A conjecture involving three parabolas intrinsically bound to any triangle












3














Given any triangle $triangle ABC$, we can build the parabola with directrix passing through the side $AB$ and focus in $C$. This curve intersects the other two sides in the points $D$ and $E$.



enter image description here



Similarly, we can build other two parabolas, one with directrix passing through $AC$ and focus in $B$ (red), and one with directrix passing through $BC$ and focus in $A$ (green), obtaining other $2$ couples of points $F,G$ and $H,I$.



enter image description here



My conjecture is that




The $6$ points $D,E,F,G,H,I$ always determine an ellipse.




enter image description here



How can I show this (likely obvious) result with a simple and compact proof?



Thanks for your help, and sorry for the trivial question!



This problem is related to this one.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    $overleftrightarrow{AB}$ meets the $A$-focused parabola at two points: $H$ and some $H^prime$. Likewise, for each other side-line and the appropriate parabolas. The collection of six "other" points also appear to lie on a common conic, although that conic isn't always an ellipse. (It's possible that your ellipse isn't always an ellipse, either. I haven't checked.)
    – Blue
    Oct 17 at 13:20










  • @Blue Thanks for your comment. I may have not fully understood your observation. The parabola with focus in $A$ has the directrix passing through $BC$ (the green one). How can it intersect the side $AB$ in two points?
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 13:28












  • Extend side $overline{AB}$ to a line. Since that line crosses the $A$-focused once, it must cross it again (ignoring the case where the line is parallel to the parabola's axis).
    – Blue
    Oct 17 at 13:37










  • @Blue I think I understood what you mean. But the conjecture is restricted to its intersection with the side $overline{AB}$. However, it looks a very interesting observation!
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 13:39








  • 1




    That's okay. We'll say that my conjecture involves the other points. ;) The techniques used to solve one case will apply almost-immediately to the other, since constructions and algebra often ignore arbitrary restrictions. (For instance, a coordinate argument to find point $H$ involves solving a system involving a parabola equation and a line equation (not a segment equation). Such a system naturally admits two solutions —one corresponding to "your" point, one to "mine"— for which the algebra has no intrinsic preference.) So, we get two results for the price of one proof.
    – Blue
    Oct 17 at 13:48
















3














Given any triangle $triangle ABC$, we can build the parabola with directrix passing through the side $AB$ and focus in $C$. This curve intersects the other two sides in the points $D$ and $E$.



enter image description here



Similarly, we can build other two parabolas, one with directrix passing through $AC$ and focus in $B$ (red), and one with directrix passing through $BC$ and focus in $A$ (green), obtaining other $2$ couples of points $F,G$ and $H,I$.



enter image description here



My conjecture is that




The $6$ points $D,E,F,G,H,I$ always determine an ellipse.




enter image description here



How can I show this (likely obvious) result with a simple and compact proof?



Thanks for your help, and sorry for the trivial question!



This problem is related to this one.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    $overleftrightarrow{AB}$ meets the $A$-focused parabola at two points: $H$ and some $H^prime$. Likewise, for each other side-line and the appropriate parabolas. The collection of six "other" points also appear to lie on a common conic, although that conic isn't always an ellipse. (It's possible that your ellipse isn't always an ellipse, either. I haven't checked.)
    – Blue
    Oct 17 at 13:20










  • @Blue Thanks for your comment. I may have not fully understood your observation. The parabola with focus in $A$ has the directrix passing through $BC$ (the green one). How can it intersect the side $AB$ in two points?
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 13:28












  • Extend side $overline{AB}$ to a line. Since that line crosses the $A$-focused once, it must cross it again (ignoring the case where the line is parallel to the parabola's axis).
    – Blue
    Oct 17 at 13:37










  • @Blue I think I understood what you mean. But the conjecture is restricted to its intersection with the side $overline{AB}$. However, it looks a very interesting observation!
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 13:39








  • 1




    That's okay. We'll say that my conjecture involves the other points. ;) The techniques used to solve one case will apply almost-immediately to the other, since constructions and algebra often ignore arbitrary restrictions. (For instance, a coordinate argument to find point $H$ involves solving a system involving a parabola equation and a line equation (not a segment equation). Such a system naturally admits two solutions —one corresponding to "your" point, one to "mine"— for which the algebra has no intrinsic preference.) So, we get two results for the price of one proof.
    – Blue
    Oct 17 at 13:48














3












3








3


2





Given any triangle $triangle ABC$, we can build the parabola with directrix passing through the side $AB$ and focus in $C$. This curve intersects the other two sides in the points $D$ and $E$.



enter image description here



Similarly, we can build other two parabolas, one with directrix passing through $AC$ and focus in $B$ (red), and one with directrix passing through $BC$ and focus in $A$ (green), obtaining other $2$ couples of points $F,G$ and $H,I$.



enter image description here



My conjecture is that




The $6$ points $D,E,F,G,H,I$ always determine an ellipse.




enter image description here



How can I show this (likely obvious) result with a simple and compact proof?



Thanks for your help, and sorry for the trivial question!



This problem is related to this one.










share|cite|improve this question















Given any triangle $triangle ABC$, we can build the parabola with directrix passing through the side $AB$ and focus in $C$. This curve intersects the other two sides in the points $D$ and $E$.



enter image description here



Similarly, we can build other two parabolas, one with directrix passing through $AC$ and focus in $B$ (red), and one with directrix passing through $BC$ and focus in $A$ (green), obtaining other $2$ couples of points $F,G$ and $H,I$.



enter image description here



My conjecture is that




The $6$ points $D,E,F,G,H,I$ always determine an ellipse.




enter image description here



How can I show this (likely obvious) result with a simple and compact proof?



Thanks for your help, and sorry for the trivial question!



This problem is related to this one.







geometry triangle conic-sections geometric-construction






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Oct 17 at 13:04

























asked Oct 17 at 12:53







user559615















  • 1




    $overleftrightarrow{AB}$ meets the $A$-focused parabola at two points: $H$ and some $H^prime$. Likewise, for each other side-line and the appropriate parabolas. The collection of six "other" points also appear to lie on a common conic, although that conic isn't always an ellipse. (It's possible that your ellipse isn't always an ellipse, either. I haven't checked.)
    – Blue
    Oct 17 at 13:20










  • @Blue Thanks for your comment. I may have not fully understood your observation. The parabola with focus in $A$ has the directrix passing through $BC$ (the green one). How can it intersect the side $AB$ in two points?
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 13:28












  • Extend side $overline{AB}$ to a line. Since that line crosses the $A$-focused once, it must cross it again (ignoring the case where the line is parallel to the parabola's axis).
    – Blue
    Oct 17 at 13:37










  • @Blue I think I understood what you mean. But the conjecture is restricted to its intersection with the side $overline{AB}$. However, it looks a very interesting observation!
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 13:39








  • 1




    That's okay. We'll say that my conjecture involves the other points. ;) The techniques used to solve one case will apply almost-immediately to the other, since constructions and algebra often ignore arbitrary restrictions. (For instance, a coordinate argument to find point $H$ involves solving a system involving a parabola equation and a line equation (not a segment equation). Such a system naturally admits two solutions —one corresponding to "your" point, one to "mine"— for which the algebra has no intrinsic preference.) So, we get two results for the price of one proof.
    – Blue
    Oct 17 at 13:48














  • 1




    $overleftrightarrow{AB}$ meets the $A$-focused parabola at two points: $H$ and some $H^prime$. Likewise, for each other side-line and the appropriate parabolas. The collection of six "other" points also appear to lie on a common conic, although that conic isn't always an ellipse. (It's possible that your ellipse isn't always an ellipse, either. I haven't checked.)
    – Blue
    Oct 17 at 13:20










