥AB, or just AC=AB AC=ABAC=AB. In the same way we have AB=BCAB=BCAB=BC.
I saw this note right before I went to sleep last night and came up with two solutions. However, I see that @Michael Mendrin has beat me to it with the first one.
Here's the second one. We're going to use the fact that the resultant of two equal (in magnitude) vectors lies on the bisector of the angle between the two vectors. Its proof is pretty simple [and the fact is pretty intuitive as well].
Let the angle between z1z_1z1 and z2z_2z2 be α\alphaα. Let the angle between z2z_2z2 and z3z_3z3 be β\betaβ and the angle between z3z_3z3 and z1z_1z1 be γ\gammaγ.
Since, z1+z2=−z3z_1+z_2=-z_3z1+z2=−z3; −z3-z_3−z3 lies on the angle bisector of α\alphaα. So, z3z_3z3 also lies on the angle bisector of α\alphaα. That means β=γ\beta=\gammaβ=γ. Similarly α=β\alpha=\betaα=β and that means they are all equal to 120∘120^\circ120∘.
I'm sorry if this is too short but it's almost midnight here. I'll add a diagram and do the vector proof tomorrow.
EDIT: Oh, by the way, you can not conclude that they are the vertices of an equilateral triangle. They don't form the vertices of an equilateral triangle when the numbers are all equal to zero :)
One solution that I have:
WLOG, we can rotate the system such that z1=1z_1 = 1 z1=1. Let z2=a+bi z_2 = a + bi z2=a+bi, then the second condition gives us z3=−1−a−bi z_3 = -1-a-bi z3=−1−a−bi.
The first condition gives us a2+b2=1,(1+a)2+b2=1 a^2 + b^2 = 1, (1+a)^2 + b^2 = 1 a2+b2=1,(1+a)2+b2=1 and hence a2=(1+a)2⇒a=−12 a^2 = (1+a)^2 \Rightarrow a = - \frac{1}{2} a2=(1+a)2⇒a=−21, which gives us that z1,z2,z3z_1, z_2, z_3 z1,z2,z3 are the vertices of an equilateral triangle.
I would prefer a solution that isn't so algebraic / brute force.
Remind me what the little absolute value thingies mean in terms of complex numbers. :D
Magnitude, or distance from the origin. For example, ∣5+12i∣=52+122=13|5+12i| = \sqrt{5^2+12^2} = 13∣5+12i∣=52+122=13.
The bars on the sides are the "modulus" sign, for example the modulus of a+bia+bia+bi is a2+b2\sqrt {a^{2}+b^{2}}a2+b2.
@Tristan Shin – Cool beans! Thank you! I used them in my proof! :D
I think treating complex numbers as vectors can help us
Wait really?!?!?!
If we consider z1,z2,z3z_{ 1 },z_{2},z_{3}z1,z2,z3 as three vectors of equal magnitude,say k\boxed{k}k (already given) then each of these vectors will be at 120° from each other to satisfy z1+z2+z3z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3}z1+z2+z3 =0 Now we assume a circle of radius 'k' with center at the origin and obviously all three complex numbers will lie on the circle. We have seen that any two complex numbers subtend 120° at the origin which is indeed the center of circle. Now We can definitely say that the chord ∣z2−z1∣|z_{2}-z_{1}|∣z2−z1∣ subtends 120° at the center so it'll subtend 60° on the circumference i.e.z3 z_{3}z3 Similarly we can prove for the other two as well. Hence proved that it'll be an equilateral triangle
The important part is justifying why those vectors must be at 120 degrees to each other.
For example, the conclusion no longer holds true for 4 or more variables.
As you are aware I treated the complex numbers as vectors, and since they are having equal magnitude, as well as their sum is zero. Therefore they have to be at 120° w.r.t each other. For any other angle between the vectors z1+z2+z3z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3}z1+z2+z3=0 won't be true
Also I agree it won't be true for 4 or more complex numbers. But those cases would be different from the one above. For e.g if I have four complex numbers then for the vector sum to be zero. They must be inclined at 90° to each other. In other words angle subtended at origin differs for different numbers.
(This is an explanation for what I have understood from your ques. , if this not what you meant , pls let me know.)
By the way thanks for posting such notes which inspire new thinking and we can learn all sorts of different approaches from people around the world. Pls keep posting in future as well...
