[math-fun] 3-D Euclidean geometry: exscribed tetrahedron puzzle
The following problem (or rather its solution) constitutes the crux of what appears to be a new result in elementary 3-space Euclidean geometry. However its solution proves so neat that I'm posing it on the list, ahead of the solution to follow in a few days. [A handy excuse for further procrastination over the next instalment of Poncelet pontification.] Gloss (0) : Given an arbitrary tetrahedron A , denote by B the inscribed tetrahedron with vertices the centroids of faces of A . It is well known that B is similar to A , but scaled down to 1/3 ; and an analogous result holds for any dimension n , with scale-down 1/n . Given A and a chosen vertex A_0 , a tetrahedron is `exscribed' when its vertices meet the extended face planes of A , but lie outside face plane F_0 opposite A_0 . Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to A . For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png Problem (2) : Generalise the result to a simplex in Euclidean n-space, for n >= 3 . Question (3) : Investigate whether C is the smallest possible exscribed on F_0 and similar to A . (Probably, but I don't know either.)
On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
The following problem (or rather its solution) constitutes the crux of what appears to be a new result in elementary 3-space Euclidean geometry. However its solution proves so neat that I'm posing it on the list, ahead of the solution to follow in a few days. [A handy excuse for further procrastination over the next instalment of Poncelet pontification.]
Gloss (0) : Given an arbitrary tetrahedron A , denote by B the inscribed tetrahedron with vertices the centroids of faces of A . It is well known that B is similar to A , but scaled down to 1/3 ; and an analogous result holds for any dimension n , with scale-down 1/n .
Given A and a chosen vertex A_0 , a tetrahedron is `exscribed' when its vertices meet the extended face planes of A , but lie outside face plane F_0 opposite A_0 .
I don't think I'm understanding this definition, or how the Dropbox picture relates to it. Does it have an analogue for triangles in 2D ? Would that be something like this, where the *'s are the vertices of the original triangle and the o's of the exscribed one with respect to A0: A0 | * F0-----*----o---*---- o o ??? —Dan
Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to A . For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png
Problem (2) : Generalise the result to a simplex in Euclidean n-space, for n >= 3 .
Question (3) : Investigate whether C is the smallest possible exscribed on F_0 and similar to A . (Probably, but I don't know either.)
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
My definitions should have specified that in/exscribed vertices correspond bijectively and uniquely with original facets which they meet. Dan's 2-D picture fails to make the cut, since two vertices lie on line F_0 . As do tricks such as placing scribed vertices at the intersections of original [ (n-1)-dimensional ] facets. As for the situation in n = 2 dimensions ... good question! WFL On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
The following problem (or rather its solution) constitutes the crux of what appears to be a new result in elementary 3-space Euclidean geometry. However its solution proves so neat that I'm posing it on the list, ahead of the solution to follow in a few days. [A handy excuse for further procrastination over the next instalment of Poncelet pontification.]
Gloss (0) : Given an arbitrary tetrahedron A , denote by B the inscribed tetrahedron with vertices the centroids of faces of A . It is well known that B is similar to A , but scaled down to 1/3 ; and an analogous result holds for any dimension n , with scale-down 1/n .
Given A and a chosen vertex A_0 , a tetrahedron is `exscribed' when its vertices meet the extended face planes of A , but lie outside face plane F_0 opposite A_0 .
I don't think I'm understanding this definition, or how the Dropbox picture relates to it.
Does it have an analogue for triangles in 2D ?
Would that be something like this, where the *'s are the vertices of the original triangle and the o's of the exscribed one with respect to A0:
A0 | *
F0-----*----o---*----
o o
???
—Dan
Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to A . For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png
Problem (2) : Generalise the result to a simplex in Euclidean n-space, for n >= 3 .
Question (3) : Investigate whether C is the smallest possible exscribed on F_0 and similar to A . (Probably, but I don't know either.)
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Forget that stuff about uniqueness and avoiding intersections --- the only constraint missing was bijection between 'scribed points and original facets. WFL On 2/8/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
My definitions should have specified that in/exscribed vertices correspond bijectively and uniquely with original facets which they meet.
Dan's 2-D picture fails to make the cut, since two vertices lie on line F_0 . As do tricks such as placing scribed vertices at the intersections of original [ (n-1)-dimensional ] facets.
As for the situation in n = 2 dimensions ... good question!
WFL
On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
The following problem (or rather its solution) constitutes the crux of what appears to be a new result in elementary 3-space Euclidean geometry. However its solution proves so neat that I'm posing it on the list, ahead of the solution to follow in a few days. [A handy excuse for further procrastination over the next instalment of Poncelet pontification.]
Gloss (0) : Given an arbitrary tetrahedron A , denote by B the inscribed tetrahedron with vertices the centroids of faces of A . It is well known that B is similar to A , but scaled down to 1/3 ; and an analogous result holds for any dimension n , with scale-down 1/n .
Given A and a chosen vertex A_0 , a tetrahedron is `exscribed' when its vertices meet the extended face planes of A , but lie outside face plane F_0 opposite A_0 .
I don't think I'm understanding this definition, or how the Dropbox picture relates to it.
Does it have an analogue for triangles in 2D ?
Would that be something like this, where the *'s are the vertices of the original triangle and the o's of the exscribed one with respect to A0:
A0 | *
F0-----*----o---*----
o o
???
—Dan
Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to A . For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png
Problem (2) : Generalise the result to a simplex in Euclidean n-space, for n >= 3 .
Question (3) : Investigate whether C is the smallest possible exscribed on F_0 and similar to A . (Probably, but I don't know either.)
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Now I am more confused than ever. The two vertices of the triangle I drew that are on the line F0 are the two vertices of the original triangle that are necessarily on the edge not containing the "chosen" vertex A0. —Dan
On Feb 8, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
Forget that stuff about uniqueness and avoiding intersections --- the only constraint missing was bijection between 'scribed points and original facets.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
My definitions should have specified that in/exscribed vertices correspond bijectively and uniquely with original facets which they meet.
Dan's 2-D picture fails to make the cut, since two vertices lie on line F_0 . As do tricks such as placing scribed vertices at the intersections of original [ (n-1)-dimensional ] facets.
As for the situation in n = 2 dimensions ... good question!
WFL
On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
The following problem (or rather its solution) constitutes the crux of what appears to be a new result in elementary 3-space Euclidean geometry. However its solution proves so neat that I'm posing it on the list, ahead of the solution to follow in a few days. [A handy excuse for further procrastination over the next instalment of Poncelet pontification.]
Gloss (0) : Given an arbitrary tetrahedron A , denote by B the inscribed tetrahedron with vertices the centroids of faces of A . It is well known that B is similar to A , but scaled down to 1/3 ; and an analogous result holds for any dimension n , with scale-down 1/n .
Given A and a chosen vertex A_0 , a tetrahedron is `exscribed' when its vertices meet the extended face planes of A , but lie outside face plane F_0 opposite A_0 .
I don't think I'm understanding this definition, or how the Dropbox picture relates to it.
Does it have an analogue for triangles in 2D ?
Would that be something like this, where the *'s are the vertices of the original triangle and the o's of the exscribed one with respect to A0:
A0 | *
F0-----*----o---*----
o o
???
—Dan
Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to A . For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png
Problem (2) : Generalise the result to a simplex in Euclidean n-space, for n >= 3 .