  • @Blue Thanks for your comment. I may have not fully understood your observation. The parabola with focus in $A$ has the directrix passing through $BC$ (the green one). How can it intersect the side $AB$ in two points?
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 13:28












  • Extend side $overline{AB}$ to a line. Since that line crosses the $A$-focused once, it must cross it again (ignoring the case where the line is parallel to the parabola's axis).
    – Blue
    Oct 17 at 13:37










  • @Blue I think I understood what you mean. But the conjecture is restricted to its intersection with the side $overline{AB}$. However, it looks a very interesting observation!
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 13:39








  • 1




    That's okay. We'll say that my conjecture involves the other points. ;) The techniques used to solve one case will apply almost-immediately to the other, since constructions and algebra often ignore arbitrary restrictions. (For instance, a coordinate argument to find point $H$ involves solving a system involving a parabola equation and a line equation (not a segment equation). Such a system naturally admits two solutions —one corresponding to "your" point, one to "mine"— for which the algebra has no intrinsic preference.) So, we get two results for the price of one proof.
    – Blue
    Oct 17 at 13:48








1




1




$overleftrightarrow{AB}$ meets the $A$-focused parabola at two points: $H$ and some $H^prime$. Likewise, for each other side-line and the appropriate parabolas. The collection of six "other" points also appear to lie on a common conic, although that conic isn't always an ellipse. (It's possible that your ellipse isn't always an ellipse, either. I haven't checked.)
– Blue
Oct 17 at 13:20




$overleftrightarrow{AB}$ meets the $A$-focused parabola at two points: $H$ and some $H^prime$. Likewise, for each other side-line and the appropriate parabolas. The collection of six "other" points also appear to lie on a common conic, although that conic isn't always an ellipse. (It's possible that your ellipse isn't always an ellipse, either. I haven't checked.)
– Blue
Oct 17 at 13:20












@Blue Thanks for your comment. I may have not fully understood your observation. The parabola with focus in $A$ has the directrix passing through $BC$ (the green one). How can it intersect the side $AB$ in two points?
– user559615
Oct 17 at 13:28






@Blue Thanks for your comment. I may have not fully understood your observation. The parabola with focus in $A$ has the directrix passing through $BC$ (the green one). How can it intersect the side $AB$ in two points?
– user559615
Oct 17 at 13:28














Extend side $overline{AB}$ to a line. Since that line crosses the $A$-focused once, it must cross it again (ignoring the case where the line is parallel to the parabola's axis).
– Blue
Oct 17 at 13:37




Extend side $overline{AB}$ to a line. Since that line crosses the $A$-focused once, it must cross it again (ignoring the case where the line is parallel to the parabola's axis).
– Blue
Oct 17 at 13:37












@Blue I think I understood what you mean. But the conjecture is restricted to its intersection with the side $overline{AB}$. However, it looks a very interesting observation!
– user559615
Oct 17 at 13:39






@Blue I think I understood what you mean. But the conjecture is restricted to its intersection with the side $overline{AB}$. However, it looks a very interesting observation!
– user559615
Oct 17 at 13:39






1




1




That's okay. We'll say that my conjecture involves the other points. ;) The techniques used to solve one case will apply almost-immediately to the other, since constructions and algebra often ignore arbitrary restrictions. (For instance, a coordinate argument to find point $H$ involves solving a system involving a parabola equation and a line equation (not a segment equation). Such a system naturally admits two solutions —one corresponding to "your" point, one to "mine"— for which the algebra has no intrinsic preference.) So, we get two results for the price of one proof.
– Blue
Oct 17 at 13:48




That's okay. We'll say that my conjecture involves the other points. ;) The techniques used to solve one case will apply almost-immediately to the other, since constructions and algebra often ignore arbitrary restrictions. (For instance, a coordinate argument to find point $H$ involves solving a system involving a parabola equation and a line equation (not a segment equation). Such a system naturally admits two solutions —one corresponding to "your" point, one to "mine"— for which the algebra has no intrinsic preference.) So, we get two results for the price of one proof.
– Blue
Oct 17 at 13:48










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1














We'll take the following Ceva-like result as a given:




For $triangle ABC$ with $D_B$ and $D_C$ on $overleftrightarrow{BC}$, $E_C$ and $E_A$ on $overleftrightarrow{CA}$, and $F_A$ and $F_B$ on $overleftrightarrow{AB}$, those points lie on a common conic if and only if
$$ frac{BD_B}{D_BC}cdotfrac{CE_C}{E_CA}cdotfrac{AF_A}{F_AB} =
frac{CD_C}{D_CB}cdotfrac{AE_A}{E_AC}cdotfrac{BF_B}{F_BA} tag{$star$}$$




As is typical of Ceva-like results, the individual ratios in $(star)$ are signed: a ratio is positive if the component directed segments point in the same direction; negative if they point in opposite directions.



Now, to the problem at hand ...



enter image description here



I've renamed points to match the statement above, where a subscript indicates the focus of the parabola through the point. Of course, if a side-line crosses a parabola, then it typically does so again (unless the line is parallel to the axis of the parabola). So, a line-parabola intersection typically consists of two points. For instance, there are two candidate positions where side-line $overleftrightarrow{CA}$ meets the $C$-focused parabola; I've marked these $E_C^{+}$ and $E_C^{-}$, as the superscripted sign indicates whether the point is on the same side of $C$ as point $A$.



Now, from $E_C^{pm}$, drop a perpendicular to $C^{pm}$ on $overleftrightarrow{AB}$, the directrix of the $C$-focused parabola. By definition of a parabola,
$$C^{pm} E_C^{pm} = CE_C^pm tag{1}$$
Noting that, as an unsigned ratio,
$$frac{C^pm E_C^pm}{E_C^pm A} = sin A tag{2}$$
we have the signed ratio
$$frac{CE_C^pm}{E_C^pm A} = pmsin A tag{3}$$
Likewise,
$$
frac{AF_A^pm}{F_A^pm B}=pmsin B qquad
frac{BD_B^pm}{D_B^pm C}=pmsin C tag{4}$$

$$frac{CD_C^pm}{D_C^pm B}=pm sin B qquad frac{AE_A^pm}{E_A^pm C}=pmsin C qquad frac{BF_B^pm}{F_B^pm A}=pmsin A$$



Clearly, these give that the ratios on the left- and right-hand sides of $(star)$ match in absolute value (namely, $sin Asin Bsin C$); we make them match completely by choosing appropriate signs. There are $26$ ways to do this, hence $26$ common conics.




In particular, there is a common conic through $D_B^{+}$, $E_C^{+}$, $F_A^{+}$, $D_C^{+}$, $E_A^{+}$, $F_B^{+}$, as per OP's conjecture, and there is a common conic through $D_B^{-}$, $E_C^{-}$, $F_A^{-}$, $D_C^{-}$, $E_A^{-}$, $F_B^{-}$, as per the conjecture I suggested in a comment. $square$






Note. This analysis doesn't show specifically that OP's conjectured conic is always specifically an ellipse. ("My" conjectured conic varies in nature. I haven't checked the other $24$.) I'll have to come back to that.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Very nice. Concerning "my" conjecture, I still think it is always an ellipse! I thought there could be a more elementary proof. Great, in any case! And thanks!!!
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 19:22










  • What do you think about this math.stackexchange.com/q/2958984/559615 ?
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 19:24



















1














Here is a proof using barycentric coordinates. For non-degenerate triangle $ABC$, we are going to show the six points $D, E, F, G, H, I$ lies on an ellipse.



