Angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ do not depend on the position of point $P$ (proof needed)











up vote
15
down vote

favorite
10












Let $ABCD$ be a fixed convex quadrilateral and $P$ be an arbitrary point. Let $S,T,U,V,K,L$ be the projections of $P$ on $AB,CD,AD,BC,AC,BD$ respectively. Let $X,Y,Z$ be the midpoints of $ST,UV,KL$. Is it true that the angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ do not depend on the position of $P$?



I drew a figure on my computer and it seems that the angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ do not change with the position of point P:



enter image description here



enter image description here



(my original research)










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




watson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 2




    Rather than upvote, the question should be closed for lack of ideas.
    – Parcly Taxel
    Nov 12 at 7:01






  • 7




    @ParclyTaxel I really don't understand why should this problem be closed. Watson could have provided a few pages of nonsense just to "illustrate" some "ideas" that he had and prevent closing votes or downvotes. In some cases, it's fair to say: "Folks, I think this problem is interesting and I really don;t have a clue how to approach it because it's too difficult". And this problem is not homework.
    – Oldboy
    Nov 12 at 12:22






  • 4




    (+1) To my surprise, the statement is actually true. I reduce the problem to one about vanishing of some complicated determinant and using a CAS, the determinant does simplify to zero.
    – achille hui
    2 days ago






  • 2




    @watson I mean, if this is your own theorem, it makes it even more interesting. The statement definitely true and this problem should be reopened. I will provide a better picture for you.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @watson I have provided better looking pictures. The statement is definitely true, no doubt about it. And. yes, some good people actually helped to reopen the problem. I am happy that you are geeting the attention that you deserve.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago

















up vote
15
down vote

favorite
10












Let $ABCD$ be a fixed convex quadrilateral and $P$ be an arbitrary point. Let $S,T,U,V,K,L$ be the projections of $P$ on $AB,CD,AD,BC,AC,BD$ respectively. Let $X,Y,Z$ be the midpoints of $ST,UV,KL$. Is it true that the angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ do not depend on the position of $P$?



I drew a figure on my computer and it seems that the angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ do not change with the position of point P:



enter image description here



enter image description here



(my original research)










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




watson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 2




    Rather than upvote, the question should be closed for lack of ideas.
    – Parcly Taxel
    Nov 12 at 7:01






  • 7




    @ParclyTaxel I really don't understand why should this problem be closed. Watson could have provided a few pages of nonsense just to "illustrate" some "ideas" that he had and prevent closing votes or downvotes. In some cases, it's fair to say: "Folks, I think this problem is interesting and I really don;t have a clue how to approach it because it's too difficult". And this problem is not homework.
    – Oldboy
    Nov 12 at 12:22






  • 4




    (+1) To my surprise, the statement is actually true. I reduce the problem to one about vanishing of some complicated determinant and using a CAS, the determinant does simplify to zero.
    – achille hui
    2 days ago






  • 2




    @watson I mean, if this is your own theorem, it makes it even more interesting. The statement definitely true and this problem should be reopened. I will provide a better picture for you.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @watson I have provided better looking pictures. The statement is definitely true, no doubt about it. And. yes, some good people actually helped to reopen the problem. I am happy that you are geeting the attention that you deserve.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago















up vote
15
down vote

favorite
10









up vote
15
down vote

favorite
10






10





Let $ABCD$ be a fixed convex quadrilateral and $P$ be an arbitrary point. Let $S,T,U,V,K,L$ be the projections of $P$ on $AB,CD,AD,BC,AC,BD$ respectively. Let $X,Y,Z$ be the midpoints of $ST,UV,KL$. Is it true that the angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ do not depend on the position of $P$?



I drew a figure on my computer and it seems that the angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ do not change with the position of point P:



enter image description here



enter image description here



(my original research)










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




watson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











Let $ABCD$ be a fixed convex quadrilateral and $P$ be an arbitrary point. Let $S,T,U,V,K,L$ be the projections of $P$ on $AB,CD,AD,BC,AC,BD$ respectively. Let $X,Y,Z$ be the midpoints of $ST,UV,KL$. Is it true that the angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ do not depend on the position of $P$?



I drew a figure on my computer and it seems that the angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ do not change with the position of point P:



enter image description here



enter image description here



(my original research)







geometry euclidean-geometry triangle quadrilateral






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




watson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




watson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Oldboy

5,3731527




5,3731527






New contributor




watson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Nov 12 at 5:23









watson

1019




1019




New contributor




watson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





watson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






watson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 2




    Rather than upvote, the question should be closed for lack of ideas.
    – Parcly Taxel
    Nov 12 at 7:01






  • 7




    @ParclyTaxel I really don't understand why should this problem be closed. Watson could have provided a few pages of nonsense just to "illustrate" some "ideas" that he had and prevent closing votes or downvotes. In some cases, it's fair to say: "Folks, I think this problem is interesting and I really don;t have a clue how to approach it because it's too difficult". And this problem is not homework.
    – Oldboy
    Nov 12 at 12:22






  • 4




    (+1) To my surprise, the statement is actually true. I reduce the problem to one about vanishing of some complicated determinant and using a CAS, the determinant does simplify to zero.
    – achille hui
    2 days ago






  • 2




    @watson I mean, if this is your own theorem, it makes it even more interesting. The statement definitely true and this problem should be reopened. I will provide a better picture for you.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @watson I have provided better looking pictures. The statement is definitely true, no doubt about it. And. yes, some good people actually helped to reopen the problem. I am happy that you are geeting the attention that you deserve.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago
















  • 2




    Rather than upvote, the question should be closed for lack of ideas.
    – Parcly Taxel
    Nov 12 at 7:01






  • 7




    @ParclyTaxel I really don't understand why should this problem be closed. Watson could have provided a few pages of nonsense just to "illustrate" some "ideas" that he had and prevent closing votes or downvotes. In some cases, it's fair to say: "Folks, I think this problem is interesting and I really don;t have a clue how to approach it because it's too difficult". And this problem is not homework.
    – Oldboy
    Nov 12 at 12:22






  • 4




    (+1) To my surprise, the statement is actually true. I reduce the problem to one about vanishing of some complicated determinant and using a CAS, the determinant does simplify to zero.
    – achille hui
    2 days ago






  • 2




    @watson I mean, if this is your own theorem, it makes it even more interesting. The statement definitely true and this problem should be reopened. I will provide a better picture for you.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @watson I have provided better looking pictures. The statement is definitely true, no doubt about it. And. yes, some good people actually helped to reopen the problem. I am happy that you are geeting the attention that you deserve.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago










2




2




Rather than upvote, the question should be closed for lack of ideas.
– Parcly Taxel
Nov 12 at 7:01




Rather than upvote, the question should be closed for lack of ideas.
– Parcly Taxel
Nov 12 at 7:01




7




7




@ParclyTaxel I really don't understand why should this problem be closed. Watson could have provided a few pages of nonsense just to "illustrate" some "ideas" that he had and prevent closing votes or downvotes. In some cases, it's fair to say: "Folks, I think this problem is interesting and I really don;t have a clue how to approach it because it's too difficult". And this problem is not homework.
– Oldboy
Nov 12 at 12:22




@ParclyTaxel I really don't understand why should this problem be closed. Watson could have provided a few pages of nonsense just to "illustrate" some "ideas" that he had and prevent closing votes or downvotes. In some cases, it's fair to say: "Folks, I think this problem is interesting and I really don;t have a clue how to approach it because it's too difficult". And this problem is not homework.
– Oldboy
Nov 12 at 12:22




4




4




(+1) To my surprise, the statement is actually true. I reduce the problem to one about vanishing of some complicated determinant and using a CAS, the determinant does simplify to zero.
– achille hui
2 days ago




(+1) To my surprise, the statement is actually true. I reduce the problem to one about vanishing of some complicated determinant and using a CAS, the determinant does simplify to zero.
– achille hui
2 days ago




2




2




@watson I mean, if this is your own theorem, it makes it even more interesting. The statement definitely true and this problem should be reopened. I will provide a better picture for you.
– Oldboy
2 days ago




@watson I mean, if this is your own theorem, it makes it even more interesting. The statement definitely true and this problem should be reopened. I will provide a better picture for you.
– Oldboy
2 days ago




3




3




@watson I have provided better looking pictures. The statement is definitely true, no doubt about it. And. yes, some good people actually helped to reopen the problem. I am happy that you are geeting the attention that you deserve.
– Oldboy
2 days ago






@watson I have provided better looking pictures. The statement is definitely true, no doubt about it. And. yes, some good people actually helped to reopen the problem. I am happy that you are geeting the attention that you deserve.
– Oldboy
2 days ago












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













Here is the proof using Mathematica and simple analytical geometry. In theory, you can do all this by hand, there is nothing special in it. But in real life, you need a computer.



