1
$\begingroup$

I have a vector proof of the following problem, but the synthetic proof seems elusive:

$ABCD$ is a convex quadrilateral. The line $AB$ intersects the line $CD$ at $P$. If $M,N$ are mid points of segments $BD$ and $AC$ respectively. Then prove that $4[PMN] = [ABCD]$.

Notation: [PQRS] denotes the area of the polygon PQRS.

I have been juggling around with marking midpoints and moving line segments parallel to other line segments. I just can't find a synthetic proof.

  • 0
    Do we agree that the names A,B,C,D are taken such that A is opposite to C and B opposite to D ? But if this is the case, if ABCD is a square, the area of PMN would be 0 ???2017-01-18
  • 0
    You are looking at the base MN=0, but then P is at infinity. So in the limiting case, the ratio might remain 4. Anyway that problem does not arise here. AB is not parallel to CD since they meet at P.2017-01-18
  • 0
    All right, I understand. I should have thought before!2017-01-18

1 Answers 1

1

enter image description here

We assume that the order $A,B,C,D$ is taken in the direct (anticlockwise) orientation.

We are going to use property of determinants such as: a) multiplication of a column by $\lambda$ amounts to multiply its value by $\lambda$, b) interchanging two columns yields a sign change, c) $\det(\vec{u}+\vec{v},\vec{w})=\det(\vec{u},\vec{w})+\det(\vec{v},\vec{w})$, etc.

A preliminary recall: for any triple of points $M,N,P$:

$$\det(\vec{MN},\vec{MP})=2 [MNP] \ \ \text{with the meaning of oriented area}.$$

(i.e., + sign is $MNP$ has direct orientation, -1 otherwise).

Let us express $\det(2 \vec{PM},2 \vec{PN})$ in two different ways:

$$\tag{1}\text{1st way:} \ \ \det(2 \vec{PM},2 \vec{PN})=4 \det(\vec{PM},\vec{PN})=8[PMN]$$

$$\text{2nd way:} \ \ \det(2 \vec{PM},2 \vec{PN})=$$

$$=\det(\vec{PB}+\vec{PD},\vec{PA}+\vec{PC})=$$

$$=\underbrace{\det(\vec{PB},\vec{PA})}_{0}+\det(\vec{PB},\vec{PC})+\det(\vec{PD},\vec{PA})+\underbrace{\det(\vec{PD},\vec{PC})}_{0}=$$

$$\tag{2}=\det(\vec{PB},\vec{PC})-\det(\vec{PA},\vec{PD})=2[PBC]-2[ADP]=2[ABCD].$$

Equating (1) and (2) gives the result.

Edit; there is a second method which is more in the spirit of a synthetic method. One may be surprised to see coordinates. But there is no contradiction. As we are referring to methods that Greeks would have used, we are precisely with these methods: it is not well known that, although Greek mathematics do not use "true" coordinates, they are rather close to it in many works, and using two coordinates $(a,b)$ for a point with respect to a basis-parallelogram, is like saying that the areas' ratio of 2 parallelograms is $ab$.

Consider the previous figure with the following coordinates:

enter image description here

The area of triangle $PDA$, resp. $PCB$, is $da/2$ resp. $bd/2$.

Thus the area of quadrilateral $ABCD$ is $(ad-bc)/2$.

Besides, the area of triangle $PMB$ is the half of the following determinant: $\det \pmatrix{d/2&c/2\\b/2&a/2}$, i.e., $\frac18 (ad-bc)$ which is in the ratio 1:4 with the previous result, as desired.

Remark 1: I don't imagine a quicker proof...

Remark 2: One may object that the concept of area has not its place in affine geometry, but in fact, what we are looking for is a ratio of areas, and this is an affine concept (for example barycentric coordinates can be represented as ratios of areas).

  • 0
    Dear JeanMarie, this is the vector proof I was talking about. I wrote the proof using cross products (instead of determinants). I am looking for a synthetic proof.2017-01-18
  • 0
    See the edit I have just written.2017-01-18
  • 0
    Dear JeanMarie, I know these proofs. Thanks for your effort. However I am teaching 8th grade students who only know basic euclidean axioms and have not been introduced to coordinates. Further this question was given in a set involving ratios of areas and parallelograms. Thanks again.2017-01-19
  • 0
    @Isomorphism I understand. Thanks for your thanks!2017-01-19