If all diagonals are drawn in a regular polygon from a vertex, the angles formed in that vertex are...
Nested loops to process groups of pictures
Are pressure-treated posts that have been submerged for a few days ruined?
Trigonometry substitution issue with sign
My first c++ game (snake console game)
History of the kernel of a homomorphism?
What do "Sech" and "Vich" mean in this sentence?
Why is "breaking the mould" positively connoted?
Is there an age requirement to play in Adventurers League?
How do LIGO and VIRGO know that a gravitational wave has its origin in a neutron star or a black hole?
Handling Null values (and equivalents) routinely in Python
Should homeowners insurance cover the cost of the home?
Find magical solution to magical equation
How do I allocate more memory to an app on Sheepshaver running Mac OS 9?
Why does sound not move through a wall?
Are the Night's Watch still required?
It is as simple as ABC
To kill a cuckoo
Has the United States ever had a non-Christian President?
Python 3 - simple temperature program
Out of scope work duties and resignation
Would a small hole in a Faraday cage drastically reduce its effectiveness at blocking interference?
Gerrymandering Puzzle - Rig the Election
Where to draw the line between quantum mechanics theory and its interpretation(s)?
How does the reduce() method work in Java 8?
If all diagonals are drawn in a regular polygon from a vertex, the angles formed in that vertex are equal
Angles formed by intersection of two diagonals in parallelogram and square?Prove: In a ⊿, the bisector of the right angle bisects the Altitude and Median drawn from that same vertex.How to prove that the sum of the areas of triangles $ABR$ and $ CDR$ triangle is equal to the $ADR$?prove that the quadrilaterals are congruentLine passing through vertex of triangle and intersection of diagonals trapezoid formed by base and a parallel line divides both into two equal parts.Prove that the polygon of $n$ sides with the biggest area, inscribed in a circumference, is always a regular polygonCan a parallelogram have whole-number lengths for all four sides and both diagonals?Prove that, for any polygon, taking all pair of adjacent angles, subtracting 180 from their sum, and adding all the results together equals $180(n-4)$Construct a quadrilateral, not a parallelogram, in which pair of opposite angles and a pair of opposite sides are equal.Let $ABCD$ be a cyclic convex quadrilateral such that $AD + BC = AB$. Prove that the bisectors of the angles $ADC$ and $BCD$ meet on the line $AB$.
$begingroup$
How can I prove this statement? I tried with a pentagon, but I have not achieved anything
Restriction: I can not use the circumference to prove it, and by this I mean to inscribe the polygon in the circumference. The idea is prove it with properties of congruence of triangles or properties of parallelogram or properties of quadrilateral, trapezium or trapezoid.
If all the possible diagonals are drawn in a regular polygon from a
vertex, the angles formed in that vertex are equal each.
geometry proof-explanation
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
How can I prove this statement? I tried with a pentagon, but I have not achieved anything
Restriction: I can not use the circumference to prove it, and by this I mean to inscribe the polygon in the circumference. The idea is prove it with properties of congruence of triangles or properties of parallelogram or properties of quadrilateral, trapezium or trapezoid.
If all the possible diagonals are drawn in a regular polygon from a
vertex, the angles formed in that vertex are equal each.
geometry proof-explanation
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You should clarify what is "allowed". E.g. Can I use vector / complex number geometry (which I'd consider an overkill)? Which properties of regular polygons can I use, especially those about symmetry?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a specific path you would like? E.g. Trigonometry, Coordinate geometry, etc.
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
The contents that have taught me are: Congruence of triangles, Properties of triangles (median, height, etc), properties of parallelograms, trapezoids and trapezoids. External and internal angles of quadrilaterals and regular polygons. With this I must solve it.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You have to somehow use the fact that all the interior angles from the center to adjacent vertices are equal. That is the definition of regular.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mattiu, is Marty's claim allowed? IE Can I assume that a regular polygon has a center, which angle to any given side is equal?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
How can I prove this statement? I tried with a pentagon, but I have not achieved anything
Restriction: I can not use the circumference to prove it, and by this I mean to inscribe the polygon in the circumference. The idea is prove it with properties of congruence of triangles or properties of parallelogram or properties of quadrilateral, trapezium or trapezoid.
If all the possible diagonals are drawn in a regular polygon from a
vertex, the angles formed in that vertex are equal each.
geometry proof-explanation
$endgroup$
How can I prove this statement? I tried with a pentagon, but I have not achieved anything
Restriction: I can not use the circumference to prove it, and by this I mean to inscribe the polygon in the circumference. The idea is prove it with properties of congruence of triangles or properties of parallelogram or properties of quadrilateral, trapezium or trapezoid.
If all the possible diagonals are drawn in a regular polygon from a
vertex, the angles formed in that vertex are equal each.
geometry proof-explanation
geometry proof-explanation
edited 5 hours ago
Mattiu
asked 5 hours ago
MattiuMattiu
819518
819518
$begingroup$
You should clarify what is "allowed". E.g. Can I use vector / complex number geometry (which I'd consider an overkill)? Which properties of regular polygons can I use, especially those about symmetry?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a specific path you would like? E.g. Trigonometry, Coordinate geometry, etc.
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
The contents that have taught me are: Congruence of triangles, Properties of triangles (median, height, etc), properties of parallelograms, trapezoids and trapezoids. External and internal angles of quadrilaterals and regular polygons. With this I must solve it.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You have to somehow use the fact that all the interior angles from the center to adjacent vertices are equal. That is the definition of regular.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mattiu, is Marty's claim allowed? IE Can I assume that a regular polygon has a center, which angle to any given side is equal?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
You should clarify what is "allowed". E.g. Can I use vector / complex number geometry (which I'd consider an overkill)? Which properties of regular polygons can I use, especially those about symmetry?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a specific path you would like? E.g. Trigonometry, Coordinate geometry, etc.