Question (3) : Investigate whether C is the smallest possible exscribed on F_0 and similar to A . (Probably, but I don't know either.)
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
My mistake: your dots are original vertices, your "o"s are exscribed. But for exscription the two lower "o"s should lie on the (extended) sides F_ 2 = A_0 A_1 and F_1 = A_0 A_2 of the dotted triangle. And to fulfil the conditions of the problem, the triangles would have also to be similar ... In my 3-D diagram, all the constraints are satisfied: each yellow vertex lies on just one grey face-plane, each grey plane meets one yellow vertex, and the tetrahedra are (in fact) congruent. WFL On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
Now I am more confused than ever.
The two vertices of the triangle I drew that are on the line F0 are the two vertices of the original triangle that are necessarily on the edge not containing the "chosen" vertex A0.
—Dan
On Feb 8, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
Forget that stuff about uniqueness and avoiding intersections --- the only constraint missing was bijection between 'scribed points and original facets.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
My definitions should have specified that in/exscribed vertices correspond bijectively and uniquely with original facets which they meet.
Dan's 2-D picture fails to make the cut, since two vertices lie on line F_0 . As do tricks such as placing scribed vertices at the intersections of original [ (n-1)-dimensional ] facets.
As for the situation in n = 2 dimensions ... good question!
WFL
On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
The following problem (or rather its solution) constitutes the crux of what appears to be a new result in elementary 3-space Euclidean geometry. However its solution proves so neat that I'm posing it on the list, ahead of the solution to follow in a few days. [A handy excuse for further procrastination over the next instalment of Poncelet pontification.]
Gloss (0) : Given an arbitrary tetrahedron A , denote by B the inscribed tetrahedron with vertices the centroids of faces of A . It is well known that B is similar to A , but scaled down to 1/3 ; and an analogous result holds for any dimension n , with scale-down 1/n .
Given A and a chosen vertex A_0 , a tetrahedron is `exscribed' when its vertices meet the extended face planes of A , but lie outside face plane F_0 opposite A_0 .
I don't think I'm understanding this definition, or how the Dropbox picture relates to it.
Does it have an analogue for triangles in 2D ?
Would that be something like this, where the *'s are the vertices of the original triangle and the o's of the exscribed one with respect to A0:
A0 | *
F0-----*----o---*----
o o
???
—Dan
Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to A . For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png
Problem (2) : Generalise the result to a simplex in Euclidean n-space, for n >= 3 .
Question (3) : Investigate whether C is the smallest possible exscribed on F_0 and similar to A . (Probably, but I don't know either.)
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
I have redrawn the 3-D diagram, adding pink lines to join the vertices of each original (grey) face to the exscribed (yellow? khaki!) vertex which it meets: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wugu0q3ezrfkrdp/exscribe3.png Perhaps that will help clarify their relationship; or perhaps not. Note that the bijection is natural, in the sense that each exscribed vertex lies in the plane of the face opposite to the original vertex to which it is congruent. Also the tetrahedra are mirror images, related by an `orientation reversing' isometry. WFL On 2/8/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
My mistake: your dots are original vertices, your "o"s are exscribed.
But for exscription the two lower "o"s should lie on the (extended) sides F_ 2 = A_0 A_1 and F_1 = A_0 A_2 of the dotted triangle.
And to fulfil the conditions of the problem, the triangles would have also to be similar ...
In my 3-D diagram, all the constraints are satisfied: each yellow vertex lies on just one grey face-plane, each grey plane meets one yellow vertex, and the tetrahedra are (in fact) congruent.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
Now I am more confused than ever.
The two vertices of the triangle I drew that are on the line F0 are the two vertices of the original triangle that are necessarily on the edge not containing the "chosen" vertex A0.
—Dan
On Feb 8, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
Forget that stuff about uniqueness and avoiding intersections --- the only constraint missing was bijection between 'scribed points and original facets.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
My definitions should have specified that in/exscribed vertices correspond bijectively and uniquely with original facets which they meet.
Dan's 2-D picture fails to make the cut, since two vertices lie on line F_0 . As do tricks such as placing scribed vertices at the intersections of original [ (n-1)-dimensional ] facets.
As for the situation in n = 2 dimensions ... good question!
WFL
On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
The following problem (or rather its solution) constitutes the crux of what appears to be a new result in elementary 3-space Euclidean geometry. However its solution proves so neat that I'm posing it on the list, ahead of the solution to follow in a few days. [A handy excuse for further procrastination over the next instalment of Poncelet pontification.]
Gloss (0) : Given an arbitrary tetrahedron A , denote by B the inscribed tetrahedron with vertices the centroids of faces of A . It is well known that B is similar to A , but scaled down to 1/3 ; and an analogous result holds for any dimension n , with scale-down 1/n .
Given A and a chosen vertex A_0 , a tetrahedron is `exscribed' when its vertices meet the extended face planes of A , but lie outside face plane F_0 opposite A_0 .
I don't think I'm understanding this definition, or how the Dropbox picture relates to it.
Does it have an analogue for triangles in 2D ?
Would that be something like this, where the *'s are the vertices of the original triangle and the o's of the exscribed one with respect to A0:
A0 | *
F0-----*----o---*----
o o
???
—Dan
Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to A . For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png
Problem (2) : Generalise the result to a simplex in Euclidean n-space, for n >= 3 .
Question (3) : Investigate whether C is the smallest possible exscribed on F_0 and similar to A . (Probably, but I don't know either.)
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
This condition: -----
And to fulfil the conditions of the problem, the triangles would have also to be similar ...
were never mentioned as part of the "problem", just as a condition that the centroid-tetrahedra (and higher dimensional analogues) satisfied, and one reason my 2D example failed. —Dan
On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
I have redrawn the 3-D diagram, adding pink lines to join the vertices of each original (grey) face to the exscribed (yellow? khaki!) vertex which it meets: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wugu0q3ezrfkrdp/exscribe3.png Perhaps that will help clarify their relationship; or perhaps not.
Note that the bijection is natural, in the sense that each exscribed vertex lies in the plane of the face opposite to the original vertex to which it is congruent. Also the tetrahedra are mirror images, related by an `orientation reversing' isometry.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
My mistake: your dots are original vertices, your "o"s are exscribed.
But for exscription the two lower "o"s should lie on the (extended) sides F_ 2 = A_0 A_1 and F_1 = A_0 A_2 of the dotted triangle.
And to fulfil the conditions of the problem, the triangles would have also to be similar ...
In my 3-D diagram, all the constraints are satisfied: each yellow vertex lies on just one grey face-plane, each grey plane meets one yellow vertex, and the tetrahedra are (in fact) congruent.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
Now I am more confused than ever.
The two vertices of the triangle I drew that are on the line F0 are the two vertices of the original triangle that are necessarily on the edge not containing the "chosen" vertex A0.
—Dan
On Feb 8, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
Forget that stuff about uniqueness and avoiding intersections --- the only constraint missing was bijection between 'scribed points and original facets.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
My definitions should have specified that in/exscribed vertices correspond bijectively and uniquely with original facets which they meet.
Dan's 2-D picture fails to make the cut, since two vertices lie on line F_0 . As do tricks such as placing scribed vertices at the intersections of original [ (n-1)-dimensional ] facets.
As for the situation in n = 2 dimensions ... good question!
