Re: [math-fun] Marden^H^H^H^H^H^HSiebeck's Theorem
But you missed the original question: As the triangle collapses, _why_ does the ellipse collapse to [-1,1]/sqrt(3) instead of to [-1,1] ? After all, the ellipse gets thinner & thinner; why not get thin enough to move the foci all the way into the triangle's base vertices ? --- Interestingly, as an equilateral triangle collapses to smaller & smaller isosceles triangles, the ellipse foci start together at the center of the triangle, and then move downwards on either side in a _circular_ locus to hit the base of the triangle at +-1/sqrt(3), where the radius of the circle is r=1/sqrt(3). This would be an interesting quiz problem, as I would never have guessed the circularity of the locus. At 04:40 PM 2/19/2013, Dan Asimov wrote:
My point is that the ellipses for c > 0 do not approach the line segment [-1,1].
They approach the line segment [-sqrt(â ), sqrt(â )].
On 2013-02-19, at 4:33 PM, Henry Baker wrote:
Re: "This is not what happens":
Tell that to Maxima. P(z) has roots at +-1, +ci.
P'(z) has roots at +ci/3+-sqrt(3-c^2)/3 = +-1/sqrt(3) when c=0.
(%i1) declare(z,complex); (%o1) done (%i2) P(z):=(z-1)*(z+1)*(z-%i*c); (%o2) P(z) := (z - 1) (z + 1) (z - %i c) (%i3) solve(P(z),z); (%o3) [z = %i c, z = - 1, z = 1] (%i4) solve(diff(P(z),z),z); 2 2 sqrt(3 - c ) - %i c sqrt(3 - c ) + %i c (%o4) [z = - -------------------, z = -------------------] 3 3 (%i5) %,c=0; 1 1 (%o5) [z = - -------, z = -------] sqrt(3) sqrt(3) (%i6) %,numer; (%o6) [z = - 0.57735026918963, z = 0.57735026918963]
I.e., these numbers are not +-1.
At 03:33 PM 2/19/2013, Dan Asimov wrote:
This is not what happens.
The limit of the ellipse as c -> 0 is indeed a degenerate ellipse that is precisely the line segment between its foci, +-sqrt(â ¦âÂÂ).
Oh, is that what you think the original question was? On 2013-02-19, at 5:24 PM, Henry Baker wrote:
But you missed the original question:
As the triangle collapses, _why_ does the ellipse collapse to [-1,1]/sqrt(3) instead of to [-1,1] ?
After all, the ellipse gets thinner & thinner; why not get thin enough to move the foci all the way into the triangle's base vertices ?
--- Interestingly, as an equilateral triangle collapses to smaller & smaller isosceles triangles, the ellipse foci start together at the center of the triangle, and then move downwards on either side in a _circular_ locus to hit the base of the triangle at +-1/sqrt(3), where the radius of the circle is r=1/sqrt(3).
This would be an interesting quiz problem, as I would never have guessed the circularity of the locus.
At 04:40 PM 2/19/2013, Dan Asimov wrote:
My point is that the ellipses for c > 0 do not approach the line segment [-1,1].
They approach the line segment [-sqrt(â…“), sqrt(â…“)].
On 2013-02-19, at 4:33 PM, Henry Baker wrote:
Re: "This is not what happens":
Tell that to Maxima. P(z) has roots at +-1, +ci.
P'(z) has roots at +ci/3+-sqrt(3-c^2)/3 = +-1/sqrt(3) when c=0.
(%i1) declare(z,complex); (%o1) done (%i2) P(z):=(z-1)*(z+1)*(z-%i*c); (%o2) P(z) := (z - 1) (z + 1) (z - %i c) (%i3) solve(P(z),z); (%o3) [z = %i c, z = - 1, z = 1] (%i4) solve(diff(P(z),z),z); 2 2 sqrt(3 - c ) - %i c sqrt(3 - c ) + %i c (%o4) [z = - -------------------, z = -------------------] 3 3 (%i5) %,c=0; 1 1 (%o5) [z = - -------, z = -------] sqrt(3) sqrt(3) (%i6) %,numer; (%o6) [z = - 0.57735026918963, z = 0.57735026918963]
I.e., these numbers are not +-1.
At 03:33 PM 2/19/2013, Dan Asimov wrote:
This is not what happens.
The limit of the ellipse as c -> 0 is indeed a degenerate ellipse that is precisely the line segment between its foci, +-sqrt(Ⅶ“).
Siebeck's Theorem, again. See http://www.american.edu/cas/mathstat/People/kalman/pdffiles/mardenAMM.pdf With a slightly better choice of coordinates than Kalman's paper, the result is slightly more elegant: Place the triangle so that the base is on the _y-axis_, with vertices P1,P2 = +- sqrt(3) i, P3 = 3*cosh(f), for some **complex** number f. (%i1) P:(z-sqrt(3)*%i)*(z+sqrt(3)*%i)*(z-3*cosh(f)); (%o1) (z - sqrt(3) %i) (z + sqrt(3) %i) (z - 3 cosh(f)) (%i2) dP:diff(P,z)/3,expand; 2 (%o2) z - 2 cosh(f) z + 1 (%i3) solve(%,z); 2 2 (%o3) [z = cosh(f) - sqrt(cosh (f) - 1), z = sqrt(cosh (f) - 1) + cosh(f)] (%i4) %,exponentialize; f - f f - f 2 %e + %e (%e + %e ) (%o4) [z = ----------- - sqrt(-------------- - 1), 2 4 f - f 2 f - f (%e + %e ) %e + %e z = sqrt(-------------- - 1) + -----------] 4 2 (%i5) %,radcan; - f f (%o5) [z = %e , z = %e ] i.e., the foci F,F' are located at the complex numbers F=exp(f), F'=exp(-f)=1/exp(f). Alternatively, since the inscribed ellipse must be _tangent_ at the origin (the origin is the midpoint of the triangle base), the foci must be on complementary rays from the origin at an angle of imagpart(f). Under these conditions, f=log(F), where F is one of the foci (as a complex number). Hence, the 3rd triangle vertex is at 3*cosh(log(F)). This provides a reverse construction, in which we are given the triangle base and one focus and we wish to find the 3rd triangle vertex and the other focus. the 3rd vertex = 3*cosh(log(F)), the other focus F'=1/F.
participants (2)
-
Dan Asimov -
Henry Baker