PROVE: The altitude of a triangle are concurrent.

  • Thread starter Thread starter pavadrin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Altitude Triangle
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the altitudes of a triangle are concurrent. The original poster expresses confusion about the proof's requirements and the mathematical concepts involved, specifically regarding the use of vector notation and dot products to establish perpendicularity between lines.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to prove that a specific vector is perpendicular to another using dot products. Some participants question the assumptions made in the proof and whether the reasoning is valid. Others provide clarifications on the geometric concepts involved.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with some participants providing feedback on the original poster's attempts. There is a recognition of the need for further exploration of the assumptions and reasoning presented in the proof, but no consensus has been reached regarding its correctness.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the requirement to demonstrate the concurrency of altitudes and the use of specific vector relationships, which may not be fully understood by the original poster. There is an indication that the proof may not align with standard geometric principles.

pavadrin
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
Hey,
this proof has been annoying me all day. i don't understand what its asking do and have no idea how to solve it. The proof asks:

Prove that the altitudes of a traingle are concurrent.
Here is the diagram for it:

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1899/pfji4.jpg

[tex] \begin{array}{l}<br /> \overrightarrow {FA} = {\bf{a}} \\ <br /> \overrightarrow {FC} = {\bf{c}} \\ <br /> \overrightarrow {FB} = {\bf{b}} \\ <br /> \end{array}[/tex]

Im also told to use the fact that

[tex]{\bf{a}} \cdot \overrightarrow {BC} = 0[/tex]

and

[tex]{\bf{b}} \cdot \overrightarrow {AC} = 0[/tex]

to prove that [tex]\overrightarrow {CF}[/tex] is perpendicualr to [tex]\overrightarrow {AB}[/tex]

thanks to anyone who understands what this is asking me to do and post back helpful infomation,
Pavadrin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
An altitude of a triangle is a line that passes through one of the points and is perpendicular to the adjacent side. There are three such lines, and this problem asks you to show that they are always concurrent, which just means that they intersect at a point (note that any two non-parallel lines intersect at a point, but it is not always the case that three lines will). The hint they have given you is to show that if F is the point of intersection of two of the altitudes (which, again, must exist), then the line passing through C and F is perpencidular to AB, which means this line is the third altitude, and so all three altitudes pass through F.
 
thank you for your reply explaining what this geometric proof is regarding
 
here i will atempt to prove that [tex]\overrightarrow {CF}[/tex] is perpendicular to [tex]\overrightarrow {AB}[/tex]

____________________​

[tex] \begin{array}{c}<br /> {\rm{prove }}\overrightarrow {CF} \bot \overrightarrow {AB} \\ <br /> {\bf{a}} \cdot \overrightarrow {BC} = 0 \\ <br /> {\bf{a}} \cdot \left( {\overrightarrow {BF} + \overrightarrow {FC} } \right) = 0 \\ <br /> {\bf{a}} \cdot \left( { - {\bf{b}} + {\bf{c}}} \right) = 0 \\ <br /> - {\bf{a}} \cdot {\bf{b}} + {\bf{a}} \cdot {\bf{c}} = 0 \\ <br /> {\rm{therefore }}{\bf{a}} \cdot {\bf{b}} = {\bf{a}} \cdot {\bf{c}} \\ <br /> {\bf{b}} \cdot \left( {\overrightarrow {AC} } \right) = 0 \\ <br /> {\bf{b}} \cdot \left( {\overrightarrow {AF} + \overrightarrow {FC} } \right) = 0 \\ <br /> {\bf{b}} \cdot \left( { - {\bf{a}} + {\bf{c}}} \right) = 0 \\ <br /> - {\bf{a}} \cdot {\bf{b}} + {\bf{b}} \cdot {\bf{c}} = 0{\rm{therefore }}{\bf{a}} \cdot {\bf{b}} = {\bf{b}} \cdot {\bf{c}} \\ <br /> {\rm{therefore }}{\bf{a}} \cdot {\bf{b}} = {\bf{a}} \cdot {\bf{c}} = {\bf{b}} \cdot {\bf{c}} \\ <br /> \overrightarrow {CF} = - {\bf{c}} \\ <br /> \overrightarrow {AB} = \overrightarrow {AF} + \overrightarrow {FB} \\ <br /> = - {\bf{a}} + {\bf{b}} \\ <br /> \overrightarrow {CF} \cdot \overrightarrow {AB} = - {\bf{c}} \cdot \left( { - {\bf{a}} + {\bf{b}}} \right) \\ <br /> = {\bf{a}} \cdot {\bf{c}} - {\bf{b}} \cdot {\bf{c}} \\ <br /> {\rm{therefore since }}{\bf{a}} \cdot {\bf{c}} = {\bf{b}} \cdot {\bf{c}} \Rightarrow \overrightarrow {CF} \cdot \overrightarrow {AB} = 0 \\ <br /> {\rm{therefore }}\overrightarrow {CF} \bot \overrightarrow {AB} \\ <br /> \end{array}[/tex]

____________________​

is what i have done correct or have i taken the wrong assumptions? thanks,
Pavadrin
 
this prove is not correct...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
19K