Let





  • $a = |BC|, b = |CA|, c = |AB|$. WOLOG, we will assume $a ge b, c$.


  • $R$ and $Delta$ be the circumradius and area of $triangle ABC$.


  • $alpha = frac{sin A}{1 + sin A} = frac{a}{2R+a}$,
    $beta = frac{sin B}{1 + sin B} = frac{b}{2R+b}$ and
    $gamma = frac{sin C}{1 + sin C} = frac{c}{2R+c}$


For any point $P$ and line $ell$, let $(u_P, v_P, w_P)$ be its barycentric coordinates with respect to $triangle ABC$ and $d_ell(P)$ be the distance between $P$ and line $ell$.



Consider point $D$. Since it lies on $AC$, $(u_D, v_D, w_D)$ has the form $(u, 0, 1-u)$. Since $D$ lies on the parabola having $C$ as focus and $AB$ as directrix, we have



$$bu = |CD| = d_{AB}(D) = d_{AB}(C)(1-u) = frac{2Delta}{c}(1-u) = bsin A(1-u)$$



This implies $u = frac{sin A}{1 + sin A}$ and hence $D$ lies on the line $u = alpha$ in barycentric coordinates.



By a similar argument, we have
$G$ lies on line $u = alpha$, $E$, $H$ lie on line $v = beta$ and
$F$, $I$ lie on line $w = gamma$.
As a result, the six points $D, E, F, G, H, I$ lies on the cubic



$$(u - alpha)(v - beta)(w - gamma) = 0$$
in barycentric coordiantes. These six points belong to another cubic $uvw = 0$ which corresponds to the three lines supporting the triangle. So they belong to the "difference"



$$mathcal{Q}(u,v,w) stackrel{def}{=} uvw - (u-alpha)(v-beta)(w-gamma) = 0$$
When we expand it, the cubic term cancel out and we are left with the equation of
a conic
$$(alpha vw + beta uw + gamma uv) - (ubetagamma + valphagamma + walphabeta) + alphabetagamma = 0tag{*1}$$
To see what sort of conic is this, substitute $w = 1 - u - v$ into LHS and expand, we get



$${rm LHS} = -alpha v^2 + (gamma - alpha - beta ) uv - beta u^2 + ( text{ linear/constant terms in } u, v )$$



Notice under affine transform, ellipse get mapped into ellipse. The conic above is an ellipse in Cartesian coordinates if and only if it is an ellipse in barycentric coordinates. In terms of coefficients in equation $(*1)$, we need
$$begin{align}
& 4alphabeta - (gamma - alpha - beta)^2 stackrel{?}{>} 0\
iff & 2(alphabeta + betagamma + gammaalpha) - alpha^2 - beta^2 - gamma^2 stackrel{?}{>} 0\
iff & alpha(beta + gamma - alpha) + beta(alpha+gamma-beta) + gamma(alpha+beta-gamma) stackrel{?}{>} 0
end{align}
$$

Since $a ge b, c$, we have $alpha ge beta, gamma$. The $2^{nd}$ and $3^{th}$ terms are already non-negative. Let's look at the $1^{st}$ term, we find



$$begin{align}beta + gamma - alpha
&= frac{b}{2R+b} + frac{c}{2R+c} - frac{a}{2R+a}\
&= left(frac{b}{2R+b} - frac{b}{2R+a}right) + left(frac{c}{2R+c} - frac{c}{2R+a}right) + frac{b+c-a}{2R+a}\
&= underbrace{frac{b(a-b)}{(2R+a)(2R+b)}}_{ge 0}
+ underbrace{frac{c(a-c)}{(2R+a)(2R+c)}}_{ge 0}
+ underbrace{frac{b+c-a}{2R+a}}_{> 0, text{ by triangle inequality}}\
&> 0
end{align}
$$

Combine all these, we can deduce $4alphabeta - (gamma - alpha - beta)^2 > 0$.
As a result, the conic in $(*1)$ is an ellipse in barycentric coordinates and hence one in Cartesian coordinates.





A Side Note



Let $J$ be the center of above ellipse. I was originally drawn to this question
by another question (currently deleted and OP decided to leave math.SE). Aside from labeling of the points, it is a conjecture about the areas of three triangles:



$$verb/Area/(IHJ) = verb/Area/(GFJ) = verb/Area/(EDJ)tag{*2}$$



In barycentric coordinates, we have



$$D = ( alpha, 0, 1-alpha), E = (0,beta,1-beta), F = (0,1-gamma,gamma),\
G = ( alpha,1-alpha,0), H = (1-beta,beta,0), I = (1-gamma,0,gamma)$$

For any $P = (u,v,w)$, it is not hard to show



$$begin{align}
verb/Area/(IHP)
&= Delta (v w - (v - beta)(w - gamma))
= Delta frac{partial}{partial u}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)\
verb/Area/(GFP)
&= Delta( u w - (u - alpha)(w - gamma))
= Delta frac{partial}{partial v}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)\
verb/Area/(EDP)
&= Delta( u v - (u - alpha)(v - beta))
= Delta frac{partial}{partial w}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
end{align}
$$

The conjecture about areas is equivalent to $J = (u_J,v_J,w_J)$ is a solution to the set of equations:
$$
frac{partial}{partial u}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
= frac{partial}{partial v}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
= frac{partial}{partial w}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)tag{*3}$$



In Cartesian coordinates $(x,y)$, any conic can be viewed as the zero-set
of a quadratic polynomial $mathcal{P}(x,y)$. For circle/ellipse/hyperbola, the symmetric center is the unique point which satisfies



$$frac{partial}{partial x}mathcal{P}(x,y) = frac{partial}{partial y}mathcal{P}(x,y) = 0$$



Translate this to barycentric coordinates, the symmetric center of conic $mathcal{Q}(u,v,w) = 0$ is the unique point which satisfies $(*3)$. This means $J$ is a solution of $(*3)$ and hence conjecture $(*2)$ is true.






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',
    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2959296%2fa-conjecture-involving-three-parabolas-intrinsically-bound-to-any-triangle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown
























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1














    We'll take the following Ceva-like result as a given:




    For $triangle ABC$ with $D_B$ and $D_C$ on $overleftrightarrow{BC}$, $E_C$ and $E_A$ on $overleftrightarrow{CA}$, and $F_A$ and $F_B$ on $overleftrightarrow{AB}$, those points lie on a common conic if and only if
    $$ frac{BD_B}{D_BC}cdotfrac{CE_C}{E_CA}cdotfrac{AF_A}{F_AB} =
    frac{CD_C}{D_CB}cdotfrac{AE_A}{E_AC}cdotfrac{BF_B}{F_BA} tag{$star$}$$




    As is typical of Ceva-like results, the individual ratios in $(star)$ are signed: a ratio is positive if the component directed segments point in the same direction; negative if they point in opposite directions.



    Now, to the problem at hand ...



    enter image description here



    I've renamed points to match the statement above, where a subscript indicates the focus of the parabola through the point. Of course, if a side-line crosses a parabola, then it typically does so again (unless the line is parallel to the axis of the parabola). So, a line-parabola intersection typically consists of two points. For instance, there are two candidate positions where side-line $overleftrightarrow{CA}$ meets the $C$-focused parabola; I've marked these $E_C^{+}$ and $E_C^{-}$, as the superscripted sign indicates whether the point is on the same side of $C$ as point $A$.



