Title: | Mathematics at DEC |
Moderator: | RUSURE::EDP |
Created: | Mon Feb 03 1986 |
Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 2083 |
Total number of notes: | 14613 |
Hi, Does anyone know whose theorem this is: You have two straight lines. On the first line there are points A, B and C. On the second line there are points L, M & N. The points of intersection of where (AM & BL), (AN & CL), & (BN & CM) meet, turn out to be on a straight line themselves. Thanks Stuart
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2038.1 | HANNAH::OSMAN | see HANNAH::IGLOO$:[OSMAN]ERIC.VT240 | Wed Apr 10 1996 11:28 | 7 | |
Does this have something to do with the pantograph, a drawing instrument looking kind of like a tresseled wooden stairwell gate lieing down horizontally, that allows a user to trace a drawn figure and produce a larger or smaller replica ? /Eric | |||||
2038.2 | Desargues? | FLOYD::YODER | MFY | Wed Apr 10 1996 18:40 | 2 |
The name "Desargues" comes to mind, but I may be confusing this with another theorem. | |||||
2038.3 | IOSG::MAURICE | Like a tea tray in the sky | Thu Apr 11 1996 04:44 | 16 | |
Hi, Thanks for the hints. I tried searching the net using them , and it does seem that the theorem of Desargues is close. It says "If two triangles are in perspective, then the meets of the corresponding sides are collinear". From: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/BigPictures/DesarguesTheorem.gif (Which also has a picture) My maths isn't good enough to know whether this is the same theorem. Cheers Stuart | |||||
2038.4 | Pappus | IOSG::MAURICE | Like a tea tray in the sky | Thu Apr 11 1996 05:13 | 8 |
A lucky search on the net using the Alta Vista search engine for +collinear +theorem gave up Pappus of Alexandria. " If points A1, A2, A3 and B1, B2, B3 are collinear, then the intersections A1B2.A2B1, A1B3.A3B1, A2B3.A3B2 are collinear." Cheers Stuart | |||||
2038.5 | HANNAH::OSMAN | see HANNAH::IGLOO$:[OSMAN]ERIC.VT240 | Thu Apr 11 1996 16:26 | 5 | |
And where is the newly defined line. Does it bisect the angle formed by the original two ? /Eric | |||||
2038.6 | hand waving | AUSS::GARSON | achtentachtig kacheltjes | Thu Apr 11 1996 19:37 | 16 |
re .5 >Does it bisect the angle formed by the original two ? I wouldn't think so. Let one line be the x-axis with points at x=1,2,3 (call them A,B,C) and the other line be the y-axis with points at y=1,2,3 (call them D,E,F). The point formed from A,B,D,E (call it G) indeed is on the bisector, as are the other two points formed. Now move the point F up the y-axis. The point G does not move because it is not determined by F (and hence remains on the bisector). However the other two points (call them H,I) clearly do move. It is intuitively obvious (proof by declaration) that H (and I) both move off the bisector (because only one of the lines determining their position is moving) and hence G,H,I is no longer the bisector. |