MHB Barycentric coordinates in a triangle - proof

Samwise1
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I want to prove that the barycentric coordinates of a point $P$ inside the triangle with vertices in $(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)$ are distances from $P$ to the sides of the triangle.

Let's denote the triangle by $ABC, \ A = (1,0,0), B=(0,1,0), C= (0,0,1)$.

We consider triangles $ABP, \ BCP, \ CAP$.

The barycentric coordinates of $P$ will then be $(h_1, h_2, h_3)$ where $h_1$ is the height of $ABP$, $h_2 \rightarrow BCP$, $h_3 \rightarrow CAP$

I know that $h_1 = \frac{S_{ABP}}{S_{ABC}}$ and similarly for $h_2, \ h_3$

My problem is that I don't know how to prove that if $P= (p_1, p_2, p_3)$

then $(h_1 + h_2 + h_3)P = h_1 (1,0,0) + h_2 (0,1,0) + h_3 (0,0,1)$

Could you tell me what to do about it?

Thank you!

I have one more question. Similarly, barycentric coordinates of a point $p$ in a regular tetrahedron $\Delta_3$ are distances of $p$ from its faces. How can we prove that?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Samwise said:
I want to prove that the barycentric coordinates of a point $P$ inside the triangle with vertices in $(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)$ are distances from $P$ to the sides of the triangle.

...

The barycentric coordinates of $P$ will then be $(h_1, h_2, h_3)$ where $h_1$ is the height of $ABP$, $h_2 \rightarrow BCP$, $h_3 \rightarrow CAP$
Isn't it what you need to prove? Because the height of $ABP$ is the distance from $P$ to $AB$.

Samwise said:
I know that $h_1 = \frac{S_{ABP}}{S_{ABC}}$ and similarly for $h_2, \ h_3$

My problem is that I don't know how to prove that if $P= (p_1, p_2, p_3)$

then $(h_1 + h_2 + h_3)p = h_1 (1,0,0) + h_2 (0,1,0) + h_3 (0,0,1)$
What is $p$ in the last equation?
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Isn't it what you need to prove? Because the height of $ABP$ is the distance from $P$ to $AB$.

What is $p$ in the last equation?

I see. I didn't express myself very well.

It was supposed to be a reformulation of the statement which I want to prove, that is that the barycentric coordinates of a point $p$ inside a triangle are distances of that point from the sides of the triangle = heights of respective smaller triangles.

So far I only know that $$1 = \frac{\frac{1}{2}(|AB|h_1 + |BC|h_2 + |CA|h_3)}{S_{ABC}} = \frac{S_{ABP}}{S} + \frac{S_{BCP}}{S} + \frac{S_{CAP}}{S}$$, but I don't know how to show that the condition :

$$(h_1 + h_2 + h_3)P = h_1 (1,0,0) + h_2 (0,1,0) + h_3 (0,0,1)$$

is satisfied.

And the $p$ in the last equation was a typo, I guess I didn't press "Shift" correctly :)
 
First, the length of each side in $\triangle ABC$ where $A=(1,0,0)$, $B=(0,1,0)$ and $C=(0,0,1)$ is $\sqrt{2}$, and $S_{\triangle ABC}=\dfrac{\sqrt{3}}{2}$. Therefore, if $h_1$ is the height of $ABP$ and $h=\sqrt{\dfrac{3}{2}}$ is the height of $ABC$, then $h_1$ is indeed the distance from $P$ to $AB$, but $\dfrac{S_{\triangle ABP}}{S_{\triangle ABC}}=\dfrac{h_1}{h}\ne h_1$.

Samwise said:
I don't know how to show that the condition :

$$(h_1 + h_2 + h_3)P = h_1 (1,0,0) + h_2 (0,1,0) + h_3 (0,0,1)$$

is satisfied.
The general fact is that
\[
P=\dfrac{S_{PBC}}{S_{ABC}}A+\dfrac{S_{PAC}}{S_{ABC}}B+\dfrac{S_{PAB}}{S_{ABC}}C\qquad(*)
\]
and it is trivial to show that $\dfrac{S_{PAB}}{S_{ABC}}=\dfrac{h_1}{h}$ and similarly for other fractions. Do I understand right that you need a proof of (*)?
 
Thank you.

I've come up with a proof of $(*)$.

Here it is:

Let $h_i : \Delta_3 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be functions assigning $P \in \Delta_3$ its $i$-th barycentric coordinate. These maps are affine.

Then we consider a plane, an affine subspace of $T$ containing the triangle and extend the above mappings to $T$.

Next we define $H(P) = h_1(P) + h_2(P) + h_3(P)$

$T$ is $2$-dimensional. We take three non-collinear points - the vertices of our triangle and see that $H(A)=H(B)=H(C) = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}$

So $H$ is constant.

Next we set $f(P) = \frac{1}{H} (h_1(P) , h_2(P) ,h_3(P))$

Here $f(A)=A, f(B)=B, f(C)=C$, so $f$ is the identity map.

Is that right?
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
The general fact is that
\[
P=\dfrac{S_{PBC}}{S_{ABC}}A+\dfrac{S_{PAC}}{S_{ABC}}B+\dfrac{S_{PAB}}{S_{ABC}}C\qquad(*)
\]
and it is trivial to show that $\dfrac{S_{PAB}}{S_{ABC}}=\dfrac{h_1}{h}$ and similarly for other fractions. Do I understand right that you need a proof of (*)?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do need the proof of that fact.

My "proof" doesn't seem to prove much.

Could you tell me why the equality $(*)$ is true?
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
6K
Replies
125
Views
19K
4
Replies
175
Views
25K
Back
Top