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
The contents that have taught me are: Congruence of triangles, Properties of triangles (median, height, etc), properties of parallelograms, trapezoids and trapezoids. External and internal angles of quadrilaterals and regular polygons. With this I must solve it.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You have to somehow use the fact that all the interior angles from the center to adjacent vertices are equal. That is the definition of regular.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mattiu, is Marty's claim allowed? IE Can I assume that a regular polygon has a center, which angle to any given side is equal?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
You should clarify what is "allowed". E.g. Can I use vector / complex number geometry (which I'd consider an overkill)? Which properties of regular polygons can I use, especially those about symmetry?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You should clarify what is "allowed". E.g. Can I use vector / complex number geometry (which I'd consider an overkill)? Which properties of regular polygons can I use, especially those about symmetry?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a specific path you would like? E.g. Trigonometry, Coordinate geometry, etc.
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a specific path you would like? E.g. Trigonometry, Coordinate geometry, etc.
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
The contents that have taught me are: Congruence of triangles, Properties of triangles (median, height, etc), properties of parallelograms, trapezoids and trapezoids. External and internal angles of quadrilaterals and regular polygons. With this I must solve it.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
The contents that have taught me are: Congruence of triangles, Properties of triangles (median, height, etc), properties of parallelograms, trapezoids and trapezoids. External and internal angles of quadrilaterals and regular polygons. With this I must solve it.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You have to somehow use the fact that all the interior angles from the center to adjacent vertices are equal. That is the definition of regular.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
You have to somehow use the fact that all the interior angles from the center to adjacent vertices are equal. That is the definition of regular.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mattiu, is Marty's claim allowed? IE Can I assume that a regular polygon has a center, which angle to any given side is equal?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mattiu, is Marty's claim allowed? IE Can I assume that a regular polygon has a center, which angle to any given side is equal?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
How about this? But, as you can see, it's skirting about the "construct circle". In particular, the claim can be a step in proving "Angle at the center is twice angle at circumference".
Assumption: A regular polygon has a center $O$, where for any consecutive vertices $B, C$, $angle BOC$ is a constant $ frac{360^circ}{n }$.
Claim: In triangle ABC, if $OA=OB=OC$, then $angle BAC = frac{1}{2} angle BOC$.
This is easily proven using isosceles triangles and angle chasing.
Hence, the result follows.
I hope this approach doesn't "use circumference"
Hint: A regular polygon can be inscribed in a circle.
Hint: Angle at the center is twice angle at circumference. Clearly, the angles at center are all the same.
I'm guessing this approach is "using circumference"?
Hint: A regular polygon can be inscribed in a circle.
Hint: If $A, B, C$ are 3 points on a circle, then $angle ABC $ is dependent only on the length $AC$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You are solving it with the circumference and its angles, I can not do that.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think you're using the circumscribed polygon concept and $ OA = OB = OC $ are the radius of the circle and therefore are equal, but I can not use that, the idea is to solve it with the concepts I mentioned, without any circumference concept.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
While I understand your frustration of "I cannot use X", you need to be much clearer in specifying what is allowed or not allowed. Am I allowed to assume that a regular polygon has a center which satisfies OA=OB=OC? If no, then 1) What is your definition of a regular polygon, and 2) Why can't I use that definition to show that such an O exists?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for your good help, I did not know that by DEFINITION that was true?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So the definition of regular polygon, is given by the circumference?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Pick a vertex $P_i$ and an adjacent side $P_iP_{i+1}$, and consider the angle bisector of $angle P_i$ and the perpendicular bisector of $P_iP_{i+1}$.
For each bisector, join opposite vertices that are reflections to each other.
Do you agree that by symmetry there is a family of parallel lines for each bisector? Then the marked angles are all equal for being alternate angles of parallel lines.
As these parallel lines partition the regular polygon, they form triangles that are congruent to triangles formed by diagonals from a vertex.
e.g. $triangle P_3P_0P_8 cong P_0P_3P_4$ by counting the number of vertices between the long edge $P_3P_0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is very slick. The only proof I could come up with was the one gotten by setting the polygon into a circle, as OP forbade.
$endgroup$
– Lubin
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since the polygon is regular, it means that all the angles of interest (made up by the lines drawn from a single point) lie on a same-length segment of the circumscribed circle (equal sides of the regular polygon) and hence must be the same. However, I'm not sure if this answer doesn't satisfy your 'circumference' requirement (please clarify if it doesn't).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I cant inscribe the polygon in a circumference to prove it
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let the regular polygon be $P_0P_1P_2cdots P_{n-1}$ where $P_i$'s are vertices in order. The polygon has $n$ sides where $nge 4$ to be interesting.
Let each interior angle be $theta$:
$$theta = 180^circ-frac{180^circcdot2}{n}$$
Pick $P_0$ as the vertex to draw diagonals from.
Consider the diagonal $P_0P_2$. The triangle cut off $triangle P_0P_1P_2$ is isosceles with $P_0P_1 = P_1P_2$. The base angles are
$$angle P_1P_0P_2 = angle P_0P_2P_1 = frac{180^circ - theta}2 = frac{180^circ}{n}$$
Reflect $P_1$ to have $P_1'$ on the other side of $P_0P_2$, and consider the triangles at $P_2$: $triangle P_0P_1P_2$, $triangle P_0P_1'P_2$ and $triangle P_1'P_2P_3$.