Math involved in the proof is elementary and I did not have to use trigonometry until the very last step.



WLOG, we can assume that $A(0,0)$, $B(0, 1)$, $C(x_C,y_C)$, $D(x_D,y_D)$, $P(x_P,y_P)$:



a = {0, 0}; b = {0, 1}; c = {xc, yc}; d = {xd, yd}; p = {xp, yp};


We need just two functions. The first one calculates dot product of two vectors:



dotProduct[a_, b_] := Sum[a[[i]] b[[i]], {i, 1, Length[a]}];


The second one is used to find the coordinates of projection of point P to line AB:



projection[a_, b_, p_] := Module[
{c, xc, yc, s, k},
c = {xc, yc};
s = Solve[{c - a == k (b - a),
dotProduct[b - a, c - p] == 0}, {xc, yc, k}];
Return[c /. s[[1]]];
];


That's all that we need. The rest is simple and completely straightforward. We are going to "read" the picture and calculate coordinates of all the points.



First, let's calculate coordinates of points $S,T,U,V,K,L:$



s = projection[a, b, p];
t = projection[c, d, p];
u = projection[a, d, p];
v = projection[b, c, p];
k = projection[a, c, p];
l = projection[b, d, p];


Coordinates of points $X,Y,Z$ are:



x = (s + t)/2;
y = (u + v)/2;
z = (k + l)/2;


We need two vectors: $vec{XY},vec{XZ}$:



xy = y - x;
xz = z - x;


And, finally, we are ready to calculate the angle $YXZ$ from the formula:



$cos^2angle YXZ=frac{(vec{XY} cdot vec{XZ})^2}{(vec{XY} cdot vec{XY})(vec{XZ} cdot vec{XZ})}$



...or in Mathematica:



cosXsquared = Together[dotProduct[xy, xz]^2/(dotProd[xy, xy] dotProduct[xz, xz])]


And the final result is:



$$cos^2angle YXZ=\frac{left({x_C}^2 {x_D}^2+{x_C}^2 {y_D}^2-{x_C}^2 {y_D}+{x_C} {x_D}+{x_D}^2 {y_C}^2-{x_D}^2 {y_C}+{y_C}^2 {y_D}^2-{y_C}^2 {y_D}-{y_C} {y_D}^2+{y_C} {y_D}right)^2}{left({x_C}^2+{y_C}^2right) left({x_C}^2+{y_C}^2-2 {y_C}+1right) left({x_D}^2+{y_D}^2right) left({x_D}^2+{y_D}^2-2 {y_D}+1right)}$$



Depsite the fact that $x_P,y_P$ can be easily observed in all intermediate results, the coordinates of point $P$ have magically disappeared from the final one.



In the same way you can prove that the other two angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ are independent from the location of point $P$.






share|cite|improve this answer






























    up vote
    4
    down vote













    Hint: One way to solution is with a use of a following lemma:



    Lemma: Let the points $M,N,T$ be fixed. Let $P$ be on a fixed (red) line $ell$ and let $X$ and $Y$ be an ortogonal projections of $P$ on line $MT$ and $TN$. Then the map $Xlongmapsto Y$ is a spiral similarity with a center at point $F$ which is an intersection point of circle $PXY$ with $ell$.



    enter image description here



    Proof: Since $angle PFT = angle PYT =90^{circ}$ we see that $F$ is a fixed point.
    Now since $$angle YXF = angle YTF =angle NTF = {rm fixed ;; angle}$$
    and $$angle YFX = angle YTX =angle NTM = {rm fixed ;; angle}$$
    the triangle $XYF$ has the same angles for all $P$ so the map $Xlongmapsto Y$ is a spiral similarity with rotational angle $angle MTN$ and center at $F$.



    Lemma 2: Say $Z$ is a midpoint of $XY$ from the previous lemma. Then the map $Xlongmapsto Z $ is also a spiral similarity (different one) with the same center.





    Idea how to finish: Clearly we have a spiral similarity $S_1$ which takes $Xmapsto Y$ and a spiral similarity $S_2$ which takes $Ymapsto Z$.



    So we have $$Xstackrel{S_1}{longmapsto}Y stackrel{S_2}{longmapsto}Z$$
    Now take another $X',Y',Z'$:



    $$X'stackrel{S_1}{longmapsto}Y' stackrel{S_2}{longmapsto}Z'$$



    I would like to show that there is a spiral similarity which takes $X$ to $X'$, $Y$ to $Y'$ and $Z$ to $Z'$ and this would prove the statement.



    Clearly there is a spiral similarity that takes $X$ to $X'$ and $Y$ to $Y'$ induced by $S_1$, but I don't know how to show that it takes also $Z$ to $Z'$.



    Actualy, this last claim is not quite true. I know that if $S_1$ and $S_2$ have the same center then we are done, and this is the thing I'm trying to figure out.






    share|cite|improve this answer



















    • 1




      Thank you. From these lemmas it can be seen that Z lies on a fixed line. But how can we progress from here?
      – watson
      yesterday






    • 1




      I' m still thinking how to finish this. I have an idea but not sure yet.
      – greedoid
      yesterday






    • 1




      Can you write your ideas here in the comment ? I will understand if you want to keep it secret.
      – watson
      yesterday






    • 1




      There is no secret. I just don't know how to finish it. I will edit my post.
      – greedoid
      yesterday






    • 1




      About the Idea, are $X,Y,Z$ the points of your lemma, or the midpoints from my problem? Moreover, the spiral similarities have the same centers.
      – watson
      yesterday




















    up vote
    3
    down vote













    Following is an algebraic proof of the statement. To make the algebra manageable. We will choose a coordinate system where $A$ is the origin and identify the euclidean plane with the complex plane.



    Let $p, z_1,z_2,z_3, u_1, v_1, w_1, w_2, w_3$ be the complex numbers corresponds to $P,
    B,C,D,S,T,X,Z,Y$
    respectively.



    Any line $ell subset mathbb{C}$ can be represented by a pair of complex number, a point $q in ell$ and a $t$ for its direction. Points on $ell$ has the form $q + lambda t$ for some real $lambda$. In order for this point to be the projection of $p$ on $ell$, we need



    $$Re( ( q + lambda t - p )bar{t}) = 0quadimpliesquadlambda = frac{Re((p - q)bar{t})}{tbar{t}}
    $$

    The projection of $p$ on line $ell$, let call it $pi_ell(p)$, will be given by the formula



    $$pi_{ell}(p) = q + frac{(p-q)bar{t} + (bar{p}-bar{q})t}{2bar{t}} = frac{q+p}{2} +frac12(bar{p} - bar{q})frac{t}{bar{t}}tag{*1a}$$



    In the special case that $q = 0$, this reduces to
    $$pi_{ell}(p) = frac{p}{2} + frac12bar{p}frac{t}{bar{t}}tag{*1b}$$



    Apply $(*1b)$ and $(*1a)$ to $S$ and $T$, we get



    $$u_1 = frac{p}{2} + frac12bar{p}frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1}
    quadtext{ and }quad
    v_1 = frac{p + z_2}{2} + frac12(bar{p} - bar{z}_2)frac{z_2 - z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}
    $$

    Combine them and simplify, we get
    $$
    w_1 = frac{u_1+v_1}{2} =
    frac{p}{2} + frac14bar{p}
    underbrace{left(frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1} + frac{z_2-z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}right)}_{A_1}
    +
    frac14
    underbrace{left(frac{z_3bar{z}_2 - z_2bar{z}_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}right)}_{B_1}$$

    Let's call the two coefficients in parentheses as $A_1$ and $B_1$. By similar argument,
    we can derive corresponding formula for $w_2$ and $w_3$. In general, we have



    $$w_i =
    frac{p}{2} + frac14bar{p} A_i + frac14 B_i
    quadtext{ where }quad
    begin{cases}
    displaystyle;A_i = frac{z_i}{bar{z}_i} + frac{z_j-z_k}{bar{z}_j - bar{z}_k}\
    displaystyle;B_i = frac{z_kbar{z}_j - z_jbar{z}_k}{bar{z}_j-bar{z}_k}
    end{cases}
    $$

    for $(i,j,k)$ running over cyclic permutations of $(1,2,3)$.



