Showing posts with label Bisector. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bisector. Show all posts

Monday, December 6, 2010

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Fox 300

We have been delaying this for a while, but Ajit and Vihaan have already solved it. So there is no point of keeping it a secret :)
Note that this may be a general case for Foxes: 296, 297, and 298. It is also related to Fox 301.
It would be great if there are purely geometric solutions!!

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Fox 298

Proving this one immediately solves Foxie 296 and 297.
That's why this is the general case.

Monday, July 5, 2010

Fox 297 - Solutions

by Giannno:
by Bleaug:
Start from an arbitrary AOC triangle such that OC > OA.
Set length unit as (OC-OA)/2 and OA as x.

Reasoning is identical to Fox 296. See its solution.



Polar Fox adds:
By definition OB=x+1 => OBH is an isosceles triangle (1).
Also known that, m(BHO)=90 degrees (2).

Nope, aint gonna happen.
i.e. (1) and (2) can't happen at the same time.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Fox 296 - Solutions

Among similar ones, Bleaug finds a contradiction for Fox 296:Take an arbitrary AOC triangle such that OC=3OA. Build B as intersection of triangle's circumscribed circle and AOC internal bisector. B is such that ABC is isoceles, i.e. AB=BC. Symmetry in OABI implies AB=BI, hence IBC is isoceles. Orthogonal projection of B on OC coincides with H such that IH= HC=OA. OHB is rectangle, therefore
OB^2 = (2OA)^2 + BH^2 => OB > 2OA iff angle(AOC) > 0.

Strictly speaking, if angle(AOC)=0 there is a solution if we admit that a straight line is a circle with center at infinity (e.g. in projective plane).

And Giannno solves too:

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Fox 296

This seems to defy the logic. One may ask why not. Looks perfectly possible.
So the claim may very well be wrong.
If you believe so, you may try to find a counter-example.