@Vishal Sharma – The fact that they must be 120∘ 120 ^\circ 120∘ with respect to each other is the crux that you have to show.
It is not true that for 4 complex numbers, they (the vectors) must be inclined at 90∘ 90^\circ 90∘ to each other. In fact, any 4 complex numbers who form the vertices of a rectangle suffice. Note that the angles formed by the vectors (at the origin) need not be 90∘ 90^\circ 90∘.
@Calvin Lin – OK, I get it. You're are right that for 4 numbers sum can be zero even when they aren't at 90° to each other. Now I will try to prove that they'll be at 120° by some different way.. Thanks
We can treat them as vectors and hence we get that they are making an angle 120○with each other ....or else we can consider the system as BF3 molecule where all bonds are equal and arranged in a way that they are as far away as possible....
If one triangle has the same centroid and circumcenter then it'e equilateral. It's easy to prove, because it means that every median is also perpendicular on each side.
Let the angle between z1z_{1}z1 and z2z_{2}z2 be α\alphaα, i.e. z2=z1eiαz_{2} = z_{1} e^{i \alpha}z2=z1eiα
Clearly, ∣z1+z2∣=∣−z3∣|z_{1}+ z_{2}| = |-z_{3}|∣z1+z2∣=∣−z3∣
Square both sides to get:
2+2cosα=12 + 2 \cos \alpha = 12+2cosα=1
⇒cosα=−12\Rightarrow \cos \alpha = - \dfrac{1}{2}⇒cosα=−21
Hence, α=2π3\alpha = \dfrac{2 \pi}{3}α=32π
Thus, z2=z1ei2π3=z1ωz_{2} = z_{1} e^{i \dfrac{2\pi}{3}} = z_{1} \omegaz2=z1ei32π=z1ω
z3=−(z1+z2)=z1ω2z_{3} = -(z_{1}+z_{2}) = z_{1} \omega^2z3=−(z1+z2)=z1ω2
Hence, the numbers are z1,z1ω,z1ω2z_{1} , z_{1} \omega , z_{1} \omega^2z1,z1ω,z1ω2, which are vertices of equilateral triangle, as the vectors from origin to these are rotated by 120∘120^{\circ}120∘ to get the next vector.
From the second equation, by vector addition, the three values must be equally spaced apart (assuming this is referring to the Argand diagram). Thus the angle between each vector (θ\thetaθ) must be equal to 120∘120^\circ120∘, which is just 3603\frac{360}{3}3360). From the first equation, their lengths are equal, thus they form the center of an equilateral triangle. A more rigorous proof:
Let z1=biz_1=biz1=bi thus z1z_1z1 is pure imaginary, and when plotted is simply a vertical line lying on the imaginary axis. Without loss of generality, we will assume that the triangle is centered at the origin. Assuming the above is true (θ=120∘\theta=120^\circθ=120∘), then z2z_2z2 and z3z_3z3 must be symmetric via. the complex axis with one in the third quadrant and one in the fourth. Thus, they form a 30∘30^\circ30∘ angle with the real axis and their coordinates are ±3∣z1∣2−∣z1∣i/2\ \pm \frac{\sqrt{3}|z_1|}{2}-|z_1|i/2 ±23∣z1∣−∣z1∣i/2 by the laws of 30−60−9030-60-9030−60−90 triangles. Now, let's add up all of their coordinates to see if it's zero. Obviously the ±\pm± causes the real portion to cancel out, leaving 2−∣z1∣22\frac{-|z_1|}{2}22−∣z1∣ which is just −z1-z_1−z1. Adding that to the first leg (z1z_1z1) is zero and thus equation two is satisfied! Looking back at the coordinates for z2z_2z2 and z3z_3z3, we can use the Pythagorean theorem to verify that they have the same length as z1z_1z1. Plugging their coordinates in to the Distance Formula produces (∣z1∣24)+(3∣z1∣24⟹(∣z1∣)2(\frac{|z_1|^{2}}{4})+(\frac{3|z_1|^{2}}{4} \Longrightarrow (|z_1|)^{2}(4∣z1∣2)+(43∣z1∣2⟹(∣z1∣)2 which shows that they all posses the same length and we're done! We've proved that the vectors form 120∘120^\circ120∘ angles and all vectors have the same length, so the rest is just angle chasing! Letting AAA, BBB, and CCC be the endpoints of each vector, and letting OOO be the origin, we can see that ABCABCABC is an equilateral triangle by connecting ABABAB, BCBCBC, and ACACAC. From there, we know that the angle AOCAOCAOC is 120∘120^\circ120∘, and it form an isosceles triangle (OAOAOA and OCOCOC are equal, remember?). Thus, the angles OCAOCAOCA and OACOACOAC are both 30∘30^\circ30∘. This can be proven for the other two equal isosceles triangles which means that each angle ABCABCABC, ACBACBACB, and BACBACBAC are 60∘60^\circ60∘. And we're done! Yipee! *REMINDER TO ALL READERS, I AM A STUDENT IN ALGEBRA 1! :D
You need to be careful with why "the three values must be equally spaced apart". There is a lot more going on here, and in fact the crux is argubaly showing that the angle is 120∘ 120^\circ 120∘.