    Given any two triangle $M$, $N$ with vertices $m_1,m_2,m_3$ and $n_1,n_2,n_3$. They are similar (with matching angles) if they have the same cross-ratio



    $$frac{m_3-m_1}{m_2-m_1} = frac{n_3-n_1}{n_2 - n_1}$$



    In order for the angles of triangle $XYZ$ to be independent of $P$, we need the cross ratio



    $$frac{w_3 - w_1}{w_2-w_1}
    = frac{(A_3 - A_1)bar{p} + (B_3 - B_1)}{(A_2-A_1)bar{p} + (B_2-B_1)}$$

    to be independent of $p$. This is equivalent to



    $$frac{A_3-A_1}{A_2-A_1} = frac{B_3-B_1}{B_2-B_1}
    iff left|begin{matrix}A_3 - A_1 & B_3 - B_1 \ A_2 - A_1 & B_2 - B_1end{matrix}right| = 0$$

    At the end, it comes down whether following complicated determinant evaluates to zero
    $$
    left|largebegin{matrix}
    1 & frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1} + frac{z_2-z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}
    & frac{z_3bar{z}_2 - z_2bar{z}_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}\
    1 & frac{z_2}{bar{z}_2} + frac{z_3-z_1}{bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1}
    & frac{z_1bar{z}_3 - z_3bar{z}_1}{bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1} \
    1 & frac{z_3}{bar{z}_3} + frac{z_1-z_2}{bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2}
    & frac{z_2bar{z}_1 - z_1bar{z}_2}{bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2} \
    end{matrix}right|
    stackrel{?}{=} 0
    $$

    If one multiply
    first row by $bar{z}_1(bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3)$,
    second row by $bar{z}_2(bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1)$
    third row by $bar{z}_3(bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2)$
    and sum them together, one obtain an zero row!
    This means above determinant vanishes and the cross-ratio $frac{w_3 - w_1}{w_2-w_1}$ is independent of $p$.



    This verify the angles in $triangle XYZ$ doesn't depend on location of $P$.



    With help of an CAS, one also obtain



    $$frac{w_3-w_1}{w_2-w_1} = frac{A_3-A_1}{A_2-A_1} = frac{B_3-B_1}{B_2-B1}
    = frac{(bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1)bar{z}_2}{(bar{z}_2-bar{z}_1)bar{z}_3}$$



    The last expression is complex conjugate of a cross-ratio of the 4 numbers $(0,z_1,z_2,z_3)$. With this, we can deduce the angles of $triangle XYZ$
    from the angles among the sides/diagonals of quadrilateral $ABCD$.



    As an example, in the configuration below, we have



    $$angle ZXY (approx 13.97^circ) = angle CAD (approx 46.14^circ) - angle CBD (approx 32.17^circ)$$
    a triangle in a quadrilateral



    Please note that when quadrilateral $ABCD$ is cyclic, $angle CAD = angle CBD$. In such cases, triangle $XYZ$ degenerate into a line segment (as first pointed out by @g.kov in comment).



    I hope this can inspire someone to discover a more geometric proof of this (in particular, above relations among the angles).






    share|cite|improve this answer























      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      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',
      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
      });


      }
      });






      watson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2994899%2fangles-of-triangle-triangle-xyz-do-not-depend-on-the-position-of-point-p-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      5
      down vote













      Here is the proof using Mathematica and simple analytical geometry. In theory, you can do all this by hand, there is nothing special in it. But in real life, you need a computer.



      Math involved in the proof is elementary and I did not have to use trigonometry until the very last step.



      WLOG, we can assume that $A(0,0)$, $B(0, 1)$, $C(x_C,y_C)$, $D(x_D,y_D)$, $P(x_P,y_P)$:



      a = {0, 0}; b = {0, 1}; c = {xc, yc}; d = {xd, yd}; p = {xp, yp};


      We need just two functions. The first one calculates dot product of two vectors:



      dotProduct[a_, b_] := Sum[a[[i]] b[[i]], {i, 1, Length[a]}];


      The second one is used to find the coordinates of projection of point P to line AB:



      projection[a_, b_, p_] := Module[
      {c, xc, yc, s, k},
      c = {xc, yc};
      s = Solve[{c - a == k (b - a),
      dotProduct[b - a, c - p] == 0}, {xc, yc, k}];
      Return[c /. s[[1]]];
      ];


      That's all that we need. The rest is simple and completely straightforward. We are going to "read" the picture and calculate coordinates of all the points.



      First, let's calculate coordinates of points $S,T,U,V,K,L:$



      s = projection[a, b, p];
      t = projection[c, d, p];
      u = projection[a, d, p];
      v = projection[b, c, p];
      k = projection[a, c, p];
      l = projection[b, d, p];


      Coordinates of points $X,Y,Z$ are:



      x = (s + t)/2;
      y = (u + v)/2;
      z = (k + l)/2;


      We need two vectors: $vec{XY},vec{XZ}$:



      xy = y - x;
      xz = z - x;


      And, finally, we are ready to calculate the angle $YXZ$ from the formula:



      $cos^2angle YXZ=frac{(vec{XY} cdot vec{XZ})^2}{(vec{XY} cdot vec{XY})(vec{XZ} cdot vec{XZ})}$



      ...or in Mathematica:



      cosXsquared = Together[dotProduct[xy, xz]^2/(dotProd[xy, xy] dotProduct[xz, xz])]


      And the final result is:



      $$cos^2angle YXZ=\frac{left({x_C}^2 {x_D}^2+{x_C}^2 {y_D}^2-{x_C}^2 {y_D}+{x_C} {x_D}+{x_D}^2 {y_C}^2-{x_D}^2 {y_C}+{y_C}^2 {y_D}^2-{y_C}^2 {y_D}-{y_C} {y_D}^2+{y_C} {y_D}right)^2}{left({x_C}^2+{y_C}^2right) left({x_C}^2+{y_C}^2-2 {y_C}+1right) left({x_D}^2+{y_D}^2right) left({x_D}^2+{y_D}^2-2 {y_D}+1right)}$$



      Depsite the fact that $x_P,y_P$ can be easily observed in all intermediate results, the coordinates of point $P$ have magically disappeared from the final one.



      In the same way you can prove that the other two angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ are independent from the location of point $P$.






      share|cite|improve this answer



























        up vote
        5
        down vote













        Here is the proof using Mathematica and simple analytical geometry. In theory, you can do all this by hand, there is nothing special in it. But in real life, you need a computer.



        Math involved in the proof is elementary and I did not have to use trigonometry until the very last step.



        WLOG, we can assume that $A(0,0)$, $B(0, 1)$, $C(x_C,y_C)$, $D(x_D,y_D)$, $P(x_P,y_P)$:



        a = {0, 0}; b = {0, 1}; c = {xc, yc}; d = {xd, yd}; p = {xp, yp};


        We need just two functions. The first one calculates dot product of two vectors:



        dotProduct[a_, b_] := Sum[a[[i]] b[[i]], {i, 1, Length[a]}];


        The second one is used to find the coordinates of projection of point P to line AB:



        projection[a_, b_, p_] := Module[
        {c, xc, yc, s, k},
        c = {xc, yc};
        s = Solve[{c - a == k (b - a),
        dotProduct[b - a, c - p] == 0}, {xc, yc, k}];
        Return[c /. s[[1]]];
        ];


        That's all that we need. The rest is simple and completely straightforward. We are going to "read" the picture and calculate coordinates of all the points.



        First, let's calculate coordinates of points $S,T,U,V,K,L:$



        s = projection[a, b, p];
        t = projection[c, d, p];
        u = projection[a, d, p];
        v = projection[b, c, p];
        k = projection[a, c, p];
        l = projection[b, d, p];


        Coordinates of points $X,Y,Z$ are:



        x = (s + t)/2;
        y = (u + v)/2;
        z = (k + l)/2;


        We need two vectors: $vec{XY},vec{XZ}$:



        xy = y - x;
        xz = z - x;


        And, finally, we are ready to calculate the angle $YXZ$ from the formula:



        $cos^2angle YXZ=frac{(vec{XY} cdot vec{XZ})^2}{(vec{XY} cdot vec{XY})(vec{XZ} cdot vec{XZ})}$



        ...or in Mathematica:



        cosXsquared = Together[dotProduct[xy, xz]^2/(dotProd[xy, xy] dotProduct[xz, xz])]


        And the final result is:



        $$cos^2angle YXZ=\frac{left({x_C}^2 {x_D}^2+{x_C}^2 {y_D}^2-{x_C}^2 {y_D}+{x_C} {x_D}+{x_D}^2 {y_C}^2-{x_D}^2 {y_C}+{y_C}^2 {y_D}^2-{y_C}^2 {y_D}-{y_C} {y_D}^2+{y_C} {y_D}right)^2}{left({x_C}^2+{y_C}^2right) left({x_C}^2+{y_C}^2-2 {y_C}+1right) left({x_D}^2+{y_D}^2right) left({x_D}^2+{y_D}^2-2 {y_D}+1right)}$$



        Depsite the fact that $x_P,y_P$ can be easily observed in all intermediate results, the coordinates of point $P$ have magically disappeared from the final one.



