arxiv: v2 [math.gm] 20 Dec 2018

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "arxiv: v2 [math.gm] 20 Dec 2018"

Alfred May
5 years ago
Views:

1 arxiv: v2 [math.gm] 20 Dec 2018 New Proofs of Classical Triangle Inequality Norihiro Someyama & Mark Lyndon Adamas Borongan Abstract In this article, we give two kinds of new simple and elementary proofs of the triangle inequality in Euclidean Geometry. We first prove using the property of circles in two ways. We next show that if the sum of the lengths of two sides of the triangle especially is greater than a certain value, the triangle inequality is proven in an instant by the property of ellipses as if it is the cat s cradle ( AYATORI in Japanese). 1 Introduction This article gives us two kinds of simple proofs of the triangle inequality in Euclidean Geometry. One is the method by Euclidean Geometry and the other is the method by the technique of Analytic Geometry or a fundamental property of real numbers. We must however notice that only elementary knowledges will appear in any of our proofs. If the teachers urge the students to prove one theorem from various perspectives in lectures on Geometry at the school, that will give them some intellectual stimulus. The triangle inequality is the most fundamental and most famous among several geometric inequalities. It is supposed that the ancient Greeks proved the triangle inequality for the first time, but there is a story that some people of Epicurean school affirmed that we do not need to prove the triangle inequality because it is a trivial fact that even the donkeys know. However, it seems that the proofs make us feel by no means easy, when we try to prove the triangle inequality. (For confirmation, three well-known proofs of Shin-yo-ji Temple, Minamisenju, Arakawa-ku, Tokyo Japan / philomatics[at sign]outlook.jp Mathematics Department, Silliman University, 1 Hibbard Avenue, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, 6200 Philippines / lyndonaborongan[at sign]su.edu.ph 1

2 it are introduced in Subsection ) Therefore, we would like to find more concise proofs of it. That is the motivation for this article. In this article, we denote the triangle consisting of three points A, B and C in Euclidean space by ABC, and write AB, BC and CA for the three sides of it. However, for example AB stands for the length of the segment AB. Moreover, we denote the angles by ABC etc., and, call the following triangle inequality by Classical Triangle Inequality (or simply CTI). We discuss about CTI in the real plane R 2, and assume that all three sides of the triangle are strictly positive, from beginning to end. Our purpose is to present soft proofs of the following theorem. Theorem 1.1 (Classical Triangle Inequality). For any triangle ABC, an inequality AB + AC > BC (1) always holds. Proof. See Section 2 in this article. Another Proof. It follows from Proposition 3.1 in Subsection 3.1 and Proposition 3.2 in Subsection 3.2 in this article. Remark 1. As well-known, we can prove CTI for the obtuse triangle as the following. Actually, if C is a maximum angle (which is obtuse) then AB is a maximum side, so AB > BC and we obtain Eq.(1). This logic development is the proof itself in Subsection 1.1. Or we can also prove by the following way. (See also [2], Proposition I.22.) That is, if C is a maximum angle, we think a circle whose center is B and whose radius is AB. Let us denote a point of intersection of the circle and the extension of BC by D. Then, it is clear that Hence, we gain CTI for the obtuse triangle. BC < BD = AB. (2) The following assumption does not lose generality: Assumption. In this article, we always assume that the side BC is the longest of three sides of ABC: BC > max{ab, AC} (3) In addition to that, it is also well-known that the converse of Theorem 1.1 holds from Eq.(4) called the condition for establishing a triangle : 2

3 Theorem 1.2. We plot three different points A, B and C in the plane R 2. If all three inequalities AB + AC > BC, BC + AB > AC, AC + BC > AB (4) hold, then three segments AB, BC and AC make a triangle ABC. We prove Theorem 1.1 in Section 2 by borrowing the idea of the known proof of Theorem Proof by Euclidean Geometry In the past, CTI is proved by the method of Euclidean Geometry or algebraically way. The former is technically: We think a triangle ABC and plot a point P, which satisfies AC = AP, on an extension line of the segment BA. (See Figure 1.) Then, and it is clearly that ACP = APC BCP > ACP = APC = BPC. Hence, we have the proof, since PBC implies BC < BP = BA + AP = AB + AC. Figure 1: 3