WFL
On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> > wrote: > > The following problem (or rather its solution) constitutes the crux > of > what appears to be a new result in elementary 3-space Euclidean > geometry. > However its solution proves so neat that I'm posing it on the list, > ahead > of the solution to follow in a few days. [A handy excuse for further > procrastination over the next instalment of Poncelet pontification.] > > Gloss (0) : Given an arbitrary tetrahedron A , denote by B the > inscribed > tetrahedron with vertices the centroids of faces of A . It is well > known > that B is similar to A , but scaled down to 1/3 ; and an > analogous > result > holds for any dimension n , with scale-down 1/n . > > Given A and a chosen vertex A_0 , a tetrahedron is `exscribed' > when > its vertices meet the extended face planes of A , but lie outside > face > plane F_0 opposite A_0 .
I don't think I'm understanding this definition, or how the Dropbox picture relates to it.
Does it have an analogue for triangles in 2D ?
Would that be something like this, where the *'s are the vertices of the original triangle and the o's of the exscribed one with respect to A0:
A0 | *
F0-----*----o---*----
o o
???
—Dan
> Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to A > . > For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram > https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png > > Problem (2) : Generalise the result to a simplex in Euclidean > n-space, > for n >= 3 . > > Question (3) : Investigate whether C is the smallest possible > exscribed > on F_0 and similar to A . (Probably, but I don't know either.)
See my first message: << Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to A . For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png
This applied specifically to tetrahedra in 3-space. Generalised to n-space, the construction I had in mind produces an exscribed simplex C which is merely similar to the original A . However, in 2-space a peculiar obstruction arises --- which may explain why this construction and the associated theorem about exradii are apparently previously undiscovered. WFL On 2/9/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
This condition:
-----
And to fulfil the conditions of the problem, the triangles would have also to be similar ...
were never mentioned as part of the "problem", just as a condition that the centroid-tetrahedra (and higher dimensional analogues) satisfied, and one reason my 2D example failed.
—Dan
On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
I have redrawn the 3-D diagram, adding pink lines to join the vertices of each original (grey) face to the exscribed (yellow? khaki!) vertex which it meets: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wugu0q3ezrfkrdp/exscribe3.png Perhaps that will help clarify their relationship; or perhaps not.
Note that the bijection is natural, in the sense that each exscribed vertex lies in the plane of the face opposite to the original vertex to which it is congruent. Also the tetrahedra are mirror images, related by an `orientation reversing' isometry.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
My mistake: your dots are original vertices, your "o"s are exscribed.
But for exscription the two lower "o"s should lie on the (extended) sides F_ 2 = A_0 A_1 and F_1 = A_0 A_2 of the dotted triangle.
And to fulfil the conditions of the problem, the triangles would have also to be similar ...
In my 3-D diagram, all the constraints are satisfied: each yellow vertex lies on just one grey face-plane, each grey plane meets one yellow vertex, and the tetrahedra are (in fact) congruent.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
Now I am more confused than ever.
The two vertices of the triangle I drew that are on the line F0 are the two vertices of the original triangle that are necessarily on the edge not containing the "chosen" vertex A0.
—Dan
On Feb 8, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
Forget that stuff about uniqueness and avoiding intersections --- the only constraint missing was bijection between 'scribed points and original facets.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
My definitions should have specified that in/exscribed vertices correspond bijectively and uniquely with original facets which they meet.
Dan's 2-D picture fails to make the cut, since two vertices lie on line F_0 . As do tricks such as placing scribed vertices at the intersections of original [ (n-1)-dimensional ] facets.
As for the situation in n = 2 dimensions ... good question!
WFL
On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote: >> On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> The following problem (or rather its solution) constitutes the crux >> of >> what appears to be a new result in elementary 3-space Euclidean >> geometry. >> However its solution proves so neat that I'm posing it on the list, >> ahead >> of the solution to follow in a few days. [A handy excuse for >> further >> procrastination over the next instalment of Poncelet pontification.] >> >> Gloss (0) : Given an arbitrary tetrahedron A , denote by B the >> inscribed >> tetrahedron with vertices the centroids of faces of A . It is well >> known >> that B is similar to A , but scaled down to 1/3 ; and an >> analogous >> result >> holds for any dimension n , with scale-down 1/n . >> >> Given A and a chosen vertex A_0 , a tetrahedron is `exscribed' >> when >> its vertices meet the extended face planes of A , but lie outside >> face >> plane F_0 opposite A_0 . > > > I don't think I'm understanding this definition, or how the Dropbox > picture > relates to it. > > Does it have an analogue for triangles in 2D ? > > Would that be something like this, where the *'s are the vertices of > the > original triangle and the o's of the exscribed one with respect to > A0: > > > A0 > | > * > > F0-----*----o---*---- > > o > o > > > ??? > > —Dan > > >> Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to >> A >> . >> For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png >> >> Problem (2) : Generalise the result to a simplex in Euclidean >> n-space, >> for n >= 3 . >> >> Question (3) : Investigate whether C is the smallest possible >> exscribed >> on F_0 and similar to A . (Probably, but I don't know either.)
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
My apologies. I repeatedly missed the word "congruent". —Dan
On Feb 8, 2016, at 7:39 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
See my first message:
<< Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to A . For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png
This applied specifically to tetrahedra in 3-space. Generalised to n-space, the construction I had in mind produces an exscribed simplex C which is merely similar to the original A .
However, in 2-space a peculiar obstruction arises --- which may explain why this construction and the associated theorem about exradii are apparently previously undiscovered.
WFL
On 2/9/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
This condition:
-----
And to fulfil the conditions of the problem, the triangles would have also to be similar ...
were never mentioned as part of the "problem", just as a condition that the centroid-tetrahedra (and higher dimensional analogues) satisfied, and one reason my 2D example failed.
—Dan
On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
I have redrawn the 3-D diagram, adding pink lines to join the vertices of each original (grey) face to the exscribed (yellow? khaki!) vertex which it meets: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wugu0q3ezrfkrdp/exscribe3.png Perhaps that will help clarify their relationship; or perhaps not.
Note that the bijection is natural, in the sense that each exscribed vertex lies in the plane of the face opposite to the original vertex to which it is congruent. Also the tetrahedra are mirror images, related by an `orientation reversing' isometry.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
My mistake: your dots are original vertices, your "o"s are exscribed.
But for exscription the two lower "o"s should lie on the (extended) sides F_ 2 = A_0 A_1 and F_1 = A_0 A_2 of the dotted triangle.
And to fulfil the conditions of the problem, the triangles would have also to be similar ...
In my 3-D diagram, all the constraints are satisfied: each yellow vertex lies on just one grey face-plane, each grey plane meets one yellow vertex, and the tetrahedra are (in fact) congruent.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
Now I am more confused than ever.
The two vertices of the triangle I drew that are on the line F0 are the two vertices of the original triangle that are necessarily on the edge not containing the "chosen" vertex A0.