        In the same way you can prove that the other two angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ are independent from the location of point $P$.






        share|cite|improve this answer

























          up vote
          5
          down vote










          up vote
          5
          down vote









          Here is the proof using Mathematica and simple analytical geometry. In theory, you can do all this by hand, there is nothing special in it. But in real life, you need a computer.



          Math involved in the proof is elementary and I did not have to use trigonometry until the very last step.



          WLOG, we can assume that $A(0,0)$, $B(0, 1)$, $C(x_C,y_C)$, $D(x_D,y_D)$, $P(x_P,y_P)$:



          a = {0, 0}; b = {0, 1}; c = {xc, yc}; d = {xd, yd}; p = {xp, yp};


          We need just two functions. The first one calculates dot product of two vectors:



          dotProduct[a_, b_] := Sum[a[[i]] b[[i]], {i, 1, Length[a]}];


          The second one is used to find the coordinates of projection of point P to line AB:



          projection[a_, b_, p_] := Module[
          {c, xc, yc, s, k},
          c = {xc, yc};
          s = Solve[{c - a == k (b - a),
          dotProduct[b - a, c - p] == 0}, {xc, yc, k}];
          Return[c /. s[[1]]];
          ];


          That's all that we need. The rest is simple and completely straightforward. We are going to "read" the picture and calculate coordinates of all the points.



          First, let's calculate coordinates of points $S,T,U,V,K,L:$



          s = projection[a, b, p];
          t = projection[c, d, p];
          u = projection[a, d, p];
          v = projection[b, c, p];
          k = projection[a, c, p];
          l = projection[b, d, p];


          Coordinates of points $X,Y,Z$ are:



          x = (s + t)/2;
          y = (u + v)/2;
          z = (k + l)/2;


          We need two vectors: $vec{XY},vec{XZ}$:



          xy = y - x;
          xz = z - x;


          And, finally, we are ready to calculate the angle $YXZ$ from the formula:



          $cos^2angle YXZ=frac{(vec{XY} cdot vec{XZ})^2}{(vec{XY} cdot vec{XY})(vec{XZ} cdot vec{XZ})}$



          ...or in Mathematica:



          cosXsquared = Together[dotProduct[xy, xz]^2/(dotProd[xy, xy] dotProduct[xz, xz])]


          And the final result is:



          $$cos^2angle YXZ=\frac{left({x_C}^2 {x_D}^2+{x_C}^2 {y_D}^2-{x_C}^2 {y_D}+{x_C} {x_D}+{x_D}^2 {y_C}^2-{x_D}^2 {y_C}+{y_C}^2 {y_D}^2-{y_C}^2 {y_D}-{y_C} {y_D}^2+{y_C} {y_D}right)^2}{left({x_C}^2+{y_C}^2right) left({x_C}^2+{y_C}^2-2 {y_C}+1right) left({x_D}^2+{y_D}^2right) left({x_D}^2+{y_D}^2-2 {y_D}+1right)}$$



          Depsite the fact that $x_P,y_P$ can be easily observed in all intermediate results, the coordinates of point $P$ have magically disappeared from the final one.



          In the same way you can prove that the other two angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ are independent from the location of point $P$.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Here is the proof using Mathematica and simple analytical geometry. In theory, you can do all this by hand, there is nothing special in it. But in real life, you need a computer.



          Math involved in the proof is elementary and I did not have to use trigonometry until the very last step.



          WLOG, we can assume that $A(0,0)$, $B(0, 1)$, $C(x_C,y_C)$, $D(x_D,y_D)$, $P(x_P,y_P)$:



          a = {0, 0}; b = {0, 1}; c = {xc, yc}; d = {xd, yd}; p = {xp, yp};


          We need just two functions. The first one calculates dot product of two vectors:



          dotProduct[a_, b_] := Sum[a[[i]] b[[i]], {i, 1, Length[a]}];


          The second one is used to find the coordinates of projection of point P to line AB:



          projection[a_, b_, p_] := Module[
          {c, xc, yc, s, k},
          c = {xc, yc};
          s = Solve[{c - a == k (b - a),
          dotProduct[b - a, c - p] == 0}, {xc, yc, k}];
          Return[c /. s[[1]]];
          ];


          That's all that we need. The rest is simple and completely straightforward. We are going to "read" the picture and calculate coordinates of all the points.



          First, let's calculate coordinates of points $S,T,U,V,K,L:$



          s = projection[a, b, p];
          t = projection[c, d, p];
          u = projection[a, d, p];
          v = projection[b, c, p];
          k = projection[a, c, p];
          l = projection[b, d, p];


          Coordinates of points $X,Y,Z$ are:



          x = (s + t)/2;
          y = (u + v)/2;
          z = (k + l)/2;


          We need two vectors: $vec{XY},vec{XZ}$:



          xy = y - x;
          xz = z - x;


          And, finally, we are ready to calculate the angle $YXZ$ from the formula:



          $cos^2angle YXZ=frac{(vec{XY} cdot vec{XZ})^2}{(vec{XY} cdot vec{XY})(vec{XZ} cdot vec{XZ})}$



          ...or in Mathematica:



          cosXsquared = Together[dotProduct[xy, xz]^2/(dotProd[xy, xy] dotProduct[xz, xz])]


          And the final result is:



          $$cos^2angle YXZ=\frac{left({x_C}^2 {x_D}^2+{x_C}^2 {y_D}^2-{x_C}^2 {y_D}+{x_C} {x_D}+{x_D}^2 {y_C}^2-{x_D}^2 {y_C}+{y_C}^2 {y_D}^2-{y_C}^2 {y_D}-{y_C} {y_D}^2+{y_C} {y_D}right)^2}{left({x_C}^2+{y_C}^2right) left({x_C}^2+{y_C}^2-2 {y_C}+1right) left({x_D}^2+{y_D}^2right) left({x_D}^2+{y_D}^2-2 {y_D}+1right)}$$



          Depsite the fact that $x_P,y_P$ can be easily observed in all intermediate results, the coordinates of point $P$ have magically disappeared from the final one.



          In the same way you can prove that the other two angles of triangle $triangle XYZ$ are independent from the location of point $P$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 2 days ago

























          answered 2 days ago









          Oldboy

          5,3731527




          5,3731527






















              up vote
              4
              down vote













              Hint: One way to solution is with a use of a following lemma:



              Lemma: Let the points $M,N,T$ be fixed. Let $P$ be on a fixed (red) line $ell$ and let $X$ and $Y$ be an ortogonal projections of $P$ on line $MT$ and $TN$. Then the map $Xlongmapsto Y$ is a spiral similarity with a center at point $F$ which is an intersection point of circle $PXY$ with $ell$.



              enter image description here



              Proof: Since $angle PFT = angle PYT =90^{circ}$ we see that $F$ is a fixed point.
              Now since $$angle YXF = angle YTF =angle NTF = {rm fixed ;; angle}$$
              and $$angle YFX = angle YTX =angle NTM = {rm fixed ;; angle}$$
              the triangle $XYF$ has the same angles for all $P$ so the map $Xlongmapsto Y$ is a spiral similarity with rotational angle $angle MTN$ and center at $F$.



              Lemma 2: Say $Z$ is a midpoint of $XY$ from the previous lemma. Then the map $Xlongmapsto Z $ is also a spiral similarity (different one) with the same center.





              Idea how to finish: Clearly we have a spiral similarity $S_1$ which takes $Xmapsto Y$ and a spiral similarity $S_2$ which takes $Ymapsto Z$.



              So we have $$Xstackrel{S_1}{longmapsto}Y stackrel{S_2}{longmapsto}Z$$
              Now take another $X',Y',Z'$:



              $$X'stackrel{S_1}{longmapsto}Y' stackrel{S_2}{longmapsto}Z'$$



              I would like to show that there is a spiral similarity which takes $X$ to $X'$, $Y$ to $Y'$ and $Z$ to $Z'$ and this would prove the statement.



              Clearly there is a spiral similarity that takes $X$ to $X'$ and $Y$ to $Y'$ induced by $S_1$, but I don't know how to show that it takes also $Z$ to $Z'$.



