In triangle A B C , there exists a point K inside of it such that
∠ A B K = ∠ B C K = ∠ C A K = 3 0 ∘ .
Is it necessarily true that triangle A B C is equilateral?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Erm, have you made a mistake? Surely the equation near the beginning should be sin a sin b sin c ( sin m 3 0 ) 3 = 1
Log in to reply
OK, actually my initial problem don't have the letter 'm', but someone change it with 'm', and I don't know what does the 'm' means. I also feel strange. I think the 'm' doesn't represent a number, maybe it's something like directed angle.
Log in to reply
I've just googled, and the pages I've found state that it means "measure", apparently as opposed to the angle itself regarded as a geometrical object. Though one of the pages can't seem to make up its mind whether m ∠ whatever equals a measure of angle or a dimensionless number. And besides, I wouldn't have thought it correct to write the 'm' in italics, though none of the pages seem to comment on this. Regardless of this, since it's confusing to people unfamiliar with the notation it's best avoided.
And I cannot edit my problem now.
Google search m angle, you will find that m angle ABK = 30 means angle ABK = 30 degree. Sry.
What is Jensen inequality?
Log in to reply
It's statement is very long, so you can just search it in Google.(or just click the relevant wiki.)
It's useful when treating some weird function such as sin, cos, √. To apply Jensen Inequality, you need to determine the function is convex or concave first.
(using < for angle symbol) If <BAC = 100, <ABC = 40, <BCA =40, a = 40-30 = 10, b = 40-30 = 10, c = 100 - 30 = 70, <CKA = 180 - 30 - b = 140, <CKB = 180 - 30 - a = 140, <BKA = 180 - 30 - c = 80, <BKA = 360 - <CKA - <CKB = 80,
So an obtuse 100-40-40 triangle fits. And obtuse triangles are not equilateral
Log in to reply
(I don't know how to post diagram, so pls copy and paste it to see, sorry.)
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1713826635343455&id=100001484067680&set=p.1713826635343455&source=47&ref=bookmarks
The sum of <BKA + <AKC + <CKA = 360 didn't mean the BK, AK, CK concur. It can also satisfied when they are the external angle of triangle.
There is a much simpler way, I have no idea if youll see this but it is worth mentioning. Drop a parallel to AK through C and observe by (I believe) opposite interior angles the new angle is also 30 degrees. Thus the last angle is 90-30-30 leaving 30 in the missing spot. Similar arguments can be made for each side forcing this to be equilateral. Thanks.
Log in to reply
Why the line which parallel to A K is perpendicular to the line B C ?
(Sry, I didn't notice your comment for a week.)
What if a and b = 25 and c= 40
Log in to reply
Good point. These angles satisfy all four triangles' 180 agree requirement for a triangle on a plane. Thus, it is not necessary that triangle ABC is equilateral.
Log in to reply
No. Satisfying the 180 degree angles of the triangles is not enough. Problems will arise at the side lengths of the triangles.
Log in to reply
@Takeda Shigenori – I have not heard that the sum of angles in a triangle is not a concrete requirement. The side length can be whatever in order to satisfy those angles.
Log in to reply
@Sergey Sabirov – Take note of Sine Rule, which states that for a given triangle △ A B C with side lengths a , b , c opposite to the respective angles, we have sin A a = sin B b = sin C c
Try to use this formula to the three small triangles △ A B K , △ B C K , △ C A K if you assume Moe's angles to be true, and you will find some bizarre statements, which basically means that the triangle does not exist (well, at least in Euclidean space).
Log in to reply
@Takeda Shigenori – Yes, we cannot draw a larger triangle where vertices would coincide with those angles.
If a=b=25, c=40, then sin a×sin b×sin c isn't equal to 1/8. By ceva theorem, BK, AK and CK won't concur. But it is impossible.
Log in to reply
Ceva theorem doesn't apply, since K is not necessarily the same point as the intersection of the perpendicular lines.
Log in to reply
@Moe Levy – Ceva's Theorem holds for any point inside a triangle.
@Moe Levy – Actually I don't know what do you mean. Your 'perpendicular lines' are refer to which lines?
You can draw your own triangle with those angles and see that it is doable. It is a fact and you cannot ignore it.
Log in to reply
@Sergey Sabirov – Cannot, you draw it and show to me.
Log in to reply
@Chan Tin Ping – Yeap, I can draw one of those triangles only but not the one with vertices coinciding in the same larger triangle. I was wrong.
Drop perpendiculars from K to the side lengths of the triangle, as shown above. Since △ A Y K , B Z K , C X K are all right triangles, we have
K X = K C sin 3 0 ∘ = 2 1 K C K Y = K A sin 3 0 ∘ = 2 1 K A K Z = K B sin 3 0 ∘ = 2 1 K B .
Thus,
K X + K Y + K Z = 2 1 ( K A + K B + K C ) .
However, the Erdös-Mordell Inequality states that K X + K Y + K Z ≤ 2 1 ( K A + K B + K C ) , with equality holding if and only if △ A B C is equilateral. In this scenario, equality holds, so we conclude that yes , △ A B C must be equilateral.
One subtlety of this solution to note is that dropping the perpendiculars from K does not prove collinearity - we can't assume, for instance, that B , K , and Y are all on the same line, even thought it's hard to draw the picture without this appearing to be the case. The solution here appropriately avoids this issue.
If we knew collinearity, we could easily use the fact we have six 30-60-90 triangles that share sides to prove that all of them are congruent, then note then that B X , X C , C Y , Y A , A Z , and Z B must be all be congruent, and hence the triangle A B C is equilateral.
Nice solution using Erdös-Mordell Inequality! One small typo, when you quote the inequality on the second to last line, the left hand side should be KX+KY+KZ, right?