$$begin{align*}
angle P_1P_2P_3 &= angle P_1P_2P_0 + angle P_0P_2P_1' + angle P_1'P_2P_3\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot 2}{n} &= frac{180^circ}n + frac{180^circ}n + angle P_1'P_2P_3\
angle P_1'P_2P_3 &= 180^circ - frac{180^circcdot 4}{n}
end{align*}$$
$P_2P_3 = P_2P_1'$ for being the sides of the regular polygon, so $triangle P_1'P_2P_3$ is isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$angle P_2P_1'P_3 = frac{180^circ - angle P_1'P_2P_3}{2} = frac{180^circcdot2}n$$
So $P_0P_1'P_3$ is a straight line because $angle P_0P_1'P_2 + angle P_2P_1'P_3 = theta + angle P_2P_1'P_3 = 180^circ$. Then the first two angles formed by diagonals,
$$angle P_1P_0P_2 = angle P_2P_0P_3$$
Now here's an inductive assumption: The $i$th triangle formed by $triangle P_0P_iP_{i+1}$ has the following angles:
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_0P_{i+1} &= frac{180^circ}n\
angle P_0P_{i+1}P_i &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n
end{align*}$$
For the next triangle $triangle P_0P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$, similar to the base case, reflect $P_{i}$ by diagonal $P_0P_{i+1}$ to obtain $P_{i}'$. Now $P_{i}'$ may be outside or inside or on the edge of the polygon, but the cases are similar.
If $P_{i}'$ is inside the polygon, consider the triangles at $P_{i+1}$: $triangle P_0P_iP_{i+1}$, $triangle P_0P_i'P_{i+1}$ and $triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$.
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= angle P_iP_{i+1}P_0 + angle P_0P_{i+1}P_i' + angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot2}{n} &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n + frac{180^circ cdot i}n + angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= 180^circ - frac{180^circ (2i+2)}{n}
end{align*}$$
$P_{i+1}P_{i+2} = P_{i+1}P_i'$ for being the sides of the regular polygon, so $triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$ is isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$angle P_{i+1}P_i'P_{i+2} = frac{180^circ - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}}{2} = frac{180^circ(i+1)}n$$
And again $P_0P_i'P_{i+2}$ is a straight line, so
$$angle P_{i+1}P_0P_{i+2} = angle P_{i+1}P_0P_i' = angle P_{i+1}P_0P_i = frac{180^circ}n$$
If $P_i'$ is outside the polygon, just consider at $P_{i+1}$,
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= angle P_i P_{i+1} P_0 + angle P_0 P_{i+1} P_i' - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot2}{n} &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n + frac{180^circ cdot i}n - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= -left[180^circ - frac{180^circ (2i+2)}{n}right]
end{align*}$$
$triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$ is still isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$begin{align*}
angle P_{i+1}P_i'P_{i+2} &= frac{180^circ - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}}2\
&= 180^circ - frac{180^circ(i+1)}n\
&= angle P_0P_i'P_{i+1}
end{align*}$$
So in this case $P_0P_{i+2}P_i'$ is a straight line, and so
$$begin{align*}
angle P_0P_{i+2}P_{i+1} &= 180^circ - P_{i+1}P_{i+2}P_i'\
&= frac{180^circ(i+1)}n\
angle P_{i+1}P_0P_{i+2} &= P_{i+1}P_0P_i'\
&= frac{180^circ}n
end{align*}$$
By induction, all $angle P_iP_0P_{i+1}$ are equal to $frac{180^circ}n$ for $i = 1, 2, ldots , n-2$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3212864%2fif-all-diagonals-are-drawn-in-a-regular-polygon-from-a-vertex-the-angles-formed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
How about this? But, as you can see, it's skirting about the "construct circle". In particular, the claim can be a step in proving "Angle at the center is twice angle at circumference".
Assumption: A regular polygon has a center $O$, where for any consecutive vertices $B, C$, $angle BOC$ is a constant $ frac{360^circ}{n }$.
Claim: In triangle ABC, if $OA=OB=OC$, then $angle BAC = frac{1}{2} angle BOC$.
This is easily proven using isosceles triangles and angle chasing.
Hence, the result follows.
I hope this approach doesn't "use circumference"
Hint: A regular polygon can be inscribed in a circle.
Hint: Angle at the center is twice angle at circumference. Clearly, the angles at center are all the same.
I'm guessing this approach is "using circumference"?
Hint: A regular polygon can be inscribed in a circle.
Hint: If $A, B, C$ are 3 points on a circle, then $angle ABC $ is dependent only on the length $AC$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You are solving it with the circumference and its angles, I can not do that.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think you're using the circumscribed polygon concept and $ OA = OB = OC $ are the radius of the circle and therefore are equal, but I can not use that, the idea is to solve it with the concepts I mentioned, without any circumference concept.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
While I understand your frustration of "I cannot use X", you need to be much clearer in specifying what is allowed or not allowed. Am I allowed to assume that a regular polygon has a center which satisfies OA=OB=OC? If no, then 1) What is your definition of a regular polygon, and 2) Why can't I use that definition to show that such an O exists?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for your good help, I did not know that by DEFINITION that was true?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So the definition of regular polygon, is given by the circumference?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
How about this? But, as you can see, it's skirting about the "construct circle". In particular, the claim can be a step in proving "Angle at the center is twice angle at circumference".
Assumption: A regular polygon has a center $O$, where for any consecutive vertices $B, C$, $angle BOC$ is a constant $ frac{360^circ}{n }$.
Claim: In triangle ABC, if $OA=OB=OC$, then $angle BAC = frac{1}{2} angle BOC$.
This is easily proven using isosceles triangles and angle chasing.
Hence, the result follows.
I hope this approach doesn't "use circumference"
Hint: A regular polygon can be inscribed in a circle.
Hint: Angle at the center is twice angle at circumference. Clearly, the angles at center are all the same.
I'm guessing this approach is "using circumference"?
Hint: A regular polygon can be inscribed in a circle.