—Dan
On Feb 8, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
Forget that stuff about uniqueness and avoiding intersections --- the only constraint missing was bijection between 'scribed points and original facets.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote: > My definitions should have specified that in/exscribed vertices > correspond > bijectively and uniquely with original facets which they meet. > > Dan's 2-D picture fails to make the cut, since two vertices lie on > line > F_0 . > As do tricks such as placing scribed vertices at the intersections of > original > [ (n-1)-dimensional ] facets. > > As for the situation in n = 2 dimensions ... good question! > > WFL > > > > On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> The following problem (or rather its solution) constitutes the crux >>> of >>> what appears to be a new result in elementary 3-space Euclidean >>> geometry. >>> However its solution proves so neat that I'm posing it on the list, >>> ahead >>> of the solution to follow in a few days. [A handy excuse for >>> further >>> procrastination over the next instalment of Poncelet pontification.] >>> >>> Gloss (0) : Given an arbitrary tetrahedron A , denote by B the >>> inscribed >>> tetrahedron with vertices the centroids of faces of A . It is well >>> known >>> that B is similar to A , but scaled down to 1/3 ; and an >>> analogous >>> result >>> holds for any dimension n , with scale-down 1/n . >>> >>> Given A and a chosen vertex A_0 , a tetrahedron is `exscribed' >>> when >>> its vertices meet the extended face planes of A , but lie outside >>> face >>> plane F_0 opposite A_0 . >> >> >> I don't think I'm understanding this definition, or how the Dropbox >> picture >> relates to it. >> >> Does it have an analogue for triangles in 2D ? >> >> Would that be something like this, where the *'s are the vertices of >> the >> original triangle and the o's of the exscribed one with respect to >> A0: >> >> >> A0 >> | >> * >> >> F0-----*----o---*---- >> >> o >> o >> >> >> ??? >> >> —Dan >> >> >>> Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to >>> A >>> . >>> For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram >>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png >>> >>> Problem (2) : Generalise the result to a simplex in Euclidean >>> n-space, >>> for n >= 3 . >>> >>> Question (3) : Investigate whether C is the smallest possible >>> exscribed >>> on F_0 and similar to A . (Probably, but I don't know either.)
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
<< Also the tetrahedra are mirror images, related by an `orientation reversing' isometry >> Er, no. The A -> C isometry is obviously direct in my second diagram --- compare the (congruent) rightmost faces. In 3-space, the 1/3-scale inscribed tetrahedron is enantiomorphic to both. Give me two choices ... << Investigate whether C is the smallest possible exscribed on F_0 and similar to A . >> This needs refining to specify the `natural' bijection relating each vertex C_i to the facet opposite vertex A_i . Otherwise (for instance) a tall isosceles triangle (or pyramid) could accommodate a very small copy, with base nestling just outside a corner of the original base. In this refined sense, I can prove algebraically that the 1/2-scale triangle inscribed in mid-points of edges of a triangle is the minimum inscribed similar triangle. Unfortunately the equations generate a number of complicated extra limit solutions which are geometrically irrelevant. Can anyone improve on this particularly grotesque kludge with a more synthetic argument --- wot might just possibly generalise to n-space? WFL [10/02/16] On 2/9/16, Dan Asimov <asimov@msri.org> wrote:
My apologies. I repeatedly missed the word "congruent".
—Dan
On Feb 8, 2016, at 7:39 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
See my first message:
<< Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to A . For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png
This applied specifically to tetrahedra in 3-space. Generalised to n-space, the construction I had in mind produces an exscribed simplex C which is merely similar to the original A .
However, in 2-space a peculiar obstruction arises --- which may explain why this construction and the associated theorem about exradii are apparently previously undiscovered.
WFL
On 2/9/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
This condition:
-----
And to fulfil the conditions of the problem, the triangles would have also to be similar ...
were never mentioned as part of the "problem", just as a condition that the centroid-tetrahedra (and higher dimensional analogues) satisfied, and one reason my 2D example failed.
—Dan
On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
I have redrawn the 3-D diagram, adding pink lines to join the vertices of each original (grey) face to the exscribed (yellow? khaki!) vertex which it meets: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wugu0q3ezrfkrdp/exscribe3.png Perhaps that will help clarify their relationship; or perhaps not.
Note that the bijection is natural, in the sense that each exscribed vertex lies in the plane of the face opposite to the original vertex to which it is congruent. Also the tetrahedra are mirror images, related by an `orientation reversing' isometry.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
My mistake: your dots are original vertices, your "o"s are exscribed.
But for exscription the two lower "o"s should lie on the (extended) sides F_ 2 = A_0 A_1 and F_1 = A_0 A_2 of the dotted triangle.
And to fulfil the conditions of the problem, the triangles would have also to be similar ...
In my 3-D diagram, all the constraints are satisfied: each yellow vertex lies on just one grey face-plane, each grey plane meets one yellow vertex, and the tetrahedra are (in fact) congruent.
WFL
On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
Now I am more confused than ever.
The two vertices of the triangle I drew that are on the line F0 are the two vertices of the original triangle that are necessarily on the edge not containing the "chosen" vertex A0.
—Dan
> On Feb 8, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Forget that stuff about uniqueness and avoiding intersections --- the > only > constraint missing was bijection between 'scribed points and original > facets. > > WFL > > > > On 2/8/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote: >> My definitions should have specified that in/exscribed vertices >> correspond >> bijectively and uniquely with original facets which they meet. >> >> Dan's 2-D picture fails to make the cut, since two vertices lie on >> line >> F_0 . >> As do tricks such as placing scribed vertices at the intersections >> of >> original >> [ (n-1)-dimensional ] facets. >> >> As for the situation in n = 2 dimensions ... good question! >> >> WFL >> >> >> >> On 2/8/16, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The following problem (or rather its solution) constitutes the >>>> crux >>>> of >>>> what appears to be a new result in elementary 3-space Euclidean >>>> geometry. >>>> However its solution proves so neat that I'm posing it on the >>>> list, >>>> ahead >>>> of the solution to follow in a few days. [A handy excuse for >>>> further >>>> procrastination over the next instalment of Poncelet >>>> pontification.] >>>> >>>> Gloss (0) : Given an arbitrary tetrahedron A , denote by B the >>>> inscribed >>>> tetrahedron with vertices the centroids of faces of A . It is >>>> well >>>> known >>>> that B is similar to A , but scaled down to 1/3 ; and an >>>> analogous >>>> result >>>> holds for any dimension n , with scale-down 1/n . >>>> >>>> Given A and a chosen vertex A_0 , a tetrahedron is `exscribed' >>>> when >>>> its vertices meet the extended face planes of A , but lie outside >>>> face >>>> plane F_0 opposite A_0 . >>> >>> >>> I don't think I'm understanding this definition, or how the Dropbox >>> picture >>> relates to it. >>> >>> Does it have an analogue for triangles in 2D ? >>> >>> Would that be something like this, where the *'s are the vertices >>> of >>> the >>> original triangle and the o's of the exscribed one with respect to >>> A0: >>> >>> >>> A0 >>> | >>> * >>> >>> F0-----*----o---*---- >>> >>> o >>> o >>> >>> >>> ??? >>> >>> —Dan >>> >>> >>>> Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to >>>> A >>>> . >>>> For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram >>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png >>>> >>>> Problem (2) : Generalise the result to a simplex in Euclidean >>>> n-space, >>>> for n >= 3 . >>>> >>>> Question (3) : Investigate whether C is the smallest possible >>>> exscribed >>>> on F_0 and similar to A . (Probably, but I don't know either.)
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Yeah, I see how to do it. In n>=3 space, you end up w/ a 1/(n-2) copy. On 2016-02-07 18:13, Fred Lunnon wrote:
The following problem (or rather its solution) constitutes the crux of what appears to be a new result in elementary 3-space Euclidean geometry. However its solution proves so neat that I'm posing it on the list, ahead of the solution to follow in a few days. [A handy excuse for further procrastination over the next instalment of Poncelet pontification.]
