Bisectors of Triangle ABC Concurrent at Incentre I

  • Thread starter Thread starter PiRsq
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Triangle
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the angle bisectors of triangle ABC are concurrent at the incentre, I. The initial proof attempts to show this by intersecting the bisectors of angles A and B, but it faces criticism for making a flawed assumption about point O's relationship to angle B. The critique highlights that defining O as a point on the bisector of angle B contradicts the established definition of I. A valid proof is suggested through a link to a more reliable source. The conversation emphasizes the importance of logical consistency in geometric proofs.
PiRsq
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
Prove that the bisectors of the angles of any triangle ABC are concurrent. The point of intersection is called the incentre, I.

Proof:

-Angle A and B are bisected and their bisectors meet at a point I
-Assume a line segment bisects angle C and meets the bisector of angle A at point O
-Assume a line from O to B that will bisect angle B
-But angle B is already bisected by segment BI
-So line segment OB must be BI
-Thus point O is I
-Therefore the incentre is at I


Does this proof workout?
 

Attachments

  • proof.gif
    proof.gif
    5.4 KB · Views: 488
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it does not work.
Look:

-Angle A and B are bisected and their bisectors meet at a point I
-Assume a line segment bisects angle C and meets the bisector of angle A at point O
OK, so far.
-Assume a line from O to B that will bisect angle B

This is a false assumption:
You have already defined I to be on the bisection of angle B.
So you may not assume that O, which has already been defined otherwise, is also on the bisection of angle B.

Since the assumption is false on the basis of your proposition, it does not lead to the conclusion that the proposition is false.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Back
Top