              Actualy, this last claim is not quite true. I know that if $S_1$ and $S_2$ have the same center then we are done, and this is the thing I'm trying to figure out.






              share|cite|improve this answer



















              • 1




                Thank you. From these lemmas it can be seen that Z lies on a fixed line. But how can we progress from here?
                – watson
                yesterday






              • 1




                I' m still thinking how to finish this. I have an idea but not sure yet.
                – greedoid
                yesterday






              • 1




                Can you write your ideas here in the comment ? I will understand if you want to keep it secret.
                – watson
                yesterday






              • 1




                There is no secret. I just don't know how to finish it. I will edit my post.
                – greedoid
                yesterday






              • 1




                About the Idea, are $X,Y,Z$ the points of your lemma, or the midpoints from my problem? Moreover, the spiral similarities have the same centers.
                – watson
                yesterday

















              up vote
              4
              down vote













              Hint: One way to solution is with a use of a following lemma:



              Lemma: Let the points $M,N,T$ be fixed. Let $P$ be on a fixed (red) line $ell$ and let $X$ and $Y$ be an ortogonal projections of $P$ on line $MT$ and $TN$. Then the map $Xlongmapsto Y$ is a spiral similarity with a center at point $F$ which is an intersection point of circle $PXY$ with $ell$.



              enter image description here



              Proof: Since $angle PFT = angle PYT =90^{circ}$ we see that $F$ is a fixed point.
              Now since $$angle YXF = angle YTF =angle NTF = {rm fixed ;; angle}$$
              and $$angle YFX = angle YTX =angle NTM = {rm fixed ;; angle}$$
              the triangle $XYF$ has the same angles for all $P$ so the map $Xlongmapsto Y$ is a spiral similarity with rotational angle $angle MTN$ and center at $F$.



              Lemma 2: Say $Z$ is a midpoint of $XY$ from the previous lemma. Then the map $Xlongmapsto Z $ is also a spiral similarity (different one) with the same center.





              Idea how to finish: Clearly we have a spiral similarity $S_1$ which takes $Xmapsto Y$ and a spiral similarity $S_2$ which takes $Ymapsto Z$.



              So we have $$Xstackrel{S_1}{longmapsto}Y stackrel{S_2}{longmapsto}Z$$
              Now take another $X',Y',Z'$:



              $$X'stackrel{S_1}{longmapsto}Y' stackrel{S_2}{longmapsto}Z'$$



              I would like to show that there is a spiral similarity which takes $X$ to $X'$, $Y$ to $Y'$ and $Z$ to $Z'$ and this would prove the statement.



              Clearly there is a spiral similarity that takes $X$ to $X'$ and $Y$ to $Y'$ induced by $S_1$, but I don't know how to show that it takes also $Z$ to $Z'$.



              Actualy, this last claim is not quite true. I know that if $S_1$ and $S_2$ have the same center then we are done, and this is the thing I'm trying to figure out.






              share|cite|improve this answer



















              • 1




                Thank you. From these lemmas it can be seen that Z lies on a fixed line. But how can we progress from here?
                – watson
                yesterday






              • 1




                I' m still thinking how to finish this. I have an idea but not sure yet.
                – greedoid
                yesterday






              • 1




                Can you write your ideas here in the comment ? I will understand if you want to keep it secret.
                – watson
                yesterday






              • 1




                There is no secret. I just don't know how to finish it. I will edit my post.
                – greedoid
                yesterday






              • 1




                About the Idea, are $X,Y,Z$ the points of your lemma, or the midpoints from my problem? Moreover, the spiral similarities have the same centers.
                – watson
                yesterday















              up vote
              4
              down vote










              up vote
              4
              down vote









              Hint: One way to solution is with a use of a following lemma:



              Lemma: Let the points $M,N,T$ be fixed. Let $P$ be on a fixed (red) line $ell$ and let $X$ and $Y$ be an ortogonal projections of $P$ on line $MT$ and $TN$. Then the map $Xlongmapsto Y$ is a spiral similarity with a center at point $F$ which is an intersection point of circle $PXY$ with $ell$.



              enter image description here



              Proof: Since $angle PFT = angle PYT =90^{circ}$ we see that $F$ is a fixed point.
              Now since $$angle YXF = angle YTF =angle NTF = {rm fixed ;; angle}$$
              and $$angle YFX = angle YTX =angle NTM = {rm fixed ;; angle}$$
              the triangle $XYF$ has the same angles for all $P$ so the map $Xlongmapsto Y$ is a spiral similarity with rotational angle $angle MTN$ and center at $F$.



              Lemma 2: Say $Z$ is a midpoint of $XY$ from the previous lemma. Then the map $Xlongmapsto Z $ is also a spiral similarity (different one) with the same center.





              Idea how to finish: Clearly we have a spiral similarity $S_1$ which takes $Xmapsto Y$ and a spiral similarity $S_2$ which takes $Ymapsto Z$.



              So we have $$Xstackrel{S_1}{longmapsto}Y stackrel{S_2}{longmapsto}Z$$
              Now take another $X',Y',Z'$:



              $$X'stackrel{S_1}{longmapsto}Y' stackrel{S_2}{longmapsto}Z'$$



              I would like to show that there is a spiral similarity which takes $X$ to $X'$, $Y$ to $Y'$ and $Z$ to $Z'$ and this would prove the statement.



              Clearly there is a spiral similarity that takes $X$ to $X'$ and $Y$ to $Y'$ induced by $S_1$, but I don't know how to show that it takes also $Z$ to $Z'$.



              Actualy, this last claim is not quite true. I know that if $S_1$ and $S_2$ have the same center then we are done, and this is the thing I'm trying to figure out.






              share|cite|improve this answer














              Hint: One way to solution is with a use of a following lemma:



              Lemma: Let the points $M,N,T$ be fixed. Let $P$ be on a fixed (red) line $ell$ and let $X$ and $Y$ be an ortogonal projections of $P$ on line $MT$ and $TN$. Then the map $Xlongmapsto Y$ is a spiral similarity with a center at point $F$ which is an intersection point of circle $PXY$ with $ell$.



              enter image description here



              Proof: Since $angle PFT = angle PYT =90^{circ}$ we see that $F$ is a fixed point.
              Now since $$angle YXF = angle YTF =angle NTF = {rm fixed ;; angle}$$
              and $$angle YFX = angle YTX =angle NTM = {rm fixed ;; angle}$$
              the triangle $XYF$ has the same angles for all $P$ so the map $Xlongmapsto Y$ is a spiral similarity with rotational angle $angle MTN$ and center at $F$.



              Lemma 2: Say $Z$ is a midpoint of $XY$ from the previous lemma. Then the map $Xlongmapsto Z $ is also a spiral similarity (different one) with the same center.





              Idea how to finish: Clearly we have a spiral similarity $S_1$ which takes $Xmapsto Y$ and a spiral similarity $S_2$ which takes $Ymapsto Z$.



              So we have $$Xstackrel{S_1}{longmapsto}Y stackrel{S_2}{longmapsto}Z$$
              Now take another $X',Y',Z'$:



              $$X'stackrel{S_1}{longmapsto}Y' stackrel{S_2}{longmapsto}Z'$$



              I would like to show that there is a spiral similarity which takes $X$ to $X'$, $Y$ to $Y'$ and $Z$ to $Z'$ and this would prove the statement.



              Clearly there is a spiral similarity that takes $X$ to $X'$ and $Y$ to $Y'$ induced by $S_1$, but I don't know how to show that it takes also $Z$ to $Z'$.