    Now, from $E_C^{pm}$, drop a perpendicular to $C^{pm}$ on $overleftrightarrow{AB}$, the directrix of the $C$-focused parabola. By definition of a parabola,
    $$C^{pm} E_C^{pm} = CE_C^pm tag{1}$$
    Noting that, as an unsigned ratio,
    $$frac{C^pm E_C^pm}{E_C^pm A} = sin A tag{2}$$
    we have the signed ratio
    $$frac{CE_C^pm}{E_C^pm A} = pmsin A tag{3}$$
    Likewise,
    $$
    frac{AF_A^pm}{F_A^pm B}=pmsin B qquad
    frac{BD_B^pm}{D_B^pm C}=pmsin C tag{4}$$

    $$frac{CD_C^pm}{D_C^pm B}=pm sin B qquad frac{AE_A^pm}{E_A^pm C}=pmsin C qquad frac{BF_B^pm}{F_B^pm A}=pmsin A$$



    Clearly, these give that the ratios on the left- and right-hand sides of $(star)$ match in absolute value (namely, $sin Asin Bsin C$); we make them match completely by choosing appropriate signs. There are $26$ ways to do this, hence $26$ common conics.




    In particular, there is a common conic through $D_B^{+}$, $E_C^{+}$, $F_A^{+}$, $D_C^{+}$, $E_A^{+}$, $F_B^{+}$, as per OP's conjecture, and there is a common conic through $D_B^{-}$, $E_C^{-}$, $F_A^{-}$, $D_C^{-}$, $E_A^{-}$, $F_B^{-}$, as per the conjecture I suggested in a comment. $square$






    Note. This analysis doesn't show specifically that OP's conjectured conic is always specifically an ellipse. ("My" conjectured conic varies in nature. I haven't checked the other $24$.) I'll have to come back to that.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Very nice. Concerning "my" conjecture, I still think it is always an ellipse! I thought there could be a more elementary proof. Great, in any case! And thanks!!!
      – user559615
      Oct 17 at 19:22










    • What do you think about this math.stackexchange.com/q/2958984/559615 ?
      – user559615
      Oct 17 at 19:24
















    1














    We'll take the following Ceva-like result as a given:




    For $triangle ABC$ with $D_B$ and $D_C$ on $overleftrightarrow{BC}$, $E_C$ and $E_A$ on $overleftrightarrow{CA}$, and $F_A$ and $F_B$ on $overleftrightarrow{AB}$, those points lie on a common conic if and only if
    $$ frac{BD_B}{D_BC}cdotfrac{CE_C}{E_CA}cdotfrac{AF_A}{F_AB} =
    frac{CD_C}{D_CB}cdotfrac{AE_A}{E_AC}cdotfrac{BF_B}{F_BA} tag{$star$}$$




    As is typical of Ceva-like results, the individual ratios in $(star)$ are signed: a ratio is positive if the component directed segments point in the same direction; negative if they point in opposite directions.



    Now, to the problem at hand ...



    enter image description here



    I've renamed points to match the statement above, where a subscript indicates the focus of the parabola through the point. Of course, if a side-line crosses a parabola, then it typically does so again (unless the line is parallel to the axis of the parabola). So, a line-parabola intersection typically consists of two points. For instance, there are two candidate positions where side-line $overleftrightarrow{CA}$ meets the $C$-focused parabola; I've marked these $E_C^{+}$ and $E_C^{-}$, as the superscripted sign indicates whether the point is on the same side of $C$ as point $A$.



    Now, from $E_C^{pm}$, drop a perpendicular to $C^{pm}$ on $overleftrightarrow{AB}$, the directrix of the $C$-focused parabola. By definition of a parabola,
    $$C^{pm} E_C^{pm} = CE_C^pm tag{1}$$
    Noting that, as an unsigned ratio,
    $$frac{C^pm E_C^pm}{E_C^pm A} = sin A tag{2}$$
    we have the signed ratio
    $$frac{CE_C^pm}{E_C^pm A} = pmsin A tag{3}$$
    Likewise,
    $$
    frac{AF_A^pm}{F_A^pm B}=pmsin B qquad
    frac{BD_B^pm}{D_B^pm C}=pmsin C tag{4}$$

    $$frac{CD_C^pm}{D_C^pm B}=pm sin B qquad frac{AE_A^pm}{E_A^pm C}=pmsin C qquad frac{BF_B^pm}{F_B^pm A}=pmsin A$$



    Clearly, these give that the ratios on the left- and right-hand sides of $(star)$ match in absolute value (namely, $sin Asin Bsin C$); we make them match completely by choosing appropriate signs. There are $26$ ways to do this, hence $26$ common conics.




    In particular, there is a common conic through $D_B^{+}$, $E_C^{+}$, $F_A^{+}$, $D_C^{+}$, $E_A^{+}$, $F_B^{+}$, as per OP's conjecture, and there is a common conic through $D_B^{-}$, $E_C^{-}$, $F_A^{-}$, $D_C^{-}$, $E_A^{-}$, $F_B^{-}$, as per the conjecture I suggested in a comment. $square$






    Note. This analysis doesn't show specifically that OP's conjectured conic is always specifically an ellipse. ("My" conjectured conic varies in nature. I haven't checked the other $24$.) I'll have to come back to that.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Very nice. Concerning "my" conjecture, I still think it is always an ellipse! I thought there could be a more elementary proof. Great, in any case! And thanks!!!
      – user559615
      Oct 17 at 19:22










    • What do you think about this math.stackexchange.com/q/2958984/559615 ?
      – user559615
      Oct 17 at 19:24














    1












    1








    1






    We'll take the following Ceva-like result as a given:




    For $triangle ABC$ with $D_B$ and $D_C$ on $overleftrightarrow{BC}$, $E_C$ and $E_A$ on $overleftrightarrow{CA}$, and $F_A$ and $F_B$ on $overleftrightarrow{AB}$, those points lie on a common conic if and only if
    $$ frac{BD_B}{D_BC}cdotfrac{CE_C}{E_CA}cdotfrac{AF_A}{F_AB} =
    frac{CD_C}{D_CB}cdotfrac{AE_A}{E_AC}cdotfrac{BF_B}{F_BA} tag{$star$}$$




    As is typical of Ceva-like results, the individual ratios in $(star)$ are signed: a ratio is positive if the component directed segments point in the same direction; negative if they point in opposite directions.



    Now, to the problem at hand ...



    enter image description here



    I've renamed points to match the statement above, where a subscript indicates the focus of the parabola through the point. Of course, if a side-line crosses a parabola, then it typically does so again (unless the line is parallel to the axis of the parabola). So, a line-parabola intersection typically consists of two points. For instance, there are two candidate positions where side-line $overleftrightarrow{CA}$ meets the $C$-focused parabola; I've marked these $E_C^{+}$ and $E_C^{-}$, as the superscripted sign indicates whether the point is on the same side of $C$ as point $A$.



    Now, from $E_C^{pm}$, drop a perpendicular to $C^{pm}$ on $overleftrightarrow{AB}$, the directrix of the $C$-focused parabola. By definition of a parabola,
    $$C^{pm} E_C^{pm} = CE_C^pm tag{1}$$
    Noting that, as an unsigned ratio,
    $$frac{C^pm E_C^pm}{E_C^pm A} = sin A tag{2}$$
    we have the signed ratio
    $$frac{CE_C^pm}{E_C^pm A} = pmsin A tag{3}$$
    Likewise,
    $$
    frac{AF_A^pm}{F_A^pm B}=pmsin B qquad
    frac{BD_B^pm}{D_B^pm C}=pmsin C tag{4}$$

    $$frac{CD_C^pm}{D_C^pm B}=pm sin B qquad frac{AE_A^pm}{E_A^pm C}=pmsin C qquad frac{BF_B^pm}{F_B^pm A}=pmsin A$$



    Clearly, these give that the ratios on the left- and right-hand sides of $(star)$ match in absolute value (namely, $sin Asin Bsin C$); we make them match completely by choosing appropriate signs. There are $26$ ways to do this, hence $26$ common conics.




