Difference between revisions of "1966 IMO Problems/Problem 3"
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
other point in space". | other point in space". | ||
− | 3. I will give another solution below, in which I will | + | 3. I will give another solution below, in which I will also fill |
− | + | in the gap of the solution above, mentioned in the preceding paragraph. | |
Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
boundary of the triangle, so it is inside. | boundary of the triangle, so it is inside. | ||
+ | Now we will give the proof in the 3-dimensional case. It is extremely | ||
+ | similar to the proof in the 2-dimensional case, we just need to go from | ||
+ | 2D to 3D, so I will skip some details. | ||
+ | 1. We will show that if <math>P</math> is in one of the exterior regions, then | ||
+ | there is a point <math>P_!</math> on the boundary of the tetrahedron (a vertex, | ||
+ | or on a edge, or on a side, such that | ||
+ | <math>PA + PB + PC + PD > P_1A + P_1B + P_1C + P_1D</math>. | ||
+ | 2. Then we will show that if <math>P_1</math> is on the boundary, then | ||
+ | <math>P_1A + P_1B + P_1C + P_1D > OA + OB + OC</math>. | ||
+ | 3. And finally, we will show that if <math>P</math> is a point of minimum for | ||
+ | <math>PA + PB + PC + PD</math> inside the tetrahedron, then the extensions of | ||
+ | <math>PA, PB, PC, PD</math> are perpendicular to the sides <math>BCD, ACD, ABD, ABC</math>. | ||
+ | This implies that <math>P = O</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Proof of 1: | ||
Revision as of 13:09, 26 September 2024
Prove that the sum of the distances of the vertices of a regular tetrahedron from the center of its circumscribed sphere is less than the sum of the distances of these vertices from any other point in space.
Solution
We will need the following lemma to solve this problem:
Let be a regular tetrahedron, and a point inside it. Let be the distances from to the faces , and . Then, is constant, independent of .
We will compute the volume of in terms of the areas of the faces and the distances from the point to the faces:
because the areas of the four triangles are equal. ( stands for the area of .) Then
This value is constant, so the proof of the lemma is complete.
Let our tetrahedron be , and the center of its circumscribed sphere be . Construct a new regular tetrahedron, , such that the centers of the faces of this tetrahedron are at , , , and .
For any point in ,
with equality only occurring when , , , and are perpendicular to the faces of , meaning that . This completes the proof.
~mathboy100
Remarks (added by pf02, September 2024)
1. The text of the Lemma needed a little improvement, which I did.
2. The Solution above is not complete. It considered only points inside the tetrahedron, but the problem specifically said "any other point in space".
3. I will give another solution below, in which I will also fill in the gap of the solution above, mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Solution 2
We will first prove the problem in the 2-dimensional case. We do this to convey the idea of the proof, and because we will use this in one spot in proving the 3-dimensional case. So let us prove that:
The sum of the distances of the vertices of an equilateral triangle from the center of its circumscribed circle is less than the sum of the distances of these vertices from any other point in the plane.
First, we will show that we can assume that the point is inside the triangle. If the point is outside the triangle, it can be in one of six regions as seen in the pictures below.
If is in a region delimited by extensions of two sides of the triangle, as in the picture on the left, we notice that by taking , (because and as sides in an obtuse triangles, and similarly ). Now a direct, simple computation shows that (indeed, if we take the side of the triangle to be , then , and ).
If is in a region delimited by a segment which is a side of the triangle and by the extensions of two sides, as in the picture on the right, take the foot of the perpendicular from to . Then (because the triangle is obtuse, and because the triangles are right triangles). Furthermore, if is not the midpoint of , let be the midpoint. Then (because and ). Now, a direct, simple computation shows that (indeed, if we take the side of the triangle to be , and ).
Note that in the course of the preceding arguments, we also showed that if is one of the vertices of the triangle, or it is on one of the sides of the triangle, then .
Thus, we can assume that is inside the triangle .
In this case, we make a proof by contradiction. We claim that if is a point where is minimum, then the extensions of are perpendicular to the opposite sides . (This statement implies that .) If this is were not true, at least one of is false. We can assume that is not perpendicular to . Then draw the ellipse with focal points which goes through .
Now consider the point on the ellipse such that . Because of the properties of the ellipse, , and because of the definition of the ellipse . We conclude that , which contradicts the assumption that was such that was minimum.
This proves the 2-dimensional case.
One note: a very picky reader might object that the proof used that a minimum of exists, and is achieved at a point inside the triangle. This can be justified simply by noting that and quoting the theorem from calculus (or is it topology?) which says that a continuous function on a closed, bounded set has a minimum, and there is a point where the minimum is achieved. Because of the arguments in the proof, this point can not be on the boundary of the triangle, so it is inside.
Now we will give the proof in the 3-dimensional case. It is extremely similar to the proof in the 2-dimensional case, we just need to go from 2D to 3D, so I will skip some details.
1. We will show that if is in one of the exterior regions, then there is a point on the boundary of the tetrahedron (a vertex, or on a edge, or on a side, such that .
2. Then we will show that if is on the boundary, then .
3. And finally, we will show that if is a point of minimum for inside the tetrahedron, then the extensions of are perpendicular to the sides . This implies that .
Proof of 1:
TO BE CONTINUED. SAVING MID WAY SO I DON'T LOSE WORK DONE SO FAR.
(Solution by pf02, September 2024)
See Also
1966 IMO (Problems) • Resources | ||
Preceded by Problem 2 |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | Followed by Problem 4 |
All IMO Problems and Solutions |