              Actualy, this last claim is not quite true. I know that if $S_1$ and $S_2$ have the same center then we are done, and this is the thing I'm trying to figure out.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited yesterday

























              answered yesterday









              greedoid

              33.9k114488




              33.9k114488








              • 1




                Thank you. From these lemmas it can be seen that Z lies on a fixed line. But how can we progress from here?
                – watson
                yesterday






              • 1




                I' m still thinking how to finish this. I have an idea but not sure yet.
                – greedoid
                yesterday






              • 1




                Can you write your ideas here in the comment ? I will understand if you want to keep it secret.
                – watson
                yesterday






              • 1




                There is no secret. I just don't know how to finish it. I will edit my post.
                – greedoid
                yesterday






              • 1




                About the Idea, are $X,Y,Z$ the points of your lemma, or the midpoints from my problem? Moreover, the spiral similarities have the same centers.
                – watson
                yesterday
















              • 1




                Thank you. From these lemmas it can be seen that Z lies on a fixed line. But how can we progress from here?
                – watson
                yesterday






              • 1




                I' m still thinking how to finish this. I have an idea but not sure yet.
                – greedoid
                yesterday






              • 1




                Can you write your ideas here in the comment ? I will understand if you want to keep it secret.
                – watson
                yesterday






              • 1




                There is no secret. I just don't know how to finish it. I will edit my post.
                – greedoid
                yesterday






              • 1




                About the Idea, are $X,Y,Z$ the points of your lemma, or the midpoints from my problem? Moreover, the spiral similarities have the same centers.
                – watson
                yesterday










              1




              1




              Thank you. From these lemmas it can be seen that Z lies on a fixed line. But how can we progress from here?
              – watson
              yesterday




              Thank you. From these lemmas it can be seen that Z lies on a fixed line. But how can we progress from here?
              – watson
              yesterday




              1




              1




              I' m still thinking how to finish this. I have an idea but not sure yet.
              – greedoid
              yesterday




              I' m still thinking how to finish this. I have an idea but not sure yet.
              – greedoid
              yesterday




              1




              1




              Can you write your ideas here in the comment ? I will understand if you want to keep it secret.
              – watson
              yesterday




              Can you write your ideas here in the comment ? I will understand if you want to keep it secret.
              – watson
              yesterday




              1




              1




              There is no secret. I just don't know how to finish it. I will edit my post.
              – greedoid
              yesterday




              There is no secret. I just don't know how to finish it. I will edit my post.
              – greedoid
              yesterday




              1




              1




              About the Idea, are $X,Y,Z$ the points of your lemma, or the midpoints from my problem? Moreover, the spiral similarities have the same centers.
              – watson
              yesterday






              About the Idea, are $X,Y,Z$ the points of your lemma, or the midpoints from my problem? Moreover, the spiral similarities have the same centers.
              – watson
              yesterday












              up vote
              3
              down vote













              Following is an algebraic proof of the statement. To make the algebra manageable. We will choose a coordinate system where $A$ is the origin and identify the euclidean plane with the complex plane.



              Let $p, z_1,z_2,z_3, u_1, v_1, w_1, w_2, w_3$ be the complex numbers corresponds to $P,
              B,C,D,S,T,X,Z,Y$
              respectively.



              Any line $ell subset mathbb{C}$ can be represented by a pair of complex number, a point $q in ell$ and a $t$ for its direction. Points on $ell$ has the form $q + lambda t$ for some real $lambda$. In order for this point to be the projection of $p$ on $ell$, we need



              $$Re( ( q + lambda t - p )bar{t}) = 0quadimpliesquadlambda = frac{Re((p - q)bar{t})}{tbar{t}}
              $$

              The projection of $p$ on line $ell$, let call it $pi_ell(p)$, will be given by the formula



              $$pi_{ell}(p) = q + frac{(p-q)bar{t} + (bar{p}-bar{q})t}{2bar{t}} = frac{q+p}{2} +frac12(bar{p} - bar{q})frac{t}{bar{t}}tag{*1a}$$



              In the special case that $q = 0$, this reduces to
              $$pi_{ell}(p) = frac{p}{2} + frac12bar{p}frac{t}{bar{t}}tag{*1b}$$



              Apply $(*1b)$ and $(*1a)$ to $S$ and $T$, we get



              $$u_1 = frac{p}{2} + frac12bar{p}frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1}
              quadtext{ and }quad
              v_1 = frac{p + z_2}{2} + frac12(bar{p} - bar{z}_2)frac{z_2 - z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}
              $$

              Combine them and simplify, we get
              $$
              w_1 = frac{u_1+v_1}{2} =
              frac{p}{2} + frac14bar{p}
              underbrace{left(frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1} + frac{z_2-z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}right)}_{A_1}
              +
              frac14
              underbrace{left(frac{z_3bar{z}_2 - z_2bar{z}_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}right)}_{B_1}$$

              Let's call the two coefficients in parentheses as $A_1$ and $B_1$. By similar argument,
              we can derive corresponding formula for $w_2$ and $w_3$. In general, we have



              $$w_i =
              frac{p}{2} + frac14bar{p} A_i + frac14 B_i
              quadtext{ where }quad
              begin{cases}
              displaystyle;A_i = frac{z_i}{bar{z}_i} + frac{z_j-z_k}{bar{z}_j - bar{z}_k}\
              displaystyle;B_i = frac{z_kbar{z}_j - z_jbar{z}_k}{bar{z}_j-bar{z}_k}
              end{cases}
              $$

              for $(i,j,k)$ running over cyclic permutations of $(1,2,3)$.



              Given any two triangle $M$, $N$ with vertices $m_1,m_2,m_3$ and $n_1,n_2,n_3$. They are similar (with matching angles) if they have the same cross-ratio



              $$frac{m_3-m_1}{m_2-m_1} = frac{n_3-n_1}{n_2 - n_1}$$



              In order for the angles of triangle $XYZ$ to be independent of $P$, we need the cross ratio



              $$frac{w_3 - w_1}{w_2-w_1}
              = frac{(A_3 - A_1)bar{p} + (B_3 - B_1)}{(A_2-A_1)bar{p} + (B_2-B_1)}$$

              to be independent of $p$. This is equivalent to



              $$frac{A_3-A_1}{A_2-A_1} = frac{B_3-B_1}{B_2-B_1}
              iff left|begin{matrix}A_3 - A_1 & B_3 - B_1 \ A_2 - A_1 & B_2 - B_1end{matrix}right| = 0$$

              At the end, it comes down whether following complicated determinant evaluates to zero
              $$
              left|largebegin{matrix}
              1 & frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1} + frac{z_2-z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}
              & frac{z_3bar{z}_2 - z_2bar{z}_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}\
              1 & frac{z_2}{bar{z}_2} + frac{z_3-z_1}{bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1}
              & frac{z_1bar{z}_3 - z_3bar{z}_1}{bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1} \
              1 & frac{z_3}{bar{z}_3} + frac{z_1-z_2}{bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2}
              & frac{z_2bar{z}_1 - z_1bar{z}_2}{bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2} \
              end{matrix}right|
              stackrel{?}{=} 0
              $$

              If one multiply
              first row by $bar{z}_1(bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3)$,
              second row by $bar{z}_2(bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1)$
              third row by $bar{z}_3(bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2)$
              and sum them together, one obtain an zero row!
              This means above determinant vanishes and the cross-ratio $frac{w_3 - w_1}{w_2-w_1}$ is independent of $p$.



              This verify the angles in $triangle XYZ$ doesn't depend on location of $P$.



              With help of an CAS, one also obtain



              $$frac{w_3-w_1}{w_2-w_1} = frac{A_3-A_1}{A_2-A_1} = frac{B_3-B_1}{B_2-B1}
              = frac{(bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1)bar{z}_2}{(bar{z}_2-bar{z}_1)bar{z}_3}$$



              The last expression is complex conjugate of a cross-ratio of the 4 numbers $(0,z_1,z_2,z_3)$. With this, we can deduce the angles of $triangle XYZ$
              from the angles among the sides/diagonals of quadrilateral $ABCD$.



              As an example, in the configuration below, we have



              $$angle ZXY (approx 13.97^circ) = angle CAD (approx 46.14^circ) - angle CBD (approx 32.17^circ)$$
              a triangle in a quadrilateral



              Please note that when quadrilateral $ABCD$ is cyclic, $angle CAD = angle CBD$. In such cases, triangle $XYZ$ degenerate into a line segment (as first pointed out by @g.kov in comment).



              I hope this can inspire someone to discover a more geometric proof of this (in particular, above relations among the angles).






              share|cite|improve this answer



























                up vote
                3
                down vote













                Following is an algebraic proof of the statement. To make the algebra manageable. We will choose a coordinate system where $A$ is the origin and identify the euclidean plane with the complex plane.



                Let $p, z_1,z_2,z_3, u_1, v_1, w_1, w_2, w_3$ be the complex numbers corresponds to $P,
                B,C,D,S,T,X,Z,Y$
                respectively.