    In particular, there is a common conic through $D_B^{+}$, $E_C^{+}$, $F_A^{+}$, $D_C^{+}$, $E_A^{+}$, $F_B^{+}$, as per OP's conjecture, and there is a common conic through $D_B^{-}$, $E_C^{-}$, $F_A^{-}$, $D_C^{-}$, $E_A^{-}$, $F_B^{-}$, as per the conjecture I suggested in a comment. $square$






    Note. This analysis doesn't show specifically that OP's conjectured conic is always specifically an ellipse. ("My" conjectured conic varies in nature. I haven't checked the other $24$.) I'll have to come back to that.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    We'll take the following Ceva-like result as a given:




    For $triangle ABC$ with $D_B$ and $D_C$ on $overleftrightarrow{BC}$, $E_C$ and $E_A$ on $overleftrightarrow{CA}$, and $F_A$ and $F_B$ on $overleftrightarrow{AB}$, those points lie on a common conic if and only if
    $$ frac{BD_B}{D_BC}cdotfrac{CE_C}{E_CA}cdotfrac{AF_A}{F_AB} =
    frac{CD_C}{D_CB}cdotfrac{AE_A}{E_AC}cdotfrac{BF_B}{F_BA} tag{$star$}$$




    As is typical of Ceva-like results, the individual ratios in $(star)$ are signed: a ratio is positive if the component directed segments point in the same direction; negative if they point in opposite directions.



    Now, to the problem at hand ...



    enter image description here



    I've renamed points to match the statement above, where a subscript indicates the focus of the parabola through the point. Of course, if a side-line crosses a parabola, then it typically does so again (unless the line is parallel to the axis of the parabola). So, a line-parabola intersection typically consists of two points. For instance, there are two candidate positions where side-line $overleftrightarrow{CA}$ meets the $C$-focused parabola; I've marked these $E_C^{+}$ and $E_C^{-}$, as the superscripted sign indicates whether the point is on the same side of $C$ as point $A$.



    Now, from $E_C^{pm}$, drop a perpendicular to $C^{pm}$ on $overleftrightarrow{AB}$, the directrix of the $C$-focused parabola. By definition of a parabola,
    $$C^{pm} E_C^{pm} = CE_C^pm tag{1}$$
    Noting that, as an unsigned ratio,
    $$frac{C^pm E_C^pm}{E_C^pm A} = sin A tag{2}$$
    we have the signed ratio
    $$frac{CE_C^pm}{E_C^pm A} = pmsin A tag{3}$$
    Likewise,
    $$
    frac{AF_A^pm}{F_A^pm B}=pmsin B qquad
    frac{BD_B^pm}{D_B^pm C}=pmsin C tag{4}$$

    $$frac{CD_C^pm}{D_C^pm B}=pm sin B qquad frac{AE_A^pm}{E_A^pm C}=pmsin C qquad frac{BF_B^pm}{F_B^pm A}=pmsin A$$



    Clearly, these give that the ratios on the left- and right-hand sides of $(star)$ match in absolute value (namely, $sin Asin Bsin C$); we make them match completely by choosing appropriate signs. There are $26$ ways to do this, hence $26$ common conics.




    In particular, there is a common conic through $D_B^{+}$, $E_C^{+}$, $F_A^{+}$, $D_C^{+}$, $E_A^{+}$, $F_B^{+}$, as per OP's conjecture, and there is a common conic through $D_B^{-}$, $E_C^{-}$, $F_A^{-}$, $D_C^{-}$, $E_A^{-}$, $F_B^{-}$, as per the conjecture I suggested in a comment. $square$






    Note. This analysis doesn't show specifically that OP's conjectured conic is always specifically an ellipse. ("My" conjectured conic varies in nature. I haven't checked the other $24$.) I'll have to come back to that.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Oct 17 at 17:00









    Blue

    47.4k870150




    47.4k870150












    • Very nice. Concerning "my" conjecture, I still think it is always an ellipse! I thought there could be a more elementary proof. Great, in any case! And thanks!!!
      – user559615
      Oct 17 at 19:22










    • What do you think about this math.stackexchange.com/q/2958984/559615 ?
      – user559615
      Oct 17 at 19:24


















    • Very nice. Concerning "my" conjecture, I still think it is always an ellipse! I thought there could be a more elementary proof. Great, in any case! And thanks!!!
      – user559615
      Oct 17 at 19:22










    • What do you think about this math.stackexchange.com/q/2958984/559615 ?
      – user559615
      Oct 17 at 19:24
















    Very nice. Concerning "my" conjecture, I still think it is always an ellipse! I thought there could be a more elementary proof. Great, in any case! And thanks!!!
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 19:22




    Very nice. Concerning "my" conjecture, I still think it is always an ellipse! I thought there could be a more elementary proof. Great, in any case! And thanks!!!
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 19:22












    What do you think about this math.stackexchange.com/q/2958984/559615 ?
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 19:24




    What do you think about this math.stackexchange.com/q/2958984/559615 ?
    – user559615
    Oct 17 at 19:24











    1














    Here is a proof using barycentric coordinates. For non-degenerate triangle $ABC$, we are going to show the six points $D, E, F, G, H, I$ lies on an ellipse.



    Let





    • $a = |BC|, b = |CA|, c = |AB|$. WOLOG, we will assume $a ge b, c$.


    • $R$ and $Delta$ be the circumradius and area of $triangle ABC$.


    • $alpha = frac{sin A}{1 + sin A} = frac{a}{2R+a}$,
      $beta = frac{sin B}{1 + sin B} = frac{b}{2R+b}$ and
      $gamma = frac{sin C}{1 + sin C} = frac{c}{2R+c}$


    For any point $P$ and line $ell$, let $(u_P, v_P, w_P)$ be its barycentric coordinates with respect to $triangle ABC$ and $d_ell(P)$ be the distance between $P$ and line $ell$.



    Consider point $D$. Since it lies on $AC$, $(u_D, v_D, w_D)$ has the form $(u, 0, 1-u)$. Since $D$ lies on the parabola having $C$ as focus and $AB$ as directrix, we have



    $$bu = |CD| = d_{AB}(D) = d_{AB}(C)(1-u) = frac{2Delta}{c}(1-u) = bsin A(1-u)$$



    This implies $u = frac{sin A}{1 + sin A}$ and hence $D$ lies on the line $u = alpha$ in barycentric coordinates.