Hint: If $A, B, C$ are 3 points on a circle, then $angle ABC $ is dependent only on the length $AC$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You are solving it with the circumference and its angles, I can not do that.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think you're using the circumscribed polygon concept and $ OA = OB = OC $ are the radius of the circle and therefore are equal, but I can not use that, the idea is to solve it with the concepts I mentioned, without any circumference concept.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
While I understand your frustration of "I cannot use X", you need to be much clearer in specifying what is allowed or not allowed. Am I allowed to assume that a regular polygon has a center which satisfies OA=OB=OC? If no, then 1) What is your definition of a regular polygon, and 2) Why can't I use that definition to show that such an O exists?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for your good help, I did not know that by DEFINITION that was true?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So the definition of regular polygon, is given by the circumference?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
How about this? But, as you can see, it's skirting about the "construct circle". In particular, the claim can be a step in proving "Angle at the center is twice angle at circumference".
Assumption: A regular polygon has a center $O$, where for any consecutive vertices $B, C$, $angle BOC$ is a constant $ frac{360^circ}{n }$.
Claim: In triangle ABC, if $OA=OB=OC$, then $angle BAC = frac{1}{2} angle BOC$.
This is easily proven using isosceles triangles and angle chasing.
Hence, the result follows.
I hope this approach doesn't "use circumference"
Hint: A regular polygon can be inscribed in a circle.
Hint: Angle at the center is twice angle at circumference. Clearly, the angles at center are all the same.
I'm guessing this approach is "using circumference"?
Hint: A regular polygon can be inscribed in a circle.
Hint: If $A, B, C$ are 3 points on a circle, then $angle ABC $ is dependent only on the length $AC$.
$endgroup$
How about this? But, as you can see, it's skirting about the "construct circle". In particular, the claim can be a step in proving "Angle at the center is twice angle at circumference".
Assumption: A regular polygon has a center $O$, where for any consecutive vertices $B, C$, $angle BOC$ is a constant $ frac{360^circ}{n }$.
Claim: In triangle ABC, if $OA=OB=OC$, then $angle BAC = frac{1}{2} angle BOC$.
This is easily proven using isosceles triangles and angle chasing.
Hence, the result follows.
I hope this approach doesn't "use circumference"
Hint: A regular polygon can be inscribed in a circle.
Hint: Angle at the center is twice angle at circumference. Clearly, the angles at center are all the same.
I'm guessing this approach is "using circumference"?
Hint: A regular polygon can be inscribed in a circle.
Hint: If $A, B, C$ are 3 points on a circle, then $angle ABC $ is dependent only on the length $AC$.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
Calvin LinCalvin Lin
36.6k350116
36.6k350116
$begingroup$
You are solving it with the circumference and its angles, I can not do that.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think you're using the circumscribed polygon concept and $ OA = OB = OC $ are the radius of the circle and therefore are equal, but I can not use that, the idea is to solve it with the concepts I mentioned, without any circumference concept.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
While I understand your frustration of "I cannot use X", you need to be much clearer in specifying what is allowed or not allowed. Am I allowed to assume that a regular polygon has a center which satisfies OA=OB=OC? If no, then 1) What is your definition of a regular polygon, and 2) Why can't I use that definition to show that such an O exists?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for your good help, I did not know that by DEFINITION that was true?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So the definition of regular polygon, is given by the circumference?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
You are solving it with the circumference and its angles, I can not do that.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think you're using the circumscribed polygon concept and $ OA = OB = OC $ are the radius of the circle and therefore are equal, but I can not use that, the idea is to solve it with the concepts I mentioned, without any circumference concept.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
While I understand your frustration of "I cannot use X", you need to be much clearer in specifying what is allowed or not allowed. Am I allowed to assume that a regular polygon has a center which satisfies OA=OB=OC? If no, then 1) What is your definition of a regular polygon, and 2) Why can't I use that definition to show that such an O exists?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for your good help, I did not know that by DEFINITION that was true?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So the definition of regular polygon, is given by the circumference?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
You are solving it with the circumference and its angles, I can not do that.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You are solving it with the circumference and its angles, I can not do that.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think you're using the circumscribed polygon concept and $ OA = OB = OC $ are the radius of the circle and therefore are equal, but I can not use that, the idea is to solve it with the concepts I mentioned, without any circumference concept.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think you're using the circumscribed polygon concept and $ OA = OB = OC $ are the radius of the circle and therefore are equal, but I can not use that, the idea is to solve it with the concepts I mentioned, without any circumference concept.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
While I understand your frustration of "I cannot use X", you need to be much clearer in specifying what is allowed or not allowed. Am I allowed to assume that a regular polygon has a center which satisfies OA=OB=OC? If no, then 1) What is your definition of a regular polygon, and 2) Why can't I use that definition to show that such an O exists?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
While I understand your frustration of "I cannot use X", you need to be much clearer in specifying what is allowed or not allowed. Am I allowed to assume that a regular polygon has a center which satisfies OA=OB=OC? If no, then 1) What is your definition of a regular polygon, and 2) Why can't I use that definition to show that such an O exists?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for your good help, I did not know that by DEFINITION that was true?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for your good help, I did not know that by DEFINITION that was true?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So the definition of regular polygon, is given by the circumference?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So the definition of regular polygon, is given by the circumference?
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Pick a vertex $P_i$ and an adjacent side $P_iP_{i+1}$, and consider the angle bisector of $angle P_i$ and the perpendicular bisector of $P_iP_{i+1}$.
For each bisector, join opposite vertices that are reflections to each other.
Do you agree that by symmetry there is a family of parallel lines for each bisector? Then the marked angles are all equal for being alternate angles of parallel lines.
As these parallel lines partition the regular polygon, they form triangles that are congruent to triangles formed by diagonals from a vertex.
e.g. $triangle P_3P_0P_8 cong P_0P_3P_4$ by counting the number of vertices between the long edge $P_3P_0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is very slick. The only proof I could come up with was the one gotten by setting the polygon into a circle, as OP forbade.