4 1.2 Proof by Algebra 1: vectors One of the latter is used the Cauchy-Schwarz-Bunyakovsky s inequality (we call simply CSB inequality hereafter): We consider three vectors a := BA, b := AC and c := BC. Then, since c = a + b, it is sufficient to prove a + b a + b (5) where is an Euclidean norm: x := x x2 2 for x = (x 1, x 2 ). (See Remark 2 for argument of the equal sign.) To see Eq.(5), we think ( a + b ) 2 a + b 2 = 2( a b a b) where is the inner product. Here we recall the CSB inequality a b a b and the proof completes, but the latter proof uses the big result, CSB inequality, whose proof is more difficult than CTI. In particular, if a and b in Eq.(5) are real numbers a and b respectively, since a a a, b b b by absolute values for real numbers, we obtain so ( a + b ) a + b a + b, a + b a + b. Hence, the proof of CTI in one-dimension completes. We cannot however take this way to prove CTI for two or more dimensional vectors. Remark 2. The above Eq.(5) includes the case that ABC becomes the segment BC. That is, CSB inequality becomes an equation if a and b are parallel to each other (namely, they are linearly dependent). By the way, the fact that ABC exists implies the fact that a and b are linearly independent. Hence, at this time, CSB inequality is established strictly: a b < a b. So, CTI is also obtained in the narrow sence: a + b < a + b. 4

5 1.3 Proof by Algebra 2: complex numbers Another of the latter is used complex numbers. We prove CTI of complex numbers instead of real vectors, since the two-dimensional real space R 2 and the complex plane C correspond one-to-one: R 2 C. That is, let two real vectors a := (a 1, a 2 ), b := (b 1, b 2 ) in Subsection 1.2 correspond to two complex numbers z 1 := a 1 + ia 2 = r 1 e iθ 1, z 2 := b 1 + ib 2 = r 2 e iθ 2 respectively, where i := 1 and 0 < θ j < 180 (j = 1, 2). This time, we should prove z 1 + z 2 z 1 + z 2 (6) in order to prove CTI. We can however obtain Eq.(6) as follows: z 1 + z 2 = (r 1 cos θ 1 + r 2 cos θ 2 ) + i(r 1 sin θ 1 + r 2 sin θ 2 ) = (r 1 cos θ 1 + r 2 cos θ 2 ) 2 + (r 1 sin θ 1 + r 2 sin θ 2 ) 2 = r1 2 + r r 1r 2 cos(θ 1 θ 2 ) r r 1r 2 + r2 2 = r 1 + r 2 = z 1 + z 2. Eq.(6) in C is a paraphrase of Eq.(5) in R 2, so CTI has been shown. 2 New proofs by circles Let us present our proof from this section. This section gives us two proofs. We prove CTI by circles and properties of them. In order to that, we should however set the definition of the circle before the definition of the triangle. (See Section 4 in this article.) Here, we define that the circle is the locus of points, which is equidistant from a certain point, in R New proof 1 by two circles We think two circles, that is, one is a circle C 1 whose center is the point B and whose radius is AB, and, the other is a circle C 2 whose center is the point C and whose radius is AC. (See Figure 2.) Recall the assumed Eq.(3). 5

6 If we assume that AB + AC BC, two circles C 1 and C 2 contact each other or are separated. In either case, AB, BC and AC never make a triangle. Hence, CTI, Eq.(1), must be established. 2.2 New proof 2 by two circles If the circles C 1 and C 2 touch each other, a point A is on the segment BC, so we think the case that C 1 and C 2 intersect. Then, a point A is one of two points of intersection of C 1 and C 2. (See Figure 2.) Remark that the point C (resp. B) is outside C 1 (resp. C 2 ) from the assumed Eq.(3). We write a point of intersection of BC and C 1 by P. Similarly, we write a point of intersection of BC and C 2 by Q. Then, BC = BP + PC = AB + PC because AB = BP, so it is sufficient to prove But since C 1 and C 2 intesect, it is obviously that Hence, we have proven CTI. AC > PC. (7) PC < QC = AC. Figure 2: 6

7 3 New proof by ellipses and properties of R Imitate the above proofs by circles and let us think about whether we can prove by the same way with an ellipse this time. The first half of the following proof is more dynamic than our new proofs above. None of the above proofs (including those in Subsection 1.1, 1.2) were discussed without changing the shape of the triangle, but we next pay attention to the fact that we can change the shape of the triangle without changing two sides of it. Recall that we are assuming Eq.(3). 3.1 Case that the sum of lengths of two sides is greater than the major diameter First, we set where a is a major radius of an ellipse E: E : x 2 AB + AC = 2a (8) a 2 + y2 = 1 (a > b > 0) b2 which has two focci B( a 2 b 2, 0) and C( a 2 b 2, 0). Since we assume Eq.(8), if we set P(a, 0), it satisfies that AB + AC = BP + PC (= 2a) (9) from the definition of ellipses. We plot a point Q, on an extension line of the segment BP, satisfying PC = PQ. (See Figure 3.) Then Eq.(9) is rewritten that AB + AC = BP + PQ = BQ > BC, so it is clear that CTI is established if Eq.(8). Next, we set AB + AC > 2a. (10) Since 2a = BQ > BC, it is also clear that CTI is established if Eq.(10) by the above discussion. (See Remark 3.) Thus, we obtain the following result: Proposition 3.1. If AB + AC 2a for any major radius a > 0 of E, then Eq.(1) is established. 7