                Any line $ell subset mathbb{C}$ can be represented by a pair of complex number, a point $q in ell$ and a $t$ for its direction. Points on $ell$ has the form $q + lambda t$ for some real $lambda$. In order for this point to be the projection of $p$ on $ell$, we need



                $$Re( ( q + lambda t - p )bar{t}) = 0quadimpliesquadlambda = frac{Re((p - q)bar{t})}{tbar{t}}
                $$

                The projection of $p$ on line $ell$, let call it $pi_ell(p)$, will be given by the formula



                $$pi_{ell}(p) = q + frac{(p-q)bar{t} + (bar{p}-bar{q})t}{2bar{t}} = frac{q+p}{2} +frac12(bar{p} - bar{q})frac{t}{bar{t}}tag{*1a}$$



                In the special case that $q = 0$, this reduces to
                $$pi_{ell}(p) = frac{p}{2} + frac12bar{p}frac{t}{bar{t}}tag{*1b}$$



                Apply $(*1b)$ and $(*1a)$ to $S$ and $T$, we get



                $$u_1 = frac{p}{2} + frac12bar{p}frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1}
                quadtext{ and }quad
                v_1 = frac{p + z_2}{2} + frac12(bar{p} - bar{z}_2)frac{z_2 - z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}
                $$

                Combine them and simplify, we get
                $$
                w_1 = frac{u_1+v_1}{2} =
                frac{p}{2} + frac14bar{p}
                underbrace{left(frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1} + frac{z_2-z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}right)}_{A_1}
                +
                frac14
                underbrace{left(frac{z_3bar{z}_2 - z_2bar{z}_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}right)}_{B_1}$$

                Let's call the two coefficients in parentheses as $A_1$ and $B_1$. By similar argument,
                we can derive corresponding formula for $w_2$ and $w_3$. In general, we have



                $$w_i =
                frac{p}{2} + frac14bar{p} A_i + frac14 B_i
                quadtext{ where }quad
                begin{cases}
                displaystyle;A_i = frac{z_i}{bar{z}_i} + frac{z_j-z_k}{bar{z}_j - bar{z}_k}\
                displaystyle;B_i = frac{z_kbar{z}_j - z_jbar{z}_k}{bar{z}_j-bar{z}_k}
                end{cases}
                $$

                for $(i,j,k)$ running over cyclic permutations of $(1,2,3)$.



                Given any two triangle $M$, $N$ with vertices $m_1,m_2,m_3$ and $n_1,n_2,n_3$. They are similar (with matching angles) if they have the same cross-ratio



                $$frac{m_3-m_1}{m_2-m_1} = frac{n_3-n_1}{n_2 - n_1}$$



                In order for the angles of triangle $XYZ$ to be independent of $P$, we need the cross ratio



                $$frac{w_3 - w_1}{w_2-w_1}
                = frac{(A_3 - A_1)bar{p} + (B_3 - B_1)}{(A_2-A_1)bar{p} + (B_2-B_1)}$$

                to be independent of $p$. This is equivalent to



                $$frac{A_3-A_1}{A_2-A_1} = frac{B_3-B_1}{B_2-B_1}
                iff left|begin{matrix}A_3 - A_1 & B_3 - B_1 \ A_2 - A_1 & B_2 - B_1end{matrix}right| = 0$$

                At the end, it comes down whether following complicated determinant evaluates to zero
                $$
                left|largebegin{matrix}
                1 & frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1} + frac{z_2-z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}
                & frac{z_3bar{z}_2 - z_2bar{z}_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}\
                1 & frac{z_2}{bar{z}_2} + frac{z_3-z_1}{bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1}
                & frac{z_1bar{z}_3 - z_3bar{z}_1}{bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1} \
                1 & frac{z_3}{bar{z}_3} + frac{z_1-z_2}{bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2}
                & frac{z_2bar{z}_1 - z_1bar{z}_2}{bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2} \
                end{matrix}right|
                stackrel{?}{=} 0
                $$

                If one multiply
                first row by $bar{z}_1(bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3)$,
                second row by $bar{z}_2(bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1)$
                third row by $bar{z}_3(bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2)$
                and sum them together, one obtain an zero row!
                This means above determinant vanishes and the cross-ratio $frac{w_3 - w_1}{w_2-w_1}$ is independent of $p$.



                This verify the angles in $triangle XYZ$ doesn't depend on location of $P$.



                With help of an CAS, one also obtain



                $$frac{w_3-w_1}{w_2-w_1} = frac{A_3-A_1}{A_2-A_1} = frac{B_3-B_1}{B_2-B1}
                = frac{(bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1)bar{z}_2}{(bar{z}_2-bar{z}_1)bar{z}_3}$$



                The last expression is complex conjugate of a cross-ratio of the 4 numbers $(0,z_1,z_2,z_3)$. With this, we can deduce the angles of $triangle XYZ$
                from the angles among the sides/diagonals of quadrilateral $ABCD$.



                As an example, in the configuration below, we have



                $$angle ZXY (approx 13.97^circ) = angle CAD (approx 46.14^circ) - angle CBD (approx 32.17^circ)$$
                a triangle in a quadrilateral



                Please note that when quadrilateral $ABCD$ is cyclic, $angle CAD = angle CBD$. In such cases, triangle $XYZ$ degenerate into a line segment (as first pointed out by @g.kov in comment).



                I hope this can inspire someone to discover a more geometric proof of this (in particular, above relations among the angles).






                share|cite|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote









                  Following is an algebraic proof of the statement. To make the algebra manageable. We will choose a coordinate system where $A$ is the origin and identify the euclidean plane with the complex plane.



                  Let $p, z_1,z_2,z_3, u_1, v_1, w_1, w_2, w_3$ be the complex numbers corresponds to $P,
                  B,C,D,S,T,X,Z,Y$
                  respectively.



                  Any line $ell subset mathbb{C}$ can be represented by a pair of complex number, a point $q in ell$ and a $t$ for its direction. Points on $ell$ has the form $q + lambda t$ for some real $lambda$. In order for this point to be the projection of $p$ on $ell$, we need



                  $$Re( ( q + lambda t - p )bar{t}) = 0quadimpliesquadlambda = frac{Re((p - q)bar{t})}{tbar{t}}
                  $$

                  The projection of $p$ on line $ell$, let call it $pi_ell(p)$, will be given by the formula



                  $$pi_{ell}(p) = q + frac{(p-q)bar{t} + (bar{p}-bar{q})t}{2bar{t}} = frac{q+p}{2} +frac12(bar{p} - bar{q})frac{t}{bar{t}}tag{*1a}$$



                  In the special case that $q = 0$, this reduces to
                  $$pi_{ell}(p) = frac{p}{2} + frac12bar{p}frac{t}{bar{t}}tag{*1b}$$



                  Apply $(*1b)$ and $(*1a)$ to $S$ and $T$, we get



                  $$u_1 = frac{p}{2} + frac12bar{p}frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1}
                  quadtext{ and }quad
                  v_1 = frac{p + z_2}{2} + frac12(bar{p} - bar{z}_2)frac{z_2 - z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}
                  $$

                  Combine them and simplify, we get
                  $$
                  w_1 = frac{u_1+v_1}{2} =
                  frac{p}{2} + frac14bar{p}
                  underbrace{left(frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1} + frac{z_2-z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}right)}_{A_1}
                  +
                  frac14
                  underbrace{left(frac{z_3bar{z}_2 - z_2bar{z}_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}right)}_{B_1}$$

                  Let's call the two coefficients in parentheses as $A_1$ and $B_1$. By similar argument,
                  we can derive corresponding formula for $w_2$ and $w_3$. In general, we have



                  $$w_i =
                  frac{p}{2} + frac14bar{p} A_i + frac14 B_i
                  quadtext{ where }quad
                  begin{cases}
                  displaystyle;A_i = frac{z_i}{bar{z}_i} + frac{z_j-z_k}{bar{z}_j - bar{z}_k}\
                  displaystyle;B_i = frac{z_kbar{z}_j - z_jbar{z}_k}{bar{z}_j-bar{z}_k}
                  end{cases}
                  $$

                  for $(i,j,k)$ running over cyclic permutations of $(1,2,3)$.



                  Given any two triangle $M$, $N$ with vertices $m_1,m_2,m_3$ and $n_1,n_2,n_3$. They are similar (with matching angles) if they have the same cross-ratio



                  $$frac{m_3-m_1}{m_2-m_1} = frac{n_3-n_1}{n_2 - n_1}$$



                  In order for the angles of triangle $XYZ$ to be independent of $P$, we need the cross ratio



                  $$frac{w_3 - w_1}{w_2-w_1}
                  = frac{(A_3 - A_1)bar{p} + (B_3 - B_1)}{(A_2-A_1)bar{p} + (B_2-B_1)}$$

                  to be independent of $p$. This is equivalent to



                  $$frac{A_3-A_1}{A_2-A_1} = frac{B_3-B_1}{B_2-B_1}
                  iff left|begin{matrix}A_3 - A_1 & B_3 - B_1 \ A_2 - A_1 & B_2 - B_1end{matrix}right| = 0$$

                  At the end, it comes down whether following complicated determinant evaluates to zero
                  $$
                  left|largebegin{matrix}
                  1 & frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1} + frac{z_2-z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}
                  & frac{z_3bar{z}_2 - z_2bar{z}_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}\
                  1 & frac{z_2}{bar{z}_2} + frac{z_3-z_1}{bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1}
                  & frac{z_1bar{z}_3 - z_3bar{z}_1}{bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1} \
                  1 & frac{z_3}{bar{z}_3} + frac{z_1-z_2}{bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2}
                  & frac{z_2bar{z}_1 - z_1bar{z}_2}{bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2} \
                  end{matrix}right|
                  stackrel{?}{=} 0
                  $$

                  If one multiply
                  first row by $bar{z}_1(bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3)$,
                  second row by $bar{z}_2(bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1)$
                  third row by $bar{z}_3(bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2)$
                  and sum them together, one obtain an zero row!
                  This means above determinant vanishes and the cross-ratio $frac{w_3 - w_1}{w_2-w_1}$ is independent of $p$.



