Is this quadrilateral tangential?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ireallymetal
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether a quadrilateral with angles measuring 90°, 90°, 60°, and 120° is tangential. Participants clarify that the term "tangential" may have been misused, as the shape's symmetry is crucial for determining tangential properties. One contributor suggests constructing angle bisectors to find the tangential circle's center, while another emphasizes that four angles alone do not define a unique quadrilateral shape. Ultimately, it is concluded that only a specific symmetric configuration of the given angles can be tangential. The conversation highlights the importance of additional conditions beyond angle measures for tangential quadrilaterals.
ireallymetal
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
If you have a quadrilateral whose angles measure 90, 90, 60, 120 where the right angles are opposite each other does that mean that the quadrilateral is tangential. If it is can somebody show me how they arrived at that conclusion?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Your question doesn't make any sense with the standard meaning of "tangential". Maybe you used the wrong word, or you forgot to tell us what the quadrilateral is tangential to.

If you explain what you think the question meant, somebody will probably be able to help.
 
AlephZero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangential_quadrilateral

The quad with angles 90°, 60°, 90°, 120° is obviously symmetric, and it is well known that symmetric quads are tangential. Is that enough of a proof?

Otherwise I'd do a proof by construction: construct the angle bisectors at the 90° corners and use their intersection M as tangential circle center. Draw a perpendicular from one of the quad sides through M to find a point on the circle perimeter. There you go...
 
d01phi said:

OK, I guess this has come into use since I learned my geometry!

The quad with angles 90°, 60°, 90°, 120° is obviously symmetric

Are you sure about that?

Draw a circle. Draw a diameter. On one side of the diameter, draw two lines at 45 degrees, so you have a 45-90-45 triangle with each vertex on the circle.

Use those points as 3 vertices of the quadilateral and draw angles at 60 and 120 intersecting at the 4th vertex. Since the 4th vertex angle must be 90, it also lies on the circle (because the angle in a semicircle is a right angle).

Is that a symmetrical quadrilateral? I wouldn't call it symmetrical.
(Apologies if this is another use of terminology that I'm not familar with - and also for the scrappy diagram.)

quad.gif


There must be some other condition for the OP's statement to be true. Four angles do not fix the shape of a quadrilateral. In the diagram, you can draw any lines parallel to the sides and get different shaped quadrilaterals with the same angles. They can't all be tangential quadrilaterals.
 
AlephZero said:
Are you sure about that?



View attachment 31733

There must be some other condition for the OP's statement to be true. Four angles do not fix the shape of a quadrilateral. In the diagram, you can draw any lines parallel to the sides and get different shaped quadrilaterals with the same angles. They can't all be tangential quadrilaterals.

Yep, got me! Thanks for the enlightenment.

Your drawing is also a counterexample for the assumption that a quadrilateral with these angles be tangential in general. Playing around with an interactive geometry program, it seems to me that the symmetric 90-60-90-120 quad that I envisioned is the only tangential one.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top