Gloss (0) : Given an arbitrary tetrahedron A , denote by B the inscribed tetrahedron with vertices the centroids of faces of A . It is well known that B is similar to A , but scaled down to 1/3 ; and an analogous result holds for any dimension n , with scale-down 1/n .
Given A and a chosen vertex A_0 , a tetrahedron is `exscribed' when its vertices meet the extended face planes of A , but lie outside face plane F_0 opposite A_0 .
Problem (1) : Construct explicitly some exscribed C congruent to A . For example, grey A and yellow C in diagram https://www.dropbox.com/s/blcihoao8t0k3lh/exscribe2.png
Problem (2) : Generalise the result to a simplex in Euclidean n-space, for n >= 3 .
Question (3) : Investigate whether C is the smallest possible exscribed on F_0 and similar to A . (Probably, but I don't know either.)
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
On 2/13/16, William R. Somsky <wrsomsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, I see how to do it. In n>=3 space, you end up w/ a 1/(n-2) copy.
WRS wins the chocolate frog! Below is my solution, extracted from a rather terse text-based summary of results about simplex exradii which I'll post separately when polished within an inch of its (and my) life. WFL ___________________________________ In Euclidean n-space, let A be an arbitrary given simplex, with vertices A_0,...,A_n and (n-1)-dimensional facets F_0,...,F_n opposite the respective vertices. Similarly B,C have vertices B_i,C_i and facets G_i,H_i respectively. Distinguished vertex A_0 acts as `apex' of A , and facet F_0 as its `base'. DEFINITION: B is `inscribed' to A when vertex B_i meets facet F_i ; C is `exscribed' to A when vertex C_i meets the hyperplane extending facet F_i , and C lies entirely on the side of F_0 opposite to A_0 . [The analogy is with insphere and exsphere of A .] Suppose now that B is inscribed to A , with B_i the centroid of F_i for all i . It is a familiar fact that B is then similar to A , but scaled in the ratio B : A = (-1)^n : n . Similarity follows from noting that G_i is parallel to F_i for all i ; the absolute ratio 1 : n via induction on n ; similarity is direct for n even but `reverses orientation' for n odd, again via induction on n . LEMMA: For any simplex A in Euclidean n-space, there exists C exscribed to A and similar to A , scaled in ratio C : A = (-1)^n : (2-n) . The similarity bijection is `natural': if vertex C_i opposite facet H_i meets facet F_i opposite vertex A_i , then H_i , F_i are similar, as are the vertex figures truncating C_i , A_i . Proof: Let B be inscribed in the facet centroids of A as above. The first stage of construction dilates B from centre A_0 yielding C --- [Kla79] calls this a `homothety' --- by a scale factor s , chosen so that the distance between the new base H_0 and the original base F_0 equals the altitude of C . Letting the altitude of A be unity, the distances of F_0, G_0, H_0 from A_0 equal 1, (n-1)/n, s(n-1)/n ; the altitudes of A, B, C equal 1, 1/n, s/n respectively. So s(n-1)/n - 1 = s/n , whence s = n/(n-2) , and the required transformation in Cartesian vector notation becomes C_i = n/(n-2) B_i - 2/(n-2) A_0 . The base vertices C_1,...,C_n of C remain on hyperplanes extending F_1,...,F_n ; however the apex C_0 points downwards. This is remedied by reflecting C in its own base H_0 , so that C_0 now also meets F_0 or its extension. It is similar to B , and hence to A . Reflection in the base reverses the orientation of B , so the final scale factor with respect to A equals (-1)^n / (2-n) . QED ___________________________________________
Here is a less formal approach, which is less rigorous, but perhaps easier to visualize (well, at least it was to me before I started to put it in words -- can anyone do an animation?): Take your tetrahedron [[ n-space simplex ]] and label the vertex A0 as the apex, and the face F0 as the base. Now place it w/ the base on the table and the apex A0 above it. Pick units such that the height of the apex above the table is one. Within the triangular base [[ n-1 simplex ]], inscribe a similar triangle using the midpoints of the base's sides as the vertices of the similar triangle. This similar triangle [[ simplex ]] will be scaled 1:2 [[ 1:n-1 ]] in relation to the original base. On top of this similar base, construct a tetrahedron [[ n simplex ]] similar to the original tetrahedron with vertices B. This similar tetrahedron will be in 1/2 [[ 1/(n-1) ]] scale of the original, and it's apex, B0, will be at a height 1/2 [[ 1/(n-1) ]] above the table. Project each of the vertices B of the similar tetrahedron in a line from A0 by a factor of S, giving a new tetrahedron [[ simplex ]] with vertices C, similar to the original w/ scale S:2 [[ S:n-1 ]]. Note that each vertex C1,...,Cn projected from the inscribed base is on an extended face of the original tetrahedron. And the new apex, C0? A0 was at height 1 above the tabletop; B0 was at height 1/2 [[ 1/[n-1] ]]; so projecting to C0 places it at height 1 - S ( 1 - 1/2 ) [[ 1 - S ( 1 - 1/[n-1]) ]]. If we adjust S such that the height above the table of C0 is zero, it will lie on the original face F0, giving us the desired excribed tetrahedron [[ n simplex ]]. This occurs when S = 2 [[ S = (n-1)/(n-2) ]], and the excribed tetrahedron is in scale S:2 = 1:1 [[ S:n-1 = 1:n-2 ]] to the original. On 2016-02-13 11:23, Fred Lunnon wrote:
On 2/13/16, William R. Somsky <wrsomsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, I see how to do it. In n>=3 space, you end up w/ a 1/(n-2) copy.
WRS wins the chocolate frog!
Below is my solution, extracted from a rather terse text-based summary of results about simplex exradii which I'll post separately when polished within an inch of its (and my) life.
WFL
___________________________________
In Euclidean n-space, let A be an arbitrary given simplex, with vertices A_0,...,A_n and (n-1)-dimensional facets F_0,...,F_n opposite the respective vertices. Similarly B,C have vertices B_i,C_i and facets G_i,H_i respectively. Distinguished vertex A_0 acts as `apex' of A , and facet F_0 as its `base'.
DEFINITION: B is `inscribed' to A when vertex B_i meets facet F_i ; C is `exscribed' to A when vertex C_i meets the hyperplane extending facet F_i , and C lies entirely on the side of F_0 opposite to A_0 . [The analogy is with insphere and exsphere of A .]
Suppose now that B is inscribed to A , with B_i the centroid of F_i for all i . It is a familiar fact that B is then similar to A , but scaled in the ratio B : A = (-1)^n : n . Similarity follows from noting that G_i is parallel to F_i for all i ; the absolute ratio 1 : n via induction on n ; similarity is direct for n even but `reverses orientation' for n odd, again via induction on n .
LEMMA: For any simplex A in Euclidean n-space, there exists C exscribed to A and similar to A , scaled in ratio C : A = (-1)^n : (2-n) . The similarity bijection is `natural': if vertex C_i opposite facet H_i meets facet F_i opposite vertex A_i , then H_i , F_i are similar, as are the vertex figures truncating C_i , A_i .
Proof: Let B be inscribed in the facet centroids of A as above. The first stage of construction dilates B from centre A_0 yielding C --- [Kla79] calls this a `homothety' --- by a scale factor s , chosen so that the distance between the new base H_0 and the original base F_0 equals the altitude of C .