    By a similar argument, we have
    $G$ lies on line $u = alpha$, $E$, $H$ lie on line $v = beta$ and
    $F$, $I$ lie on line $w = gamma$.
    As a result, the six points $D, E, F, G, H, I$ lies on the cubic



    $$(u - alpha)(v - beta)(w - gamma) = 0$$
    in barycentric coordiantes. These six points belong to another cubic $uvw = 0$ which corresponds to the three lines supporting the triangle. So they belong to the "difference"



    $$mathcal{Q}(u,v,w) stackrel{def}{=} uvw - (u-alpha)(v-beta)(w-gamma) = 0$$
    When we expand it, the cubic term cancel out and we are left with the equation of
    a conic
    $$(alpha vw + beta uw + gamma uv) - (ubetagamma + valphagamma + walphabeta) + alphabetagamma = 0tag{*1}$$
    To see what sort of conic is this, substitute $w = 1 - u - v$ into LHS and expand, we get



    $${rm LHS} = -alpha v^2 + (gamma - alpha - beta ) uv - beta u^2 + ( text{ linear/constant terms in } u, v )$$



    Notice under affine transform, ellipse get mapped into ellipse. The conic above is an ellipse in Cartesian coordinates if and only if it is an ellipse in barycentric coordinates. In terms of coefficients in equation $(*1)$, we need
    $$begin{align}
    & 4alphabeta - (gamma - alpha - beta)^2 stackrel{?}{>} 0\
    iff & 2(alphabeta + betagamma + gammaalpha) - alpha^2 - beta^2 - gamma^2 stackrel{?}{>} 0\
    iff & alpha(beta + gamma - alpha) + beta(alpha+gamma-beta) + gamma(alpha+beta-gamma) stackrel{?}{>} 0
    end{align}
    $$

    Since $a ge b, c$, we have $alpha ge beta, gamma$. The $2^{nd}$ and $3^{th}$ terms are already non-negative. Let's look at the $1^{st}$ term, we find



    $$begin{align}beta + gamma - alpha
    &= frac{b}{2R+b} + frac{c}{2R+c} - frac{a}{2R+a}\
    &= left(frac{b}{2R+b} - frac{b}{2R+a}right) + left(frac{c}{2R+c} - frac{c}{2R+a}right) + frac{b+c-a}{2R+a}\
    &= underbrace{frac{b(a-b)}{(2R+a)(2R+b)}}_{ge 0}
    + underbrace{frac{c(a-c)}{(2R+a)(2R+c)}}_{ge 0}
    + underbrace{frac{b+c-a}{2R+a}}_{> 0, text{ by triangle inequality}}\
    &> 0
    end{align}
    $$

    Combine all these, we can deduce $4alphabeta - (gamma - alpha - beta)^2 > 0$.
    As a result, the conic in $(*1)$ is an ellipse in barycentric coordinates and hence one in Cartesian coordinates.





    A Side Note



    Let $J$ be the center of above ellipse. I was originally drawn to this question
    by another question (currently deleted and OP decided to leave math.SE). Aside from labeling of the points, it is a conjecture about the areas of three triangles:



    $$verb/Area/(IHJ) = verb/Area/(GFJ) = verb/Area/(EDJ)tag{*2}$$



    In barycentric coordinates, we have



    $$D = ( alpha, 0, 1-alpha), E = (0,beta,1-beta), F = (0,1-gamma,gamma),\
    G = ( alpha,1-alpha,0), H = (1-beta,beta,0), I = (1-gamma,0,gamma)$$

    For any $P = (u,v,w)$, it is not hard to show



    $$begin{align}
    verb/Area/(IHP)
    &= Delta (v w - (v - beta)(w - gamma))
    = Delta frac{partial}{partial u}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)\
    verb/Area/(GFP)
    &= Delta( u w - (u - alpha)(w - gamma))
    = Delta frac{partial}{partial v}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)\
    verb/Area/(EDP)
    &= Delta( u v - (u - alpha)(v - beta))
    = Delta frac{partial}{partial w}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
    end{align}
    $$

    The conjecture about areas is equivalent to $J = (u_J,v_J,w_J)$ is a solution to the set of equations:
    $$
    frac{partial}{partial u}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
    = frac{partial}{partial v}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
    = frac{partial}{partial w}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)tag{*3}$$



    In Cartesian coordinates $(x,y)$, any conic can be viewed as the zero-set
    of a quadratic polynomial $mathcal{P}(x,y)$. For circle/ellipse/hyperbola, the symmetric center is the unique point which satisfies



    $$frac{partial}{partial x}mathcal{P}(x,y) = frac{partial}{partial y}mathcal{P}(x,y) = 0$$



    Translate this to barycentric coordinates, the symmetric center of conic $mathcal{Q}(u,v,w) = 0$ is the unique point which satisfies $(*3)$. This means $J$ is a solution of $(*3)$ and hence conjecture $(*2)$ is true.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      1














      Here is a proof using barycentric coordinates. For non-degenerate triangle $ABC$, we are going to show the six points $D, E, F, G, H, I$ lies on an ellipse.



      Let





      • $a = |BC|, b = |CA|, c = |AB|$. WOLOG, we will assume $a ge b, c$.


      • $R$ and $Delta$ be the circumradius and area of $triangle ABC$.


      • $alpha = frac{sin A}{1 + sin A} = frac{a}{2R+a}$,
        $beta = frac{sin B}{1 + sin B} = frac{b}{2R+b}$ and
        $gamma = frac{sin C}{1 + sin C} = frac{c}{2R+c}$


      For any point $P$ and line $ell$, let $(u_P, v_P, w_P)$ be its barycentric coordinates with respect to $triangle ABC$ and $d_ell(P)$ be the distance between $P$ and line $ell$.



      Consider point $D$. Since it lies on $AC$, $(u_D, v_D, w_D)$ has the form $(u, 0, 1-u)$. Since $D$ lies on the parabola having $C$ as focus and $AB$ as directrix, we have



      $$bu = |CD| = d_{AB}(D) = d_{AB}(C)(1-u) = frac{2Delta}{c}(1-u) = bsin A(1-u)$$



      This implies $u = frac{sin A}{1 + sin A}$ and hence $D$ lies on the line $u = alpha$ in barycentric coordinates.



      By a similar argument, we have
      $G$ lies on line $u = alpha$, $E$, $H$ lie on line $v = beta$ and
      $F$, $I$ lie on line $w = gamma$.
      As a result, the six points $D, E, F, G, H, I$ lies on the cubic



      $$(u - alpha)(v - beta)(w - gamma) = 0$$
      in barycentric coordiantes. These six points belong to another cubic $uvw = 0$ which corresponds to the three lines supporting the triangle. So they belong to the "difference"



      $$mathcal{Q}(u,v,w) stackrel{def}{=} uvw - (u-alpha)(v-beta)(w-gamma) = 0$$
      When we expand it, the cubic term cancel out and we are left with the equation of
      a conic
      $$(alpha vw + beta uw + gamma uv) - (ubetagamma + valphagamma + walphabeta) + alphabetagamma = 0tag{*1}$$
      To see what sort of conic is this, substitute $w = 1 - u - v$ into LHS and expand, we get



      $${rm LHS} = -alpha v^2 + (gamma - alpha - beta ) uv - beta u^2 + ( text{ linear/constant terms in } u, v )$$



      Notice under affine transform, ellipse get mapped into ellipse. The conic above is an ellipse in Cartesian coordinates if and only if it is an ellipse in barycentric coordinates. In terms of coefficients in equation $(*1)$, we need
      $$begin{align}
      & 4alphabeta - (gamma - alpha - beta)^2 stackrel{?}{>} 0\
      iff & 2(alphabeta + betagamma + gammaalpha) - alpha^2 - beta^2 - gamma^2 stackrel{?}{>} 0\
      iff & alpha(beta + gamma - alpha) + beta(alpha+gamma-beta) + gamma(alpha+beta-gamma) stackrel{?}{>} 0
      end{align}
      $$

      Since $a ge b, c$, we have $alpha ge beta, gamma$. The $2^{nd}$ and $3^{th}$ terms are already non-negative. Let's look at the $1^{st}$ term, we find



      $$begin{align}beta + gamma - alpha
      &= frac{b}{2R+b} + frac{c}{2R+c} - frac{a}{2R+a}\
      &= left(frac{b}{2R+b} - frac{b}{2R+a}right) + left(frac{c}{2R+c} - frac{c}{2R+a}right) + frac{b+c-a}{2R+a}\
      &= underbrace{frac{b(a-b)}{(2R+a)(2R+b)}}_{ge 0}
      + underbrace{frac{c(a-c)}{(2R+a)(2R+c)}}_{ge 0}
      + underbrace{frac{b+c-a}{2R+a}}_{> 0, text{ by triangle inequality}}\
      &> 0
      end{align}
      $$

      Combine all these, we can deduce $4alphabeta - (gamma - alpha - beta)^2 > 0$.
      As a result, the conic in $(*1)$ is an ellipse in barycentric coordinates and hence one in Cartesian coordinates.





