Re: [math-fun] Bealesque identities

Dear Adam Goucher, Although my messages aren't reaching math-fun (except by courtesy of Dan Asimov), they have generated quite a bit of correspondence. I don't think that your proof is correct.

I realised that several minutes later: I merely proved the existence of an inconic, rather than a circumconic. Sorry! How embarrassing... Anyhow, coupled with the original (unproven) theorem, this means that the hexagon formed by the incentres belongs to an infinite family of hexagons as a result of Poncelet's Porism. (You're the same Richard Guy who co-authored with Conway and Berlekamp, I presume?) Sincerely, Adam P. Goucher