Letting the altitude of A be unity, the distances of F_0, G_0, H_0 from A_0 equal 1, (n-1)/n, s(n-1)/n ; the altitudes of A, B, C equal 1, 1/n, s/n respectively. So s(n-1)/n - 1 = s/n , whence s = n/(n-2) , and the required transformation in Cartesian vector notation becomes C_i = n/(n-2) B_i - 2/(n-2) A_0 .
The base vertices C_1,...,C_n of C remain on hyperplanes extending F_1,...,F_n ; however the apex C_0 points downwards. This is remedied by reflecting C in its own base H_0 , so that C_0 now also meets F_0 or its extension. It is similar to B , and hence to A . Reflection in the base reverses the orientation of B , so the final scale factor with respect to A equals (-1)^n / (2-n) . QED
___________________________________________
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
WRS uses much the same transformations as I do: a centroid inscription (in one dimension lower), two homotheties and a translation (rather than one homothety and a reflection), which from an animation perspective is more complicated whilst avoiding discontinuity. There's something to be said for his distinguishing 3-space separately; [Kla79] do the same with 2-space --- a recourse unavailable here! My possibly oppressive formality is a consequence of having developed computer programs in advance of writing up. The upside is that Maple code for my diagrams could surely be modified easily to deliver an animation, if that served a useful didactic purpose. ___________________________ Now I never did get around to explaining just why this construction is of interest; in pursuit of which I pose Problem (4) : Denote by R' the circumradius of any simplex D , inscribed to an original A with inradius r . Show that r <= R' . If instead D is exscribed to A with exradius r , deduce |r| <= R' . [ Of course it's "obvious" --- but can you prove it's obvious? ] Once that's out of the way, apply it immediately to the (similar 'scribed) B,C constructed earlier, to prove two theorems: denoting by R,r circumradius and in/exradius of a simplex in n-space, *** in-radius r <= R/n ; *** *** ex-radius |r| <= R/(n-2) ; *** the first due originally perhaps to Fejes-Tóth, the second a shameless rip-off from [Kla79] claimed provisionally by myself. Problem (5) : In 2-space both the construction of C and this last theorem gallop away to infinity. What should take their place? [Kla79] Murray S. Klamkin, George A. Tsintsifas (1979) "The Circumradius-Inradius Inequality for a Simplex" Mathematics Magazine Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 1979), pp. 20-22 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2689968?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents WFL On 2/13/16, William R. Somsky <wrsomsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Here is a less formal approach, which is less rigorous, but perhaps easier to visualize (well, at least it was to me before I started to put it in words -- can anyone do an animation?):
Take your tetrahedron [[ n-space simplex ]] and label the vertex A0 as the apex, and the face F0 as the base. Now place it w/ the base on the table and the apex A0 above it. Pick units such that the height of the apex above the table is one.
Within the triangular base [[ n-1 simplex ]], inscribe a similar triangle using the midpoints of the base's sides as the vertices of the similar triangle. This similar triangle [[ simplex ]] will be scaled 1:2 [[ 1:n-1 ]] in relation to the original base.
On top of this similar base, construct a tetrahedron [[ n simplex ]] similar to the original tetrahedron with vertices B. This similar tetrahedron will be in 1/2 [[ 1/(n-1) ]] scale of the original, and it's apex, B0, will be at a height 1/2 [[ 1/(n-1) ]] above the table.
Project each of the vertices B of the similar tetrahedron in a line from A0 by a factor of S, giving a new tetrahedron [[ simplex ]] with vertices C, similar to the original w/ scale S:2 [[ S:n-1 ]].
Note that each vertex C1,...,Cn projected from the inscribed base is on an extended face of the original tetrahedron. And the new apex, C0? A0 was at height 1 above the tabletop; B0 was at height 1/2 [[ 1/[n-1] ]]; so projecting to C0 places it at height 1 - S ( 1 - 1/2 ) [[ 1 - S ( 1 - 1/[n-1]) ]].
If we adjust S such that the height above the table of C0 is zero, it will lie on the original face F0, giving us the desired excribed tetrahedron [[ n simplex ]]. This occurs when S = 2 [[ S = (n-1)/(n-2) ]], and the excribed tetrahedron is in scale S:2 = 1:1 [[ S:n-1 = 1:n-2 ]] to the original.
On 2016-02-13 11:23, Fred Lunnon wrote:
On 2/13/16, William R. Somsky <wrsomsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, I see how to do it. In n>=3 space, you end up w/ a 1/(n-2) copy.
WRS wins the chocolate frog!
Below is my solution, extracted from a rather terse text-based summary of results about simplex exradii which I'll post separately when polished within an inch of its (and my) life.
WFL
___________________________________
In Euclidean n-space, let A be an arbitrary given simplex, with vertices A_0,...,A_n and (n-1)-dimensional facets F_0,...,F_n opposite the respective vertices. Similarly B,C have vertices B_i,C_i and facets G_i,H_i respectively. Distinguished vertex A_0 acts as `apex' of A , and facet F_0 as its `base'.
DEFINITION: B is `inscribed' to A when vertex B_i meets facet F_i ; C is `exscribed' to A when vertex C_i meets the hyperplane extending facet F_i , and C lies entirely on the side of F_0 opposite to A_0 . [The analogy is with insphere and exsphere of A .]
Suppose now that B is inscribed to A , with B_i the centroid of F_i for all i . It is a familiar fact that B is then similar to A , but scaled in the ratio B : A = (-1)^n : n . Similarity follows from noting that G_i is parallel to F_i for all i ; the absolute ratio 1 : n via induction on n ; similarity is direct for n even but `reverses orientation' for n odd, again via induction on n .
LEMMA: For any simplex A in Euclidean n-space, there exists C exscribed to A and similar to A , scaled in ratio C : A = (-1)^n : (2-n) . The similarity bijection is `natural': if vertex C_i opposite facet H_i meets facet F_i opposite vertex A_i , then H_i , F_i are similar, as are the vertex figures truncating C_i , A_i .
Proof: Let B be inscribed in the facet centroids of A as above. The first stage of construction dilates B from centre A_0 yielding C --- [Kla79] calls this a `homothety' --- by a scale factor s , chosen so that the distance between the new base H_0 and the original base F_0 equals the altitude of C .
Letting the altitude of A be unity, the distances of F_0, G_0, H_0 from A_0 equal 1, (n-1)/n, s(n-1)/n ; the altitudes of A, B, C equal 1, 1/n, s/n respectively. So s(n-1)/n - 1 = s/n , whence s = n/(n-2) , and the required transformation in Cartesian vector notation becomes C_i = n/(n-2) B_i - 2/(n-2) A_0 .