      A Side Note



      Let $J$ be the center of above ellipse. I was originally drawn to this question
      by another question (currently deleted and OP decided to leave math.SE). Aside from labeling of the points, it is a conjecture about the areas of three triangles:



      $$verb/Area/(IHJ) = verb/Area/(GFJ) = verb/Area/(EDJ)tag{*2}$$



      In barycentric coordinates, we have



      $$D = ( alpha, 0, 1-alpha), E = (0,beta,1-beta), F = (0,1-gamma,gamma),\
      G = ( alpha,1-alpha,0), H = (1-beta,beta,0), I = (1-gamma,0,gamma)$$

      For any $P = (u,v,w)$, it is not hard to show



      $$begin{align}
      verb/Area/(IHP)
      &= Delta (v w - (v - beta)(w - gamma))
      = Delta frac{partial}{partial u}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)\
      verb/Area/(GFP)
      &= Delta( u w - (u - alpha)(w - gamma))
      = Delta frac{partial}{partial v}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)\
      verb/Area/(EDP)
      &= Delta( u v - (u - alpha)(v - beta))
      = Delta frac{partial}{partial w}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
      end{align}
      $$

      The conjecture about areas is equivalent to $J = (u_J,v_J,w_J)$ is a solution to the set of equations:
      $$
      frac{partial}{partial u}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
      = frac{partial}{partial v}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
      = frac{partial}{partial w}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)tag{*3}$$



      In Cartesian coordinates $(x,y)$, any conic can be viewed as the zero-set
      of a quadratic polynomial $mathcal{P}(x,y)$. For circle/ellipse/hyperbola, the symmetric center is the unique point which satisfies



      $$frac{partial}{partial x}mathcal{P}(x,y) = frac{partial}{partial y}mathcal{P}(x,y) = 0$$



      Translate this to barycentric coordinates, the symmetric center of conic $mathcal{Q}(u,v,w) = 0$ is the unique point which satisfies $(*3)$. This means $J$ is a solution of $(*3)$ and hence conjecture $(*2)$ is true.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        1












        1








        1






        Here is a proof using barycentric coordinates. For non-degenerate triangle $ABC$, we are going to show the six points $D, E, F, G, H, I$ lies on an ellipse.



        Let





        • $a = |BC|, b = |CA|, c = |AB|$. WOLOG, we will assume $a ge b, c$.


        • $R$ and $Delta$ be the circumradius and area of $triangle ABC$.


        • $alpha = frac{sin A}{1 + sin A} = frac{a}{2R+a}$,
          $beta = frac{sin B}{1 + sin B} = frac{b}{2R+b}$ and
          $gamma = frac{sin C}{1 + sin C} = frac{c}{2R+c}$


        For any point $P$ and line $ell$, let $(u_P, v_P, w_P)$ be its barycentric coordinates with respect to $triangle ABC$ and $d_ell(P)$ be the distance between $P$ and line $ell$.



        Consider point $D$. Since it lies on $AC$, $(u_D, v_D, w_D)$ has the form $(u, 0, 1-u)$. Since $D$ lies on the parabola having $C$ as focus and $AB$ as directrix, we have



        $$bu = |CD| = d_{AB}(D) = d_{AB}(C)(1-u) = frac{2Delta}{c}(1-u) = bsin A(1-u)$$



        This implies $u = frac{sin A}{1 + sin A}$ and hence $D$ lies on the line $u = alpha$ in barycentric coordinates.



        By a similar argument, we have
        $G$ lies on line $u = alpha$, $E$, $H$ lie on line $v = beta$ and
        $F$, $I$ lie on line $w = gamma$.
        As a result, the six points $D, E, F, G, H, I$ lies on the cubic



        $$(u - alpha)(v - beta)(w - gamma) = 0$$
        in barycentric coordiantes. These six points belong to another cubic $uvw = 0$ which corresponds to the three lines supporting the triangle. So they belong to the "difference"



        $$mathcal{Q}(u,v,w) stackrel{def}{=} uvw - (u-alpha)(v-beta)(w-gamma) = 0$$
        When we expand it, the cubic term cancel out and we are left with the equation of
        a conic
        $$(alpha vw + beta uw + gamma uv) - (ubetagamma + valphagamma + walphabeta) + alphabetagamma = 0tag{*1}$$
        To see what sort of conic is this, substitute $w = 1 - u - v$ into LHS and expand, we get



        $${rm LHS} = -alpha v^2 + (gamma - alpha - beta ) uv - beta u^2 + ( text{ linear/constant terms in } u, v )$$



        Notice under affine transform, ellipse get mapped into ellipse. The conic above is an ellipse in Cartesian coordinates if and only if it is an ellipse in barycentric coordinates. In terms of coefficients in equation $(*1)$, we need
        $$begin{align}
        & 4alphabeta - (gamma - alpha - beta)^2 stackrel{?}{>} 0\
        iff & 2(alphabeta + betagamma + gammaalpha) - alpha^2 - beta^2 - gamma^2 stackrel{?}{>} 0\
        iff & alpha(beta + gamma - alpha) + beta(alpha+gamma-beta) + gamma(alpha+beta-gamma) stackrel{?}{>} 0
        end{align}
        $$

        Since $a ge b, c$, we have $alpha ge beta, gamma$. The $2^{nd}$ and $3^{th}$ terms are already non-negative. Let's look at the $1^{st}$ term, we find



        $$begin{align}beta + gamma - alpha
        &= frac{b}{2R+b} + frac{c}{2R+c} - frac{a}{2R+a}\
        &= left(frac{b}{2R+b} - frac{b}{2R+a}right) + left(frac{c}{2R+c} - frac{c}{2R+a}right) + frac{b+c-a}{2R+a}\
        &= underbrace{frac{b(a-b)}{(2R+a)(2R+b)}}_{ge 0}
        + underbrace{frac{c(a-c)}{(2R+a)(2R+c)}}_{ge 0}
        + underbrace{frac{b+c-a}{2R+a}}_{> 0, text{ by triangle inequality}}\
        &> 0
        end{align}
        $$

        Combine all these, we can deduce $4alphabeta - (gamma - alpha - beta)^2 > 0$.
        As a result, the conic in $(*1)$ is an ellipse in barycentric coordinates and hence one in Cartesian coordinates.





