Proving the Converse of the Intersecting Chords Theorem: Inside the Circle Case

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter disregardthat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Triangles
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the converse of the intersecting chords theorem, specifically in the case where the intersection point is inside the circle. Participants explore definitions of similarity in triangles, conditions for proving similarity, and the necessary relationships between angles and sides.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks for a proof of the converse stating that if the ratios of two segments are equal, then the triangles are similar.
  • Another participant questions the definition of similarity, seeking clarification on whether it refers to equiangular triangles.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the angles involved, with participants discussing the need for specific angles to be equal for similarity to hold.
  • A participant asserts that no proof exists for the initial claim unless certain conditions are met, specifically mentioning the need for shared angles.
  • One participant attempts to outline a proof involving triangles formed by intersecting chords and discusses conditions under which the triangles would be similar.
  • There are corrections regarding the expressions used to describe the relationships between the segments, indicating that the formulation is crucial for the proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence of a proof for the converse of the theorem, with some asserting that it cannot be proven under certain conditions, while others attempt to provide a proof under specific assumptions. There is no consensus on the validity of the proposed proof or the necessary conditions for similarity.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the proof's validity depends on the correct relationships between the segments and angles involved, highlighting the importance of precise definitions and conditions in geometric proofs.

disregardthat
Science Advisor
Messages
1,864
Reaction score
34
Hi, do anyone know a proof of this converse:

"If, A,B,C,D,E and F are points in the plane and [tex]\frac{AB}{BC}=\frac{DE}{EF}[/tex], then triangles ABC and DEF are similar."
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What is your definition of similar?
 
Oh, with similar I mean that the triangles are equiangular.

With [tex]\angle ABC = \angle DEF[/tex] and [tex]\angle ABC = \angle DEF[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Jarle said:
Oh, with similar I mean that the triangles are equiangular.

With [tex]\angle ABC = \angle DEF[/tex] and [tex]\angle ABC = \angle DEF[/tex]
Do you mean /_ABC = /_ DEF and /_BCA = /_EFD ? (You repeated yourself.)
 
Last edited:
Yes, I meant the last thing you said. (Getting late.)
 
Jarle said:
Hi, do anyone know a proof of this converse:

"If, A,B,C,D,E and F are points in the plane and [tex]\frac{AB}{BC}=\frac{DE}{EF}[/tex], then triangles ABC and DEF are similar."
No one knows a proof, because such a proof doesn’t exist.

PS
But in the case AB:BC:CA = DE:EF:FD, proof is trivial
 
Forgot to mention that they share the angle between the sides AB and BC, and DE and EF.

Oh, and the expression should not look like that either...

It's [tex]\frac{AB}{DE}=\frac{EF}{BC}[/tex]

EDIT: Anyway, I have proven it now...
 
Last edited:
Jarle said:
Forgot to mention that they share an angle.
Still not enough for similarity... :smile:

If you forget as well to mention that equal angles are /_ABC and /_ DEF, proof is trivial.
If other angles, proof doesn't exist.
 
There has been to many faults here. I will sum it up and see what I find out!
 
  • #10
Jarle said:
Forgot to mention that they share the angle between the sides AB and BC, and DE and EF.
Oh, and the expression should not look like that either...

It's [tex]\frac{AB}{DE}=\frac{EF}{BC}[/tex]

EDIT: Anyway, I have proven it now...
After your editions (bolded) proof is not possible

It must be

[tex]\frac{AB}{DE}=\frac{BC}{EF}[/tex]

OR

[tex]\frac{AB}{BC}=\frac{DE}{EF}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Ok, I have summed it up now. I am trying to prove the converse of the intersecting chords theorem, in the case where the point of intersection is inside the circle...

We have that the line segments AB and CD meet at X. So the opposite angles at X are equal. We translate the triangles to the triangle with sides XAD, XCB and with AB and DC joined. Now the angle at X is a, and [itex]\frac{XA}{XC}=\frac{XD}{XB}[/itex]. This is a sufficient condition for the triangles XAC and XDB to be similar, as corresponding sides have the same ratio, and the included angle is equal. Thus is the angle XDB equal to the angle XAC, and by the converse of the angles subtended by the same arc theorem, ACBD are concyclic points, so AB and CD are chords in a circle. Does this look ok to you? The other cases of the converse goes something in the same way.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K