The base vertices C_1,...,C_n of C remain on hyperplanes extending F_1,...,F_n ; however the apex C_0 points downwards. This is remedied by reflecting C in its own base H_0 , so that C_0 now also meets F_0 or its extension. It is similar to B , and hence to A . Reflection in the base reverses the orientation of B , so the final scale factor with respect to A equals (-1)^n / (2-n) . QED
___________________________________________
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
<< WRS uses much the same transformations as I do: a centroid inscription (in one dimension lower), two homotheties and a translation (rather than one homothety and a reflection), which from an animation perspective is more complicated whilst avoiding discontinuity. >> That critique can't be quite right: in even dimension, somewhere in the chain there has to be an orientation-reversal (possibly achieved via homothety). Now notice centroidally inscribed B is homothetic to original simplex A , via centre the centroid; once that fact has registered, it is a short step to try constructing C via the same method as B , having first simply changed the sign of distinguished vertex A_0 ! Sadly, that doesn't quite work: although each new vertex C_i (including C_0 ) lies on original face plane F_i , and the base edges match up, the slant edges are incorrect. Instead, we must compute "pseudo-centroid" P = A_1 + ... + A_n - A_0 ; set C_i = P - A_i ; then reflect C_0 in the new base plane H_0 as before (dammit!). But though this is algorithmically neater than previous attempts, it seems harder to motivate ... WFL On 2/14/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
WRS uses much the same transformations as I do: a centroid inscription (in one dimension lower), two homotheties and a translation (rather than one homothety and a reflection), which from an animation perspective is more complicated whilst avoiding discontinuity.
There's something to be said for his distinguishing 3-space separately; [Kla79] do the same with 2-space --- a recourse unavailable here!
My possibly oppressive formality is a consequence of having developed computer programs in advance of writing up. The upside is that Maple code for my diagrams could surely be modified easily to deliver an animation, if that served a useful didactic purpose. ___________________________
Now I never did get around to explaining just why this construction is of interest; in pursuit of which I pose
Problem (4) : Denote by R' the circumradius of any simplex D , inscribed to an original A with inradius r . Show that r <= R' . If instead D is exscribed to A with exradius r , deduce |r| <= R' . [ Of course it's "obvious" --- but can you prove it's obvious? ]
Once that's out of the way, apply it immediately to the (similar 'scribed) B,C constructed earlier, to prove two theorems: denoting by R,r circumradius and in/exradius of a simplex in n-space,
*** in-radius r <= R/n ; *** *** ex-radius |r| <= R/(n-2) ; ***
the first due originally perhaps to Fejes-Tóth, the second a shameless rip-off from [Kla79] claimed provisionally by myself.
Problem (5) : In 2-space both the construction of C and this last theorem gallop away to infinity. What should take their place?
[Kla79] Murray S. Klamkin, George A. Tsintsifas (1979) "The Circumradius-Inradius Inequality for a Simplex" Mathematics Magazine Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 1979), pp. 20-22 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2689968?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
WFL
On 2/13/16, William R. Somsky <wrsomsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Here is a less formal approach, which is less rigorous, but perhaps easier to visualize (well, at least it was to me before I started to put it in words -- can anyone do an animation?):
Take your tetrahedron [[ n-space simplex ]] and label the vertex A0 as the apex, and the face F0 as the base. Now place it w/ the base on the table and the apex A0 above it. Pick units such that the height of the apex above the table is one.
Within the triangular base [[ n-1 simplex ]], inscribe a similar triangle using the midpoints of the base's sides as the vertices of the similar triangle. This similar triangle [[ simplex ]] will be scaled 1:2 [[ 1:n-1 ]] in relation to the original base.
On top of this similar base, construct a tetrahedron [[ n simplex ]] similar to the original tetrahedron with vertices B. This similar tetrahedron will be in 1/2 [[ 1/(n-1) ]] scale of the original, and it's apex, B0, will be at a height 1/2 [[ 1/(n-1) ]] above the table.
Project each of the vertices B of the similar tetrahedron in a line from A0 by a factor of S, giving a new tetrahedron [[ simplex ]] with vertices C, similar to the original w/ scale S:2 [[ S:n-1 ]].
Note that each vertex C1,...,Cn projected from the inscribed base is on an extended face of the original tetrahedron. And the new apex, C0? A0 was at height 1 above the tabletop; B0 was at height 1/2 [[ 1/[n-1] ]]; so projecting to C0 places it at height 1 - S ( 1 - 1/2 ) [[ 1 - S ( 1 - 1/[n-1]) ]].
If we adjust S such that the height above the table of C0 is zero, it will lie on the original face F0, giving us the desired excribed tetrahedron [[ n simplex ]]. This occurs when S = 2 [[ S = (n-1)/(n-2) ]], and the excribed tetrahedron is in scale S:2 = 1:1 [[ S:n-1 = 1:n-2 ]] to the original.
On 2016-02-13 11:23, Fred Lunnon wrote:
On 2/13/16, William R. Somsky <wrsomsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, I see how to do it. In n>=3 space, you end up w/ a 1/(n-2) copy.
WRS wins the chocolate frog!
Below is my solution, extracted from a rather terse text-based summary of results about simplex exradii which I'll post separately when polished within an inch of its (and my) life.
WFL
___________________________________
In Euclidean n-space, let A be an arbitrary given simplex, with vertices A_0,...,A_n and (n-1)-dimensional facets F_0,...,F_n opposite the respective vertices. Similarly B,C have vertices B_i,C_i and facets G_i,H_i respectively. Distinguished vertex A_0 acts as `apex' of A , and facet F_0 as its `base'.
DEFINITION: B is `inscribed' to A when vertex B_i meets facet F_i ; C is `exscribed' to A when vertex C_i meets the hyperplane extending facet F_i , and C lies entirely on the side of F_0 opposite to A_0 . [The analogy is with insphere and exsphere of A .]
Suppose now that B is inscribed to A , with B_i the centroid of F_i for all i . It is a familiar fact that B is then similar to A , but scaled in the ratio B : A = (-1)^n : n . Similarity follows from noting that G_i is parallel to F_i for all i ; the absolute ratio 1 : n via induction on n ; similarity is direct for n even but `reverses orientation' for n odd, again via induction on n .
LEMMA: For any simplex A in Euclidean n-space, there exists C exscribed to A and similar to A , scaled in ratio C : A = (-1)^n : (2-n) . The similarity bijection is `natural': if vertex C_i opposite facet H_i meets facet F_i opposite vertex A_i , then H_i , F_i are similar, as are the vertex figures truncating C_i , A_i .
Proof: Let B be inscribed in the facet centroids of A as above. The first stage of construction dilates B from centre A_0 yielding C --- [Kla79] calls this a `homothety' --- by a scale factor s , chosen so that the distance between the new base H_0 and the original base F_0 equals the altitude of C .
Letting the altitude of A be unity, the distances of F_0, G_0, H_0 from A_0 equal 1, (n-1)/n, s(n-1)/n ; the altitudes of A, B, C equal 1, 1/n, s/n respectively. So s(n-1)/n - 1 = s/n , whence s = n/(n-2) , and the required transformation in Cartesian vector notation becomes C_i = n/(n-2) B_i - 2/(n-2) A_0 .
The base vertices C_1,...,C_n of C remain on hyperplanes extending F_1,...,F_n ; however the apex C_0 points downwards. This is remedied by reflecting C in its own base H_0 , so that C_0 now also meets F_0 or its extension. It is similar to B , and hence to A . Reflection in the base reverses the orientation of B , so the final scale factor with respect to A equals (-1)^n / (2-n) . QED
___________________________________________
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Oops --- in terms of Cartesian vectors, the formulae require scaling weights --- read << Instead, we must compute "pseudo-centroid" P = (A_1 + ... + A_n - A_0) /(n-1) ; set C_i = P (n-1)/(n-2) - A_i /(n-2) ; then reflect C_0 in the new base plane H_0 as before. >> WFL On 2/15/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
<< WRS uses much the same transformations as I do: a centroid inscription (in one dimension lower), two homotheties and a translation (rather than one homothety and a reflection), which from an animation perspective is more complicated whilst avoiding discontinuity. >> That critique can't be quite right: in even dimension, somewhere in the chain there has to be an orientation-reversal (possibly achieved via homothety).