For example, if we had 4 (or more) vectors whose sum is 0, then it need not be true that they "must be equally spaced apart".
Yes, but I proved that with the other part. I see what you're saying though. :D
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
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
1st condition: The circumcenter of {z1, z2, z3} is {0,0}.
2nd condition: The centroid oif {z1, z2, z3} is also {0,0}.
Without going into the details, only when {z1, z2, z3} are vertices of an equilateral triangle both 1) and 2) are true. This is probably just saying that one can use complex numbers to prove certain things in geometry, and vice-versa. This is what makes math so fun.
Log in to reply
Simple and sweet!!
Ah, nice interpretation!
Fantastic!
Nice one.
Following @Micheal Mendrin, we just have to prove that G≡O implies that ABC is an equilateral triangle. This is a one-shot-one-kill proof through trilinear coordinates, or through the following observation - if M is the midpoint of AB, then G lies on CM while O lies on the perpendicular bisector through M, so G≡O implies that CM⊥AB, or just AC=AB. In the same way we have AB=BC.
I saw this note right before I went to sleep last night and came up with two solutions. However, I see that @Michael Mendrin has beat me to it with the first one.
Here's the second one. We're going to use the fact that the resultant of two equal (in magnitude) vectors lies on the bisector of the angle between the two vectors. Its proof is pretty simple [and the fact is pretty intuitive as well].
Let the angle between z1 and z2 be α. Let the angle between z2 and z3 be β and the angle between z3 and z1 be γ.
Since, z1+z2=−z3; −z3 lies on the angle bisector of α. So, z3 also lies on the angle bisector of α. That means β=γ. Similarly α=β and that means they are all equal to 120∘.
I'm sorry if this is too short but it's almost midnight here. I'll add a diagram and do the vector proof tomorrow.
EDIT: Oh, by the way, you can not conclude that they are the vertices of an equilateral triangle. They don't form the vertices of an equilateral triangle when the numbers are all equal to zero :)
One solution that I have:
WLOG, we can rotate the system such that z1=1. Let z2=a+bi, then the second condition gives us z3=−1−a−bi.
The first condition gives us a2+b2=1,(1+a)2+b2=1 and hence a2=(1+a)2⇒a=−21, which gives us that z1,z2,z3 are the vertices of an equilateral triangle.
I would prefer a solution that isn't so algebraic / brute force.
Log in to reply
Remind me what the little absolute value thingies mean in terms of complex numbers. :D
Log in to reply
Magnitude, or distance from the origin. For example, ∣5+12i∣=52+122=13.
The bars on the sides are the "modulus" sign, for example the modulus of a+bi is a2+b2.
Log in to reply
I think treating complex numbers as vectors can help us
Log in to reply
Wait really?!?!?!
If we consider z1,z2,z3 as three vectors of equal magnitude,say k (already given) then each of these vectors will be at 120° from each other to satisfy z1+z2+z3 =0 Now we assume a circle of radius 'k' with center at the origin and obviously all three complex numbers will lie on the circle. We have seen that any two complex numbers subtend 120° at the origin which is indeed the center of circle. Now We can definitely say that the chord ∣z2−z1∣ subtends 120° at the center so it'll subtend 60° on the circumference i.e.z3 Similarly we can prove for the other two as well. Hence proved that it'll be an equilateral triangle
Log in to reply
The important part is justifying why those vectors must be at 120 degrees to each other.