        A Side Note



        Let $J$ be the center of above ellipse. I was originally drawn to this question
        by another question (currently deleted and OP decided to leave math.SE). Aside from labeling of the points, it is a conjecture about the areas of three triangles:



        $$verb/Area/(IHJ) = verb/Area/(GFJ) = verb/Area/(EDJ)tag{*2}$$



        In barycentric coordinates, we have



        $$D = ( alpha, 0, 1-alpha), E = (0,beta,1-beta), F = (0,1-gamma,gamma),\
        G = ( alpha,1-alpha,0), H = (1-beta,beta,0), I = (1-gamma,0,gamma)$$

        For any $P = (u,v,w)$, it is not hard to show



        $$begin{align}
        verb/Area/(IHP)
        &= Delta (v w - (v - beta)(w - gamma))
        = Delta frac{partial}{partial u}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)\
        verb/Area/(GFP)
        &= Delta( u w - (u - alpha)(w - gamma))
        = Delta frac{partial}{partial v}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)\
        verb/Area/(EDP)
        &= Delta( u v - (u - alpha)(v - beta))
        = Delta frac{partial}{partial w}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
        end{align}
        $$

        The conjecture about areas is equivalent to $J = (u_J,v_J,w_J)$ is a solution to the set of equations:
        $$
        frac{partial}{partial u}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
        = frac{partial}{partial v}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
        = frac{partial}{partial w}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)tag{*3}$$



        In Cartesian coordinates $(x,y)$, any conic can be viewed as the zero-set
        of a quadratic polynomial $mathcal{P}(x,y)$. For circle/ellipse/hyperbola, the symmetric center is the unique point which satisfies



        $$frac{partial}{partial x}mathcal{P}(x,y) = frac{partial}{partial y}mathcal{P}(x,y) = 0$$



        Translate this to barycentric coordinates, the symmetric center of conic $mathcal{Q}(u,v,w) = 0$ is the unique point which satisfies $(*3)$. This means $J$ is a solution of $(*3)$ and hence conjecture $(*2)$ is true.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        Here is a proof using barycentric coordinates. For non-degenerate triangle $ABC$, we are going to show the six points $D, E, F, G, H, I$ lies on an ellipse.



        Let





        • $a = |BC|, b = |CA|, c = |AB|$. WOLOG, we will assume $a ge b, c$.


        • $R$ and $Delta$ be the circumradius and area of $triangle ABC$.


        • $alpha = frac{sin A}{1 + sin A} = frac{a}{2R+a}$,
          $beta = frac{sin B}{1 + sin B} = frac{b}{2R+b}$ and
          $gamma = frac{sin C}{1 + sin C} = frac{c}{2R+c}$


        For any point $P$ and line $ell$, let $(u_P, v_P, w_P)$ be its barycentric coordinates with respect to $triangle ABC$ and $d_ell(P)$ be the distance between $P$ and line $ell$.



        Consider point $D$. Since it lies on $AC$, $(u_D, v_D, w_D)$ has the form $(u, 0, 1-u)$. Since $D$ lies on the parabola having $C$ as focus and $AB$ as directrix, we have



        $$bu = |CD| = d_{AB}(D) = d_{AB}(C)(1-u) = frac{2Delta}{c}(1-u) = bsin A(1-u)$$



        This implies $u = frac{sin A}{1 + sin A}$ and hence $D$ lies on the line $u = alpha$ in barycentric coordinates.



        By a similar argument, we have
        $G$ lies on line $u = alpha$, $E$, $H$ lie on line $v = beta$ and
        $F$, $I$ lie on line $w = gamma$.
        As a result, the six points $D, E, F, G, H, I$ lies on the cubic



        $$(u - alpha)(v - beta)(w - gamma) = 0$$
        in barycentric coordiantes. These six points belong to another cubic $uvw = 0$ which corresponds to the three lines supporting the triangle. So they belong to the "difference"



        $$mathcal{Q}(u,v,w) stackrel{def}{=} uvw - (u-alpha)(v-beta)(w-gamma) = 0$$
        When we expand it, the cubic term cancel out and we are left with the equation of
        a conic
        $$(alpha vw + beta uw + gamma uv) - (ubetagamma + valphagamma + walphabeta) + alphabetagamma = 0tag{*1}$$
        To see what sort of conic is this, substitute $w = 1 - u - v$ into LHS and expand, we get



        $${rm LHS} = -alpha v^2 + (gamma - alpha - beta ) uv - beta u^2 + ( text{ linear/constant terms in } u, v )$$



        Notice under affine transform, ellipse get mapped into ellipse. The conic above is an ellipse in Cartesian coordinates if and only if it is an ellipse in barycentric coordinates. In terms of coefficients in equation $(*1)$, we need
        $$begin{align}
        & 4alphabeta - (gamma - alpha - beta)^2 stackrel{?}{>} 0\
        iff & 2(alphabeta + betagamma + gammaalpha) - alpha^2 - beta^2 - gamma^2 stackrel{?}{>} 0\
        iff & alpha(beta + gamma - alpha) + beta(alpha+gamma-beta) + gamma(alpha+beta-gamma) stackrel{?}{>} 0
        end{align}
        $$

        Since $a ge b, c$, we have $alpha ge beta, gamma$. The $2^{nd}$ and $3^{th}$ terms are already non-negative. Let's look at the $1^{st}$ term, we find



        $$begin{align}beta + gamma - alpha
        &= frac{b}{2R+b} + frac{c}{2R+c} - frac{a}{2R+a}\
        &= left(frac{b}{2R+b} - frac{b}{2R+a}right) + left(frac{c}{2R+c} - frac{c}{2R+a}right) + frac{b+c-a}{2R+a}\
        &= underbrace{frac{b(a-b)}{(2R+a)(2R+b)}}_{ge 0}
        + underbrace{frac{c(a-c)}{(2R+a)(2R+c)}}_{ge 0}
        + underbrace{frac{b+c-a}{2R+a}}_{> 0, text{ by triangle inequality}}\
        &> 0
        end{align}
        $$

        Combine all these, we can deduce $4alphabeta - (gamma - alpha - beta)^2 > 0$.
        As a result, the conic in $(*1)$ is an ellipse in barycentric coordinates and hence one in Cartesian coordinates.





        A Side Note



        Let $J$ be the center of above ellipse. I was originally drawn to this question
        by another question (currently deleted and OP decided to leave math.SE). Aside from labeling of the points, it is a conjecture about the areas of three triangles:



        $$verb/Area/(IHJ) = verb/Area/(GFJ) = verb/Area/(EDJ)tag{*2}$$



        In barycentric coordinates, we have



        $$D = ( alpha, 0, 1-alpha), E = (0,beta,1-beta), F = (0,1-gamma,gamma),\
        G = ( alpha,1-alpha,0), H = (1-beta,beta,0), I = (1-gamma,0,gamma)$$

        For any $P = (u,v,w)$, it is not hard to show



        $$begin{align}
        verb/Area/(IHP)
        &= Delta (v w - (v - beta)(w - gamma))
        = Delta frac{partial}{partial u}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)\
        verb/Area/(GFP)
        &= Delta( u w - (u - alpha)(w - gamma))
        = Delta frac{partial}{partial v}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)\
        verb/Area/(EDP)
        &= Delta( u v - (u - alpha)(v - beta))
        = Delta frac{partial}{partial w}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
        end{align}
        $$

        The conjecture about areas is equivalent to $J = (u_J,v_J,w_J)$ is a solution to the set of equations:
        $$
        frac{partial}{partial u}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
        = frac{partial}{partial v}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)
        = frac{partial}{partial w}mathcal{Q}(u,v,w)tag{*3}$$



        In Cartesian coordinates $(x,y)$, any conic can be viewed as the zero-set
        of a quadratic polynomial $mathcal{P}(x,y)$. For circle/ellipse/hyperbola, the symmetric center is the unique point which satisfies



        $$frac{partial}{partial x}mathcal{P}(x,y) = frac{partial}{partial y}mathcal{P}(x,y) = 0$$



        Translate this to barycentric coordinates, the symmetric center of conic $mathcal{Q}(u,v,w) = 0$ is the unique point which satisfies $(*3)$. This means $J$ is a solution of $(*3)$ and hence conjecture $(*2)$ is true.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 22 at 6:16

























        answered Nov 21 at 4:42









        achille hui

        95.2k5129256




        95.2k5129256






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • 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.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2959296%2fa-conjecture-involving-three-parabolas-intrinsically-bound-to-any-triangle%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...