8 Figure 3: Remark 3. We suppose that there is a point P inside a triangle ABC. Then, it is well-known that AB + AC > PB + PC. (This can be proven by Euclidean Geometry.) So, Eq.(1) is obvious under the condition: PB + PC > R where R is the length of the major diameter of the ellipse with two focci B and C, moreover P is on that ellipse. But in this article, we led Proposition 3.1 only by the property of ellipses. Remark 4. The above proof of Proposition 3.1 is the argument of Analytic Geometry, we can but also show by more algebraic argument as follows: AB + AC 2a > 2 a 2 b 2 = BC. 3.2 Case that the sum of lengths of two sides is smaller than the major diameter As Subsection 3.1, it was easy to see Theorem 1.1 in the case that AB + AC 2a. In order to complete the proof of Theorem 1.1, we also need to prove the following assertion. Proposition 3.2. If AB + AC < 2a for any major radius a > 0 of E, then Eq.(1) is established. 8

9 To see this, we rely on the following assertion for real numbers. Lemma 3.3 (e.g., [1], p.42). Let α, β, γ R. If α < γ for any γ such that β < γ, then α β. Remark 5. Lemma 3.3 is a statement which paraphrases the following well-known proposition that is often used in measure theory: Let a, b R. If a < b + ε for any ε > 0, then a b. Lemma 3.3 is actually derived by the proof by contradiction. (Assume α > β and put γ = (α + β)/2.) Then, putting α = BC, β = AB + AC, γ = 2a in Lemma 3.3, we can prove Proposition 3.2. With this, our proof of CTI has been completed. Remark 6. Our proof in this Section 3 can be applied to triangles of any shape as well as proofs in Subsection That is, we are able to prove CTIs for both acute and obtuse triangles by this method using ellipses. 4 Comments As a result we have found several proofs that we can prove by just imagining in our brain without having to calculate with a pen. To position our proofs as simple them or fundamental them, we will however have to recognize circles as more basic figures than triangles and will define circles before triangles. Certainly it may be perceived as such sensuously, but comparing their mathematical definitions, circles are much more difficult figures than triangles. It is because circles are somewhat philosophical and have the (uncountably) infinite content. As we saw above, CTI for special triangles can be proven by ellipses, but ellipses also have the same problem. How to solve that problem? It seems that it is the problem on mathematical education or mathematical philosophy. One of our answers as mathematical education to that problem is drawing : Let us put a finite length bar XY on the plane. If we fix the end point X of the bar and rotate the bar around X, the curve drawn at that time is defined as a circle. Then, X is the center and the length XY is the radius of the circle. On the other hand, let us put three stones on the plane so they do not overlap each other. A curve formed by connecting these stones with lines is called the triangle. By definition like this, even if circles appear before triangles, it will not be a strange thing. In fact, referring to [3], Elements that Euclid compiled has the following description in the Postulates term: 9

10 (Pos.3) And to draw a circle with any center and radius. (Pos.5) And that if a straight-line falling across two (other) straightlines makes internal angles on the same side (of itself whose sum is) less than two right-angles, then the two (other) straight-lines, being produced to infinity, meet on that side (of the original straight-line) that the (sum of the internal angles) is less than two right-angles (and do not meet on the other side). Remark that triangles is a notion made by (Pos.5). Therefore circles are defined before triangles historically, so proving CTI by using circles is rather reasonable. It may however be unsuitable to express the proofs in Section 3 as simple proof completely, because Proposition 3.1 has a simple proof certainly but Proposition 3.2 will not. So, when teaching CTI to primary school students, it may be enough to teach only Proposition 3.1 as an extension of Ayatori game for the development of geometric sensation rather than cultivate the ability to prove accurately. Acknowledgement The authors thank Honorary Prof. Shigeru Nakamura of Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, for accurate advice and for suggestion to prove CTI by the property of circles (particularly Subsection 2.1). Furthermore, the authors also thank Dr. Millard R. Mamhot of Silliman University for giving another idea using circles (particularly Subsection 2.2). References [1] F. Burk, Lebesgue Measure and Integration, WILEY INTERSCIENCE(1998) [2] M. I. Dillon, Geometry Through History, Springer(2018) [3] Euclidis, Elementa [trans.: K. Nakamura, H. Terasaka, S. Ito and M. Ikeda, Euclid s Elements (Pocket Edition), Kyoritsu-shuppan (in Japanese)] (2005) 10

Lecture 1: Axioms and Models

Lecture 1: Axioms and Models 1.1 Geometry Although the study of geometry dates back at least to the early Babylonian and Egyptian societies, our modern systematic approach to the subject originates in