| Title: | Mathematics at DEC |
| Moderator: | RUSURE::EDP |
| Created: | Mon Feb 03 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 2083 |
| Total number of notes: | 14613 |
Hi,
Does anyone know whose theorem this is:
You have two straight lines. On the first line there are points A, B
and C. On the second line there are points L, M & N. The points of
intersection of where (AM & BL), (AN & CL), & (BN & CM) meet, turn out
to be on a straight line themselves.
Thanks
Stuart
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2038.1 | HANNAH::OSMAN | see HANNAH::IGLOO$:[OSMAN]ERIC.VT240 | Wed Apr 10 1996 10:28 | 7 | |
Does this have something to do with the pantograph, a drawing instrument looking kind of like a tresseled wooden stairwell gate lieing down horizontally, that allows a user to trace a drawn figure and produce a larger or smaller replica ? /Eric | |||||
| 2038.2 | Desargues? | FLOYD::YODER | MFY | Wed Apr 10 1996 17:40 | 2 |
The name "Desargues" comes to mind, but I may be confusing this with another theorem. | |||||
| 2038.3 | IOSG::MAURICE | Like a tea tray in the sky | Thu Apr 11 1996 03:44 | 16 | |
Hi,
Thanks for the hints. I tried searching the net using them , and it
does seem that the theorem of Desargues is close. It says "If two
triangles are in perspective, then the meets of the corresponding sides
are collinear". From:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/BigPictures/DesarguesTheorem.gif
(Which also has a picture)
My maths isn't good enough to know whether this is the same theorem.
Cheers
Stuart
| |||||
| 2038.4 | Pappus | IOSG::MAURICE | Like a tea tray in the sky | Thu Apr 11 1996 04:13 | 8 |
A lucky search on the net using the Alta Vista search engine for
+collinear +theorem gave up Pappus of Alexandria. " If points A1, A2,
A3 and B1, B2, B3 are collinear, then the intersections A1B2.A2B1,
A1B3.A3B1, A2B3.A3B2 are collinear."
Cheers
Stuart
| |||||
| 2038.5 | HANNAH::OSMAN | see HANNAH::IGLOO$:[OSMAN]ERIC.VT240 | Thu Apr 11 1996 15:26 | 5 | |
And where is the newly defined line. Does it bisect the angle formed by the original two ? /Eric | |||||
| 2038.6 | hand waving | AUSS::GARSON | achtentachtig kacheltjes | Thu Apr 11 1996 18:37 | 16 |
re .5
>Does it bisect the angle formed by the original two ?
I wouldn't think so.
Let one line be the x-axis with points at x=1,2,3 (call them A,B,C) and
the other line be the y-axis with points at y=1,2,3 (call them D,E,F).
The point formed from A,B,D,E (call it G) indeed is on the bisector, as
are the other two points formed. Now move the point F up the y-axis.
The point G does not move because it is not determined by F (and hence
remains on the bisector). However the other two points (call them H,I)
clearly do move. It is intuitively obvious (proof by declaration) that
H (and I) both move off the bisector (because only one of the lines
determining their position is moving) and hence G,H,I is no longer the
bisector.
| |||||