$endgroup$
– Lubin
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pick a vertex $P_i$ and an adjacent side $P_iP_{i+1}$, and consider the angle bisector of $angle P_i$ and the perpendicular bisector of $P_iP_{i+1}$.
For each bisector, join opposite vertices that are reflections to each other.
Do you agree that by symmetry there is a family of parallel lines for each bisector? Then the marked angles are all equal for being alternate angles of parallel lines.
As these parallel lines partition the regular polygon, they form triangles that are congruent to triangles formed by diagonals from a vertex.
e.g. $triangle P_3P_0P_8 cong P_0P_3P_4$ by counting the number of vertices between the long edge $P_3P_0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is very slick. The only proof I could come up with was the one gotten by setting the polygon into a circle, as OP forbade.
$endgroup$
– Lubin
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pick a vertex $P_i$ and an adjacent side $P_iP_{i+1}$, and consider the angle bisector of $angle P_i$ and the perpendicular bisector of $P_iP_{i+1}$.
For each bisector, join opposite vertices that are reflections to each other.
Do you agree that by symmetry there is a family of parallel lines for each bisector? Then the marked angles are all equal for being alternate angles of parallel lines.
As these parallel lines partition the regular polygon, they form triangles that are congruent to triangles formed by diagonals from a vertex.
e.g. $triangle P_3P_0P_8 cong P_0P_3P_4$ by counting the number of vertices between the long edge $P_3P_0$.
$endgroup$
Pick a vertex $P_i$ and an adjacent side $P_iP_{i+1}$, and consider the angle bisector of $angle P_i$ and the perpendicular bisector of $P_iP_{i+1}$.
For each bisector, join opposite vertices that are reflections to each other.
Do you agree that by symmetry there is a family of parallel lines for each bisector? Then the marked angles are all equal for being alternate angles of parallel lines.
As these parallel lines partition the regular polygon, they form triangles that are congruent to triangles formed by diagonals from a vertex.
e.g. $triangle P_3P_0P_8 cong P_0P_3P_4$ by counting the number of vertices between the long edge $P_3P_0$.
answered 2 hours ago
peterwhypeterwhy
12.6k21229
12.6k21229
$begingroup$
This is very slick. The only proof I could come up with was the one gotten by setting the polygon into a circle, as OP forbade.
$endgroup$
– Lubin
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is very slick. The only proof I could come up with was the one gotten by setting the polygon into a circle, as OP forbade.
$endgroup$
– Lubin
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
This is very slick. The only proof I could come up with was the one gotten by setting the polygon into a circle, as OP forbade.
$endgroup$
– Lubin
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
This is very slick. The only proof I could come up with was the one gotten by setting the polygon into a circle, as OP forbade.
$endgroup$
– Lubin
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since the polygon is regular, it means that all the angles of interest (made up by the lines drawn from a single point) lie on a same-length segment of the circumscribed circle (equal sides of the regular polygon) and hence must be the same. However, I'm not sure if this answer doesn't satisfy your 'circumference' requirement (please clarify if it doesn't).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I cant inscribe the polygon in a circumference to prove it
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since the polygon is regular, it means that all the angles of interest (made up by the lines drawn from a single point) lie on a same-length segment of the circumscribed circle (equal sides of the regular polygon) and hence must be the same. However, I'm not sure if this answer doesn't satisfy your 'circumference' requirement (please clarify if it doesn't).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I cant inscribe the polygon in a circumference to prove it
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since the polygon is regular, it means that all the angles of interest (made up by the lines drawn from a single point) lie on a same-length segment of the circumscribed circle (equal sides of the regular polygon) and hence must be the same. However, I'm not sure if this answer doesn't satisfy your 'circumference' requirement (please clarify if it doesn't).
$endgroup$
Since the polygon is regular, it means that all the angles of interest (made up by the lines drawn from a single point) lie on a same-length segment of the circumscribed circle (equal sides of the regular polygon) and hence must be the same. However, I'm not sure if this answer doesn't satisfy your 'circumference' requirement (please clarify if it doesn't).
answered 5 hours ago
dnqxtdnqxt
87525
87525
$begingroup$
I cant inscribe the polygon in a circumference to prove it
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I cant inscribe the polygon in a circumference to prove it
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I cant inscribe the polygon in a circumference to prove it
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I cant inscribe the polygon in a circumference to prove it
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let the regular polygon be $P_0P_1P_2cdots P_{n-1}$ where $P_i$'s are vertices in order. The polygon has $n$ sides where $nge 4$ to be interesting.
Let each interior angle be $theta$:
$$theta = 180^circ-frac{180^circcdot2}{n}$$
Pick $P_0$ as the vertex to draw diagonals from.
Consider the diagonal $P_0P_2$. The triangle cut off $triangle P_0P_1P_2$ is isosceles with $P_0P_1 = P_1P_2$. The base angles are
$$angle P_1P_0P_2 = angle P_0P_2P_1 = frac{180^circ - theta}2 = frac{180^circ}{n}$$
Reflect $P_1$ to have $P_1'$ on the other side of $P_0P_2$, and consider the triangles at $P_2$: $triangle P_0P_1P_2$, $triangle P_0P_1'P_2$ and $triangle P_1'P_2P_3$.
$$begin{align*}
angle P_1P_2P_3 &= angle P_1P_2P_0 + angle P_0P_2P_1' + angle P_1'P_2P_3\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot 2}{n} &= frac{180^circ}n + frac{180^circ}n + angle P_1'P_2P_3\
angle P_1'P_2P_3 &= 180^circ - frac{180^circcdot 4}{n}
end{align*}$$
$P_2P_3 = P_2P_1'$ for being the sides of the regular polygon, so $triangle P_1'P_2P_3$ is isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$angle P_2P_1'P_3 = frac{180^circ - angle P_1'P_2P_3}{2} = frac{180^circcdot2}n$$
So $P_0P_1'P_3$ is a straight line because $angle P_0P_1'P_2 + angle P_2P_1'P_3 = theta + angle P_2P_1'P_3 = 180^circ$. Then the first two angles formed by diagonals,
$$angle P_1P_0P_2 = angle P_2P_0P_3$$
Now here's an inductive assumption: The $i$th triangle formed by $triangle P_0P_iP_{i+1}$ has the following angles:
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_0P_{i+1} &= frac{180^circ}n\
angle P_0P_{i+1}P_i &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n
end{align*}$$
For the next triangle $triangle P_0P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$, similar to the base case, reflect $P_{i}$ by diagonal $P_0P_{i+1}$ to obtain $P_{i}'$. Now $P_{i}'$ may be outside or inside or on the edge of the polygon, but the cases are similar.