                  This verify the angles in $triangle XYZ$ doesn't depend on location of $P$.



                  With help of an CAS, one also obtain



                  $$frac{w_3-w_1}{w_2-w_1} = frac{A_3-A_1}{A_2-A_1} = frac{B_3-B_1}{B_2-B1}
                  = frac{(bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1)bar{z}_2}{(bar{z}_2-bar{z}_1)bar{z}_3}$$



                  The last expression is complex conjugate of a cross-ratio of the 4 numbers $(0,z_1,z_2,z_3)$. With this, we can deduce the angles of $triangle XYZ$
                  from the angles among the sides/diagonals of quadrilateral $ABCD$.



                  As an example, in the configuration below, we have



                  $$angle ZXY (approx 13.97^circ) = angle CAD (approx 46.14^circ) - angle CBD (approx 32.17^circ)$$
                  a triangle in a quadrilateral



                  Please note that when quadrilateral $ABCD$ is cyclic, $angle CAD = angle CBD$. In such cases, triangle $XYZ$ degenerate into a line segment (as first pointed out by @g.kov in comment).



                  I hope this can inspire someone to discover a more geometric proof of this (in particular, above relations among the angles).






                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  Following is an algebraic proof of the statement. To make the algebra manageable. We will choose a coordinate system where $A$ is the origin and identify the euclidean plane with the complex plane.



                  Let $p, z_1,z_2,z_3, u_1, v_1, w_1, w_2, w_3$ be the complex numbers corresponds to $P,
                  B,C,D,S,T,X,Z,Y$
                  respectively.



                  Any line $ell subset mathbb{C}$ can be represented by a pair of complex number, a point $q in ell$ and a $t$ for its direction. Points on $ell$ has the form $q + lambda t$ for some real $lambda$. In order for this point to be the projection of $p$ on $ell$, we need



                  $$Re( ( q + lambda t - p )bar{t}) = 0quadimpliesquadlambda = frac{Re((p - q)bar{t})}{tbar{t}}
                  $$

                  The projection of $p$ on line $ell$, let call it $pi_ell(p)$, will be given by the formula



                  $$pi_{ell}(p) = q + frac{(p-q)bar{t} + (bar{p}-bar{q})t}{2bar{t}} = frac{q+p}{2} +frac12(bar{p} - bar{q})frac{t}{bar{t}}tag{*1a}$$



                  In the special case that $q = 0$, this reduces to
                  $$pi_{ell}(p) = frac{p}{2} + frac12bar{p}frac{t}{bar{t}}tag{*1b}$$



                  Apply $(*1b)$ and $(*1a)$ to $S$ and $T$, we get



                  $$u_1 = frac{p}{2} + frac12bar{p}frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1}
                  quadtext{ and }quad
                  v_1 = frac{p + z_2}{2} + frac12(bar{p} - bar{z}_2)frac{z_2 - z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}
                  $$

                  Combine them and simplify, we get
                  $$
                  w_1 = frac{u_1+v_1}{2} =
                  frac{p}{2} + frac14bar{p}
                  underbrace{left(frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1} + frac{z_2-z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}right)}_{A_1}
                  +
                  frac14
                  underbrace{left(frac{z_3bar{z}_2 - z_2bar{z}_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}right)}_{B_1}$$

                  Let's call the two coefficients in parentheses as $A_1$ and $B_1$. By similar argument,
                  we can derive corresponding formula for $w_2$ and $w_3$. In general, we have



                  $$w_i =
                  frac{p}{2} + frac14bar{p} A_i + frac14 B_i
                  quadtext{ where }quad
                  begin{cases}
                  displaystyle;A_i = frac{z_i}{bar{z}_i} + frac{z_j-z_k}{bar{z}_j - bar{z}_k}\
                  displaystyle;B_i = frac{z_kbar{z}_j - z_jbar{z}_k}{bar{z}_j-bar{z}_k}
                  end{cases}
                  $$

                  for $(i,j,k)$ running over cyclic permutations of $(1,2,3)$.



                  Given any two triangle $M$, $N$ with vertices $m_1,m_2,m_3$ and $n_1,n_2,n_3$. They are similar (with matching angles) if they have the same cross-ratio



                  $$frac{m_3-m_1}{m_2-m_1} = frac{n_3-n_1}{n_2 - n_1}$$



                  In order for the angles of triangle $XYZ$ to be independent of $P$, we need the cross ratio



                  $$frac{w_3 - w_1}{w_2-w_1}
                  = frac{(A_3 - A_1)bar{p} + (B_3 - B_1)}{(A_2-A_1)bar{p} + (B_2-B_1)}$$

                  to be independent of $p$. This is equivalent to



                  $$frac{A_3-A_1}{A_2-A_1} = frac{B_3-B_1}{B_2-B_1}
                  iff left|begin{matrix}A_3 - A_1 & B_3 - B_1 \ A_2 - A_1 & B_2 - B_1end{matrix}right| = 0$$

                  At the end, it comes down whether following complicated determinant evaluates to zero
                  $$
                  left|largebegin{matrix}
                  1 & frac{z_1}{bar{z}_1} + frac{z_2-z_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}
                  & frac{z_3bar{z}_2 - z_2bar{z}_3}{bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3}\
                  1 & frac{z_2}{bar{z}_2} + frac{z_3-z_1}{bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1}
                  & frac{z_1bar{z}_3 - z_3bar{z}_1}{bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1} \
                  1 & frac{z_3}{bar{z}_3} + frac{z_1-z_2}{bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2}
                  & frac{z_2bar{z}_1 - z_1bar{z}_2}{bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2} \
                  end{matrix}right|
                  stackrel{?}{=} 0
                  $$

                  If one multiply
                  first row by $bar{z}_1(bar{z}_2 - bar{z}_3)$,
                  second row by $bar{z}_2(bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1)$
                  third row by $bar{z}_3(bar{z}_1 - bar{z}_2)$
                  and sum them together, one obtain an zero row!
                  This means above determinant vanishes and the cross-ratio $frac{w_3 - w_1}{w_2-w_1}$ is independent of $p$.



                  This verify the angles in $triangle XYZ$ doesn't depend on location of $P$.



                  With help of an CAS, one also obtain



                  $$frac{w_3-w_1}{w_2-w_1} = frac{A_3-A_1}{A_2-A_1} = frac{B_3-B_1}{B_2-B1}
                  = frac{(bar{z}_3 - bar{z}_1)bar{z}_2}{(bar{z}_2-bar{z}_1)bar{z}_3}$$



                  The last expression is complex conjugate of a cross-ratio of the 4 numbers $(0,z_1,z_2,z_3)$. With this, we can deduce the angles of $triangle XYZ$
                  from the angles among the sides/diagonals of quadrilateral $ABCD$.



                  As an example, in the configuration below, we have



                  $$angle ZXY (approx 13.97^circ) = angle CAD (approx 46.14^circ) - angle CBD (approx 32.17^circ)$$
                  a triangle in a quadrilateral



                  Please note that when quadrilateral $ABCD$ is cyclic, $angle CAD = angle CBD$. In such cases, triangle $XYZ$ degenerate into a line segment (as first pointed out by @g.kov in comment).



                  I hope this can inspire someone to discover a more geometric proof of this (in particular, above relations among the angles).







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited 2 days ago

























                  answered 2 days ago









                  achille hui

                  93.1k5127251




                  93.1k5127251






















                      watson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded


















                      watson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      watson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      watson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.















                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2994899%2fangles-of-triangle-triangle-xyz-do-not-depend-on-the-position-of-point-p-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Plaza Victoria

                      In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

                      How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...