Now notice centroidally inscribed B is homothetic to original simplex A , via centre the centroid; once that fact has registered, it is a short step to try constructing C via the same method as B , having first simply changed the sign of distinguished vertex A_0 !
Sadly, that doesn't quite work: although each new vertex C_i (including C_0 ) lies on original face plane F_i , and the base edges match up, the slant edges are incorrect. Instead, we must compute "pseudo-centroid" P = A_1 + ... + A_n - A_0 ; set C_i = P - A_i ; then reflect C_0 in the new base plane H_0 as before (dammit!).
But though this is algorithmically neater than previous attempts, it seems harder to motivate ...
WFL
On 2/14/16, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
WRS uses much the same transformations as I do: a centroid inscription (in one dimension lower), two homotheties and a translation (rather than one homothety and a reflection), which from an animation perspective is more complicated whilst avoiding discontinuity.
There's something to be said for his distinguishing 3-space separately; [Kla79] do the same with 2-space --- a recourse unavailable here!
My possibly oppressive formality is a consequence of having developed computer programs in advance of writing up. The upside is that Maple code for my diagrams could surely be modified easily to deliver an animation, if that served a useful didactic purpose. ___________________________
Now I never did get around to explaining just why this construction is of interest; in pursuit of which I pose
Problem (4) : Denote by R' the circumradius of any simplex D , inscribed to an original A with inradius r . Show that r <= R' . If instead D is exscribed to A with exradius r , deduce |r| <= R' . [ Of course it's "obvious" --- but can you prove it's obvious? ]
Once that's out of the way, apply it immediately to the (similar 'scribed) B,C constructed earlier, to prove two theorems: denoting by R,r circumradius and in/exradius of a simplex in n-space,
*** in-radius r <= R/n ; *** *** ex-radius |r| <= R/(n-2) ; ***
the first due originally perhaps to Fejes-Tóth, the second a shameless rip-off from [Kla79] claimed provisionally by myself.
Problem (5) : In 2-space both the construction of C and this last theorem gallop away to infinity. What should take their place?
[Kla79] Murray S. Klamkin, George A. Tsintsifas (1979) "The Circumradius-Inradius Inequality for a Simplex" Mathematics Magazine Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 1979), pp. 20-22 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2689968?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
WFL
On 2/13/16, William R. Somsky <wrsomsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Here is a less formal approach, which is less rigorous, but perhaps easier to visualize (well, at least it was to me before I started to put it in words -- can anyone do an animation?):
Take your tetrahedron [[ n-space simplex ]] and label the vertex A0 as the apex, and the face F0 as the base. Now place it w/ the base on the table and the apex A0 above it. Pick units such that the height of the apex above the table is one.
Within the triangular base [[ n-1 simplex ]], inscribe a similar triangle using the midpoints of the base's sides as the vertices of the similar triangle. This similar triangle [[ simplex ]] will be scaled 1:2 [[ 1:n-1 ]] in relation to the original base.
On top of this similar base, construct a tetrahedron [[ n simplex ]] similar to the original tetrahedron with vertices B. This similar tetrahedron will be in 1/2 [[ 1/(n-1) ]] scale of the original, and it's apex, B0, will be at a height 1/2 [[ 1/(n-1) ]] above the table.
Project each of the vertices B of the similar tetrahedron in a line from A0 by a factor of S, giving a new tetrahedron [[ simplex ]] with vertices C, similar to the original w/ scale S:2 [[ S:n-1 ]].
Note that each vertex C1,...,Cn projected from the inscribed base is on an extended face of the original tetrahedron. And the new apex, C0? A0 was at height 1 above the tabletop; B0 was at height 1/2 [[ 1/[n-1] ]]; so projecting to C0 places it at height 1 - S ( 1 - 1/2 ) [[ 1 - S ( 1 - 1/[n-1]) ]].
If we adjust S such that the height above the table of C0 is zero, it will lie on the original face F0, giving us the desired excribed tetrahedron [[ n simplex ]]. This occurs when S = 2 [[ S = (n-1)/(n-2) ]], and the excribed tetrahedron is in scale S:2 = 1:1 [[ S:n-1 = 1:n-2 ]] to the original.
On 2016-02-13 11:23, Fred Lunnon wrote:
On 2/13/16, William R. Somsky <wrsomsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, I see how to do it. In n>=3 space, you end up w/ a 1/(n-2) copy.
WRS wins the chocolate frog!
Below is my solution, extracted from a rather terse text-based summary of results about simplex exradii which I'll post separately when polished within an inch of its (and my) life.
WFL
___________________________________
In Euclidean n-space, let A be an arbitrary given simplex, with vertices A_0,...,A_n and (n-1)-dimensional facets F_0,...,F_n opposite the respective vertices. Similarly B,C have vertices B_i,C_i and facets G_i,H_i respectively. Distinguished vertex A_0 acts as `apex' of A , and facet F_0 as its `base'.
DEFINITION: B is `inscribed' to A when vertex B_i meets facet F_i ; C is `exscribed' to A when vertex C_i meets the hyperplane extending facet F_i , and C lies entirely on the side of F_0 opposite to A_0 . [The analogy is with insphere and exsphere of A .]
Suppose now that B is inscribed to A , with B_i the centroid of F_i for all i . It is a familiar fact that B is then similar to A , but scaled in the ratio B : A = (-1)^n : n . Similarity follows from noting that G_i is parallel to F_i for all i ; the absolute ratio 1 : n via induction on n ; similarity is direct for n even but `reverses orientation' for n odd, again via induction on n .
LEMMA: For any simplex A in Euclidean n-space, there exists C exscribed to A and similar to A , scaled in ratio C : A = (-1)^n : (2-n) . The similarity bijection is `natural': if vertex C_i opposite facet H_i meets facet F_i opposite vertex A_i , then H_i , F_i are similar, as are the vertex figures truncating C_i , A_i .
Proof: Let B be inscribed in the facet centroids of A as above. The first stage of construction dilates B from centre A_0 yielding C --- [Kla79] calls this a `homothety' --- by a scale factor s , chosen so that the distance between the new base H_0 and the original base F_0 equals the altitude of C .
Letting the altitude of A be unity, the distances of F_0, G_0, H_0 from A_0 equal 1, (n-1)/n, s(n-1)/n ; the altitudes of A, B, C equal 1, 1/n, s/n respectively. So s(n-1)/n - 1 = s/n , whence s = n/(n-2) , and the required transformation in Cartesian vector notation becomes C_i = n/(n-2) B_i - 2/(n-2) A_0 .
The base vertices C_1,...,C_n of C remain on hyperplanes extending F_1,...,F_n ; however the apex C_0 points downwards. This is remedied by reflecting C in its own base H_0 , so that C_0 now also meets F_0 or its extension. It is similar to B , and hence to A . Reflection in the base reverses the orientation of B , so the final scale factor with respect to A equals (-1)^n / (2-n) . QED
___________________________________________
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (4)
-
Dan Asimov -
Dan Asimov -
Fred Lunnon -
William R. Somsky