If $P_{i}'$ is inside the polygon, consider the triangles at $P_{i+1}$: $triangle P_0P_iP_{i+1}$, $triangle P_0P_i'P_{i+1}$ and $triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$.
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= angle P_iP_{i+1}P_0 + angle P_0P_{i+1}P_i' + angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot2}{n} &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n + frac{180^circ cdot i}n + angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= 180^circ - frac{180^circ (2i+2)}{n}
end{align*}$$
$P_{i+1}P_{i+2} = P_{i+1}P_i'$ for being the sides of the regular polygon, so $triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$ is isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$angle P_{i+1}P_i'P_{i+2} = frac{180^circ - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}}{2} = frac{180^circ(i+1)}n$$
And again $P_0P_i'P_{i+2}$ is a straight line, so
$$angle P_{i+1}P_0P_{i+2} = angle P_{i+1}P_0P_i' = angle P_{i+1}P_0P_i = frac{180^circ}n$$
If $P_i'$ is outside the polygon, just consider at $P_{i+1}$,
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= angle P_i P_{i+1} P_0 + angle P_0 P_{i+1} P_i' - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot2}{n} &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n + frac{180^circ cdot i}n - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= -left[180^circ - frac{180^circ (2i+2)}{n}right]
end{align*}$$
$triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$ is still isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$begin{align*}
angle P_{i+1}P_i'P_{i+2} &= frac{180^circ - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}}2\
&= 180^circ - frac{180^circ(i+1)}n\
&= angle P_0P_i'P_{i+1}
end{align*}$$
So in this case $P_0P_{i+2}P_i'$ is a straight line, and so
$$begin{align*}
angle P_0P_{i+2}P_{i+1} &= 180^circ - P_{i+1}P_{i+2}P_i'\
&= frac{180^circ(i+1)}n\
angle P_{i+1}P_0P_{i+2} &= P_{i+1}P_0P_i'\
&= frac{180^circ}n
end{align*}$$
By induction, all $angle P_iP_0P_{i+1}$ are equal to $frac{180^circ}n$ for $i = 1, 2, ldots , n-2$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let the regular polygon be $P_0P_1P_2cdots P_{n-1}$ where $P_i$'s are vertices in order. The polygon has $n$ sides where $nge 4$ to be interesting.
Let each interior angle be $theta$:
$$theta = 180^circ-frac{180^circcdot2}{n}$$
Pick $P_0$ as the vertex to draw diagonals from.
Consider the diagonal $P_0P_2$. The triangle cut off $triangle P_0P_1P_2$ is isosceles with $P_0P_1 = P_1P_2$. The base angles are
$$angle P_1P_0P_2 = angle P_0P_2P_1 = frac{180^circ - theta}2 = frac{180^circ}{n}$$
Reflect $P_1$ to have $P_1'$ on the other side of $P_0P_2$, and consider the triangles at $P_2$: $triangle P_0P_1P_2$, $triangle P_0P_1'P_2$ and $triangle P_1'P_2P_3$.
$$begin{align*}
angle P_1P_2P_3 &= angle P_1P_2P_0 + angle P_0P_2P_1' + angle P_1'P_2P_3\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot 2}{n} &= frac{180^circ}n + frac{180^circ}n + angle P_1'P_2P_3\
angle P_1'P_2P_3 &= 180^circ - frac{180^circcdot 4}{n}
end{align*}$$
$P_2P_3 = P_2P_1'$ for being the sides of the regular polygon, so $triangle P_1'P_2P_3$ is isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$angle P_2P_1'P_3 = frac{180^circ - angle P_1'P_2P_3}{2} = frac{180^circcdot2}n$$
So $P_0P_1'P_3$ is a straight line because $angle P_0P_1'P_2 + angle P_2P_1'P_3 = theta + angle P_2P_1'P_3 = 180^circ$. Then the first two angles formed by diagonals,
$$angle P_1P_0P_2 = angle P_2P_0P_3$$
Now here's an inductive assumption: The $i$th triangle formed by $triangle P_0P_iP_{i+1}$ has the following angles:
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_0P_{i+1} &= frac{180^circ}n\
angle P_0P_{i+1}P_i &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n
end{align*}$$
For the next triangle $triangle P_0P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$, similar to the base case, reflect $P_{i}$ by diagonal $P_0P_{i+1}$ to obtain $P_{i}'$. Now $P_{i}'$ may be outside or inside or on the edge of the polygon, but the cases are similar.
If $P_{i}'$ is inside the polygon, consider the triangles at $P_{i+1}$: $triangle P_0P_iP_{i+1}$, $triangle P_0P_i'P_{i+1}$ and $triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$.