For example, the conclusion no longer holds true for 4 or more variables.
Log in to reply
As you are aware I treated the complex numbers as vectors, and since they are having equal magnitude, as well as their sum is zero. Therefore they have to be at 120° w.r.t each other. For any other angle between the vectors z1+z2+z3=0 won't be true
Also I agree it won't be true for 4 or more complex numbers. But those cases would be different from the one above. For e.g if I have four complex numbers then for the vector sum to be zero. They must be inclined at 90° to each other. In other words angle subtended at origin differs for different numbers.
(This is an explanation for what I have understood from your ques. , if this not what you meant , pls let me know.)
By the way thanks for posting such notes which inspire new thinking and we can learn all sorts of different approaches from people around the world. Pls keep posting in future as well...
Log in to reply
120∘ with respect to each other is the crux that you have to show.
The fact that they must beIt is not true that for 4 complex numbers, they (the vectors) must be inclined at 90∘ to each other. In fact, any 4 complex numbers who form the vertices of a rectangle suffice. Note that the angles formed by the vectors (at the origin) need not be 90∘.
Log in to reply
We can treat them as vectors and hence we get that they are making an angle 120○with each other ....or else we can consider the system as BF3 molecule where all bonds are equal and arranged in a way that they are as far away as possible....
If one triangle has the same centroid and circumcenter then it'e equilateral. It's easy to prove, because it means that every median is also perpendicular on each side.
Let the angle between z1 and z2 be α, i.e. z2=z1eiα
Clearly, ∣z1+z2∣=∣−z3∣
Square both sides to get:
2+2cosα=1
⇒cosα=−21
Hence, α=32π
Thus, z2=z1ei32π=z1ω
z3=−(z1+z2)=z1ω2
Hence, the numbers are z1,z1ω,z1ω2, which are vertices of equilateral triangle, as the vectors from origin to these are rotated by 120∘ to get the next vector.
From the second equation, by vector addition, the three values must be equally spaced apart (assuming this is referring to the Argand diagram). Thus the angle between each vector (θ) must be equal to 120∘, which is just 3360). From the first equation, their lengths are equal, thus they form the center of an equilateral triangle. A more rigorous proof:
Let z1=bi thus z1 is pure imaginary, and when plotted is simply a vertical line lying on the imaginary axis. Without loss of generality, we will assume that the triangle is centered at the origin. Assuming the above is true (θ=120∘), then z2 and z3 must be symmetric via. the complex axis with one in the third quadrant and one in the fourth. Thus, they form a 30∘ angle with the real axis and their coordinates are ±23∣z1∣−∣z1∣i/2 by the laws of 30−60−90 triangles. Now, let's add up all of their coordinates to see if it's zero. Obviously the ± causes the real portion to cancel out, leaving 22−∣z1∣ which is just −z1. Adding that to the first leg (z1) is zero and thus equation two is satisfied! Looking back at the coordinates for z2 and z3, we can use the Pythagorean theorem to verify that they have the same length as z1. Plugging their coordinates in to the Distance Formula produces (4∣z1∣2)+(43∣z1∣2⟹(∣z1∣)2 which shows that they all posses the same length and we're done! We've proved that the vectors form 120∘ angles and all vectors have the same length, so the rest is just angle chasing! Letting A, B, and C be the endpoints of each vector, and letting O be the origin, we can see that ABC is an equilateral triangle by connecting AB, BC, and AC. From there, we know that the angle AOC is 120∘, and it form an isosceles triangle (OA and OC are equal, remember?). Thus, the angles OCA and OAC are both 30∘. This can be proven for the other two equal isosceles triangles which means that each angle ABC, ACB, and BAC are 60∘. And we're done! Yipee! *REMINDER TO ALL READERS, I AM A STUDENT IN ALGEBRA 1! :D
Log in to reply
You need to be careful with why "the three values must be equally spaced apart". There is a lot more going on here, and in fact the crux is argubaly showing that the angle is 120∘.
For example, if we had 4 (or more) vectors whose sum is 0, then it need not be true that they "must be equally spaced apart".
Log in to reply
Yes, but I proved that with the other part. I see what you're saying though. :D