Log in to reply
I’ve edited it to the correct expression. Thanks for spotting the mistake!
Great solution .....Excellent use of Erdos-Mordell..
How have you deduced that K X = K C sin 3 0 ∘ etc.? Surely this would only be true if m = 1 or m = 5 .
Log in to reply
The letter 'm' state for measure in degree. It doesn't represent a number.
There is a much simpler way, I have no idea if youll see this but it is worth mentioning. Drop a parallel to AK through C and observe by (I believe) opposite interior angles the new angle is also 30 degrees. Thus the last angle is 90-30-30 leaving 30 in the missing spot. Similar arguments can be made for each side forcing this to be equilateral. Thanks.
This is only true for euclidean and regularly curved spaces. This breaks for all other spaces. There still exists a point k for all spaces where the angles are equal, but the triangle cannot be equilateral. A cylindrical space for instance.
Log in to reply
I think it's reasonable to assume we're in a Euclidean space for questions like this one.
Let ∠ B A K = α , ∠ C B K = β , ∠ A C K = γ
We have α + β + γ = 9 0 ∘ and from Ceva's Theorem in trigonometric form, sin α sin 3 0 ∘ ⋅ sin β sin 3 0 ∘ ⋅ sin γ sin 3 0 ∘ = 1
Rearranging, sin α sin β sin γ = 8 1
Adding the natural logarithm to both sides, ln sin α + ln sin β + ln sin γ = ln 8 1
Now denote the function f : ( 0 , 2 π ) ↦ R − , f ( x ) = ln sin x , since f ′ ( x ) = sin x 1 ⋅ cos x = cot x and f ′ ′ ( x ) = − csc 2 x < 0 , f ( x ) is a concave function. Therefore by Jensen's inequality, 3 f ( α ) + f ( β ) + f ( γ ) ⩽ f ( 3 α + β + γ )
3 ln sin α + ln sin β + ln sin γ ⩽ ln sin 3 α + β + γ = ln 2 1
∴ ln sin α + ln sin β + ln sin γ ⩽ ln 8 1
Equality holds true if and only if α = β = γ or f ( x ) is linear, the latter of which is not the case as f ′ ′ ( x ) < 0
Thus α = β = γ = 3 0 ∘ and △ A B C is obviously an equilateral triangle.
Note: With some modifications, the same method can also be applied to solve P5 of IMO 1991.
Does this method hold in irregular geometry spaces?
Log in to reply
I don't really have any knowledge of geometry outside Euclidean 😥
Another approach is to use straight-forward analytic geometry.
Without loss of generality, put B at the origin, C on the x-axis one unit away (this distance simply sets the length scale), and the point A at { a x , a y } . Further, restrict A to the first quadrant.
Then we can represent rays from each of the vertices towards the point K. First, consider the ray from B towards K. The direction for this ray is the vector from B to A rotated 30 degrees clockwise, and β is a parameter along this ray.
{ 2 1 β ( 3 a x + a y ) , − 2 1 β ( a x − 3 a y ) }
From A towards K, α is a parameter along the ray.
{ − 2 1 3 α ( a x − 1 ) + a x − 2 α a y , 2 α a x − 2 1 α ( 3 a y + 1 ) + a y }
From C towards K, γ is a parameter along the ray.
{ 1 − 2 3 γ , 2 γ }
The point K is the intersection of these three rays, and we demand this be a single point. Setting these three rays equal to each other, and eliminating the parameters α , β , and γ , yields the following relationship:
a x 2 + a y 2 + 1 = a x + 3 a y
which can be rewritten, by completing the square, into the suggestive form
( a x − 2 1 ) 2 + ( a y − 2 3 ) 2 = 0
This is a circle centered at { 2 1 , 2 3 } , of radius 0. In other words, a single point. But this point makes the triangle equilateral.
Draw circles AKC, AKB, BKC, then we will see that angle KBC=KAB=KCA.
It appears to be that, since all mentioned angles (ABK, BCK, CAK) are equal to 30 degrees and an equilateral triangle has equal angles at all corners, we can infer that point K must be within the plane of an equilateral triangle.
Inscribed in a circle we take an arbitrary triangle ABC and from vertexes A, B and C draw lines forming an arbitrary angle w.
In our case w=30 these three new lines will form another triangle A1B1C1 congruent with the original one ABC .
Then since we look for a triangle A1B1C1 which area must be null, then points A1, B1, C1 and K must been all coincident, the only solution is that our original points A,B,C inscribed in the circle form an equilateral triangle. Of course K is also the Fermat point
If angles' sum of a triangle is 180° so it's equilateral.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Relevant wiki: Jensen's Inequality
(Notice that all the angle in this solution is degree not radians.) Let ∠ B A K = c , ∠ C B K = a , ∠ A C K = b
By ceva's theorem in trigonometric form, (Ceva thoerem states that s i n ∠ A B K s i n ∠ B C K s i n ∠ C A K = s i n ∠ B A K s i n ∠ C B K s i n ∠ A C K ), sin a sin b sin c ( s i n 3 0 ) 3 = 1 sin a sin b sin c = 8 1
By AM-GM inequality, sin a + sin b + sin c ≥ 3 3 sin a sin b sin c ≥ 2 3
By Jensen inequality,(a+b+c+3 x 30=180) sin a + sin b + sin c ≤ 3 sin 3 1 8 0 − 3 × 3 0 ≤ 2 3
Hence, sin a + sin b + sin c = 2 3 As AM-GM hold equality when all variables are same, which mean sin a = sin b = sin c a = b = c Hence, all the angle of triangle ABC are same, which means triangle ABC is equilateral triange.