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= angle P_iP_{i+1}P_0 + angle P_0P_{i+1}P_i' + angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot2}{n} &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n + frac{180^circ cdot i}n + angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= 180^circ - frac{180^circ (2i+2)}{n}
end{align*}$$
$P_{i+1}P_{i+2} = P_{i+1}P_i'$ for being the sides of the regular polygon, so $triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$ is isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$angle P_{i+1}P_i'P_{i+2} = frac{180^circ - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}}{2} = frac{180^circ(i+1)}n$$
And again $P_0P_i'P_{i+2}$ is a straight line, so
$$angle P_{i+1}P_0P_{i+2} = angle P_{i+1}P_0P_i' = angle P_{i+1}P_0P_i = frac{180^circ}n$$
If $P_i'$ is outside the polygon, just consider at $P_{i+1}$,
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= angle P_i P_{i+1} P_0 + angle P_0 P_{i+1} P_i' - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot2}{n} &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n + frac{180^circ cdot i}n - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= -left[180^circ - frac{180^circ (2i+2)}{n}right]
end{align*}$$
$triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$ is still isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$begin{align*}
angle P_{i+1}P_i'P_{i+2} &= frac{180^circ - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}}2\
&= 180^circ - frac{180^circ(i+1)}n\
&= angle P_0P_i'P_{i+1}
end{align*}$$
So in this case $P_0P_{i+2}P_i'$ is a straight line, and so
$$begin{align*}
angle P_0P_{i+2}P_{i+1} &= 180^circ - P_{i+1}P_{i+2}P_i'\
&= frac{180^circ(i+1)}n\
angle P_{i+1}P_0P_{i+2} &= P_{i+1}P_0P_i'\
&= frac{180^circ}n
end{align*}$$
By induction, all $angle P_iP_0P_{i+1}$ are equal to $frac{180^circ}n$ for $i = 1, 2, ldots , n-2$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let the regular polygon be $P_0P_1P_2cdots P_{n-1}$ where $P_i$'s are vertices in order. The polygon has $n$ sides where $nge 4$ to be interesting.
Let each interior angle be $theta$:
$$theta = 180^circ-frac{180^circcdot2}{n}$$
Pick $P_0$ as the vertex to draw diagonals from.
Consider the diagonal $P_0P_2$. The triangle cut off $triangle P_0P_1P_2$ is isosceles with $P_0P_1 = P_1P_2$. The base angles are
$$angle P_1P_0P_2 = angle P_0P_2P_1 = frac{180^circ - theta}2 = frac{180^circ}{n}$$
Reflect $P_1$ to have $P_1'$ on the other side of $P_0P_2$, and consider the triangles at $P_2$: $triangle P_0P_1P_2$, $triangle P_0P_1'P_2$ and $triangle P_1'P_2P_3$.
$$begin{align*}
angle P_1P_2P_3 &= angle P_1P_2P_0 + angle P_0P_2P_1' + angle P_1'P_2P_3\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot 2}{n} &= frac{180^circ}n + frac{180^circ}n + angle P_1'P_2P_3\
angle P_1'P_2P_3 &= 180^circ - frac{180^circcdot 4}{n}
end{align*}$$
$P_2P_3 = P_2P_1'$ for being the sides of the regular polygon, so $triangle P_1'P_2P_3$ is isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$angle P_2P_1'P_3 = frac{180^circ - angle P_1'P_2P_3}{2} = frac{180^circcdot2}n$$
So $P_0P_1'P_3$ is a straight line because $angle P_0P_1'P_2 + angle P_2P_1'P_3 = theta + angle P_2P_1'P_3 = 180^circ$. Then the first two angles formed by diagonals,
$$angle P_1P_0P_2 = angle P_2P_0P_3$$
Now here's an inductive assumption: The $i$th triangle formed by $triangle P_0P_iP_{i+1}$ has the following angles:
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_0P_{i+1} &= frac{180^circ}n\
angle P_0P_{i+1}P_i &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n
end{align*}$$
For the next triangle $triangle P_0P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$, similar to the base case, reflect $P_{i}$ by diagonal $P_0P_{i+1}$ to obtain $P_{i}'$. Now $P_{i}'$ may be outside or inside or on the edge of the polygon, but the cases are similar.
If $P_{i}'$ is inside the polygon, consider the triangles at $P_{i+1}$: $triangle P_0P_iP_{i+1}$, $triangle P_0P_i'P_{i+1}$ and $triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$.
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= angle P_iP_{i+1}P_0 + angle P_0P_{i+1}P_i' + angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot2}{n} &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n + frac{180^circ cdot i}n + angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= 180^circ - frac{180^circ (2i+2)}{n}
end{align*}$$
$P_{i+1}P_{i+2} = P_{i+1}P_i'$ for being the sides of the regular polygon, so $triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$ is isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$angle P_{i+1}P_i'P_{i+2} = frac{180^circ - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}}{2} = frac{180^circ(i+1)}n$$
And again $P_0P_i'P_{i+2}$ is a straight line, so
$$angle P_{i+1}P_0P_{i+2} = angle P_{i+1}P_0P_i' = angle P_{i+1}P_0P_i = frac{180^circ}n$$
If $P_i'$ is outside the polygon, just consider at $P_{i+1}$,
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= angle P_i P_{i+1} P_0 + angle P_0 P_{i+1} P_i' - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot2}{n} &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n + frac{180^circ cdot i}n - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= -left[180^circ - frac{180^circ (2i+2)}{n}right]
end{align*}$$
$triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$ is still isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$begin{align*}
angle P_{i+1}P_i'P_{i+2} &= frac{180^circ - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}}2\
&= 180^circ - frac{180^circ(i+1)}n\
&= angle P_0P_i'P_{i+1}
end{align*}$$
So in this case $P_0P_{i+2}P_i'$ is a straight line, and so
$$begin{align*}
angle P_0P_{i+2}P_{i+1} &= 180^circ - P_{i+1}P_{i+2}P_i'\
&= frac{180^circ(i+1)}n\
angle P_{i+1}P_0P_{i+2} &= P_{i+1}P_0P_i'\
&= frac{180^circ}n
end{align*}$$
By induction, all $angle P_iP_0P_{i+1}$ are equal to $frac{180^circ}n$ for $i = 1, 2, ldots , n-2$.
$endgroup$
Let the regular polygon be $P_0P_1P_2cdots P_{n-1}$ where $P_i$'s are vertices in order. The polygon has $n$ sides where $nge 4$ to be interesting.
Let each interior angle be $theta$:
$$theta = 180^circ-frac{180^circcdot2}{n}$$
Pick $P_0$ as the vertex to draw diagonals from.
Consider the diagonal $P_0P_2$. The triangle cut off $triangle P_0P_1P_2$ is isosceles with $P_0P_1 = P_1P_2$. The base angles are
$$angle P_1P_0P_2 = angle P_0P_2P_1 = frac{180^circ - theta}2 = frac{180^circ}{n}$$
Reflect $P_1$ to have $P_1'$ on the other side of $P_0P_2$, and consider the triangles at $P_2$: $triangle P_0P_1P_2$, $triangle P_0P_1'P_2$ and $triangle P_1'P_2P_3$.
$$begin{align*}
angle P_1P_2P_3 &= angle P_1P_2P_0 + angle P_0P_2P_1' + angle P_1'P_2P_3\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot 2}{n} &= frac{180^circ}n + frac{180^circ}n + angle P_1'P_2P_3\
angle P_1'P_2P_3 &= 180^circ - frac{180^circcdot 4}{n}
end{align*}$$
$P_2P_3 = P_2P_1'$ for being the sides of the regular polygon, so $triangle P_1'P_2P_3$ is isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$angle P_2P_1'P_3 = frac{180^circ - angle P_1'P_2P_3}{2} = frac{180^circcdot2}n$$
So $P_0P_1'P_3$ is a straight line because $angle P_0P_1'P_2 + angle P_2P_1'P_3 = theta + angle P_2P_1'P_3 = 180^circ$. Then the first two angles formed by diagonals,
$$angle P_1P_0P_2 = angle P_2P_0P_3$$
Now here's an inductive assumption: The $i$th triangle formed by $triangle P_0P_iP_{i+1}$ has the following angles:
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_0P_{i+1} &= frac{180^circ}n\
angle P_0P_{i+1}P_i &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n
end{align*}$$
For the next triangle $triangle P_0P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$, similar to the base case, reflect $P_{i}$ by diagonal $P_0P_{i+1}$ to obtain $P_{i}'$. Now $P_{i}'$ may be outside or inside or on the edge of the polygon, but the cases are similar.
If $P_{i}'$ is inside the polygon, consider the triangles at $P_{i+1}$: $triangle P_0P_iP_{i+1}$, $triangle P_0P_i'P_{i+1}$ and $triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$.
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= angle P_iP_{i+1}P_0 + angle P_0P_{i+1}P_i' + angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot2}{n} &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n + frac{180^circ cdot i}n + angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= 180^circ - frac{180^circ (2i+2)}{n}
end{align*}$$
$P_{i+1}P_{i+2} = P_{i+1}P_i'$ for being the sides of the regular polygon, so $triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$ is isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$angle P_{i+1}P_i'P_{i+2} = frac{180^circ - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}}{2} = frac{180^circ(i+1)}n$$
And again $P_0P_i'P_{i+2}$ is a straight line, so
$$angle P_{i+1}P_0P_{i+2} = angle P_{i+1}P_0P_i' = angle P_{i+1}P_0P_i = frac{180^circ}n$$
If $P_i'$ is outside the polygon, just consider at $P_{i+1}$,
$$begin{align*}
angle P_iP_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= angle P_i P_{i+1} P_0 + angle P_0 P_{i+1} P_i' - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
180^circ - frac{180^circcdot2}{n} &= frac{180^circ cdot i}n + frac{180^circ cdot i}n - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}\
angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2} &= -left[180^circ - frac{180^circ (2i+2)}{n}right]
end{align*}$$
$triangle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}$ is still isosceles. Consider its base angles:
$$begin{align*}
angle P_{i+1}P_i'P_{i+2} &= frac{180^circ - angle P_i'P_{i+1}P_{i+2}}2\
&= 180^circ - frac{180^circ(i+1)}n\
&= angle P_0P_i'P_{i+1}
end{align*}$$
So in this case $P_0P_{i+2}P_i'$ is a straight line, and so
$$begin{align*}
angle P_0P_{i+2}P_{i+1} &= 180^circ - P_{i+1}P_{i+2}P_i'\
&= frac{180^circ(i+1)}n\
angle P_{i+1}P_0P_{i+2} &= P_{i+1}P_0P_i'\
&= frac{180^circ}n
end{align*}$$
By induction, all $angle P_iP_0P_{i+1}$ are equal to $frac{180^circ}n$ for $i = 1, 2, ldots , n-2$.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
peterwhypeterwhy
12.6k21229
12.6k21229
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3212864%2fif-all-diagonals-are-drawn-in-a-regular-polygon-from-a-vertex-the-angles-formed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
You should clarify what is "allowed". E.g. Can I use vector / complex number geometry (which I'd consider an overkill)? Which properties of regular polygons can I use, especially those about symmetry?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a specific path you would like? E.g. Trigonometry, Coordinate geometry, etc.
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
The contents that have taught me are: Congruence of triangles, Properties of triangles (median, height, etc), properties of parallelograms, trapezoids and trapezoids. External and internal angles of quadrilaterals and regular polygons. With this I must solve it.
$endgroup$
– Mattiu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You have to somehow use the fact that all the interior angles from the center to adjacent vertices are equal. That is the definition of regular.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mattiu, is Marty's claim allowed? IE Can I assume that a regular polygon has a center, which angle to any given side is equal?
$endgroup$
– Calvin Lin
4 hours ago