Amazing Detection of Parallel-o-gram: Unusual But Fairly Reasonable

Talking about shapes, one of the most familiar is the parallelogram. And about it we have a problem as follows.

Given quadrilateral ABCD, E, F is the midpoint of AD, resp. DC. Lines BE and AF intersect at point G. (And the figure is as below.)

Suppose it happens that GE : GA : GF : GB = 1 : 2 : 3 : 4. Attempt to prove ABCD is a parallelogram.

How can the division ratio GE : GA : GF : GB as given, be used as the hints to deduct the parallelogram?

Well, to put the known condition in proper perspective is important. If first attention is directed to GA : GF = 2 : 3, you might wonder how that can be utilized. Suppose you notice that GE : GA = GA : GB = 1 : 2 : 3 : 4, and suppose AF and BE are perpendicular to each other, then we conclude that the two triangles EGA and AGB are similar right triangles .. But how that can be used to help recognize a parallelogram?

By observing AF = AG + GF, and BE = BG + GE, and we find that AF = BE (by applying properties of the proportion, AF : BE = (2 + 3) : (4 + 1) = 1 : 1). So we have two hanging line segments AF and BE that are congruent (equal in length), and both segments are drawn from one vertex (of ABCD) to midpoint of a non-adjacent side. The information in its current form seems much helpful.

Now passing through D let’s draw a parallel line of BE; suppose the line intersects BC at point J: DJ // BE. Suppose that DJ intersects AF at point Q (Q should be between G and F). We work out that DQ = 2 EG (notice E is the midpoint of AD), as well as GQ = AG. So if it held that DQ : QJ = 2 : 3, we would prove that DJ = BE.

(Why doing that? If BE = DJ were proved, then JDEB would be a parallelogram. Parallelogram JDEB implies that AD // BC. Can you see that? Just note ED // BJ, and  segment ED is on line AD, resp. BJ is on BC; so we have, finally, AD // BC). So we’ve proved that AD and BC, as one pair of the opposite sides of a quadrilateral, is parallel. We can analogously attempt for AB // CD. Now by definition, ABCD is a parallelogram.

However to work out DQ : QJ = 2 : 3 some effort is needed, and the good news is we are on the track.

A rather interesting way (of course challenging but a pleasant experience), isn’t it? For anyone who wants to do more systematically, or automatically, is there another way?

Yes, there is. That way is to use coordinate system.

Suppose the two hanging segments AF and BE are perpendicular to each other, and let their intersection (G) be the origin: so G(0,0). With the given GE : GA = GA : GB = 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 (we’ll call it1-2-3-4 condition), we draw the following diagram that involves G, E, A, B, F to help us understand, and to figure out coordinates to be E(0,1), A (2,0), F (-3,0) and B (0,-4).

Coordinates of the other two vertices can be worked out from the conditions that E is the midpoint of AD, as well as F is the midpoint of DC. (Noting the positive direction of x-axis points from G to A.) We worked out D (-2,2) and C (-4,-2). If it’s indeed that ABCD is one parallelogram, then the two diagonals AC and BD bisect each other, which means that the midpoint of the two diagonals are the same, as verified straightforwardly:

Midpoint of AC: ((2-4)/2, (0-2)/2) ) = (-1, -1)

Midpoint of BD: ((0-2)/2, (-4+2)/2 ) = (-1,-1)

Since AC and BD bisect each other, ABCD is a parallelogram. But what if the AB and BE are not perpendicular? Well ABCD is still a parallelogram in case – but explanation is needed – for which we can pursue later. It deserves to point out, by changing the x- and y- axis from being orthogonal to arbitrary, whether the shape is parallelogram or not will have the same answer.

Let me ask if you would like this problem. If like, then share it with your friends!

Continuing from the problem discussed above, suppose that apart from AE, BF, we draw CJ and DK, where J is midpoint of AB and K is the midpoint of BC. Here is your turn to take a ramp-up challenge:
(If you truly understand what’s going on in the above discussion, then it’s just a piece of cake!)

(i) Can you show that there are exactly four intersections among the four lines AE, BF, CJ and DK; and the four intersection points connect to make a parallelogram?

(ii) What type of parallelogram is the one mentioned in question (i)? Is it a rectangle or rhombus?

*(iii) Is it possible for the original parallelogram to be a rectangle ABCD? In that case, if GE : GA : GF : GB = 1 : 2 : 3 : 4, what would be the aspect ratio AB : BC (aspect ratio is the ratio of width-to-length in a rectangle shape).

不一样的数学探索 —有趣,直观又有用

可以吗?在平面上任给5个点 (where no three points are on the same line),可以选3个点用直线连成三角形,让另外2点都在这三角形的内部吗?有些情况下这能做到,但是总能作到吗?当这个仿佛天边飘过来的问题(既简单又似无从下手)提给 15左右的学生时,不少就表现出跃跃欲试的兴趣。有一个立即发表意见:"总是可以,只要找到最外面的三个点,余下的就在里面。"

Yes Interior -2同伴反驳了,他举了一个例子:取呈正方形的四个点,无论取哪3个,都不能把另一点包含在其中。第五点呢,比方说在正方形内部。还是没办法取出含另两点在内部的三角形。
有学生补充说,如果五个点在一个圆上,都不能取出三角形把另两点含在内部喔。

Not-Interior - 1教育中从简单开放的问题出发,易于参与。比方说 什么叫“最外面的点”?反驳的孩子的思路也好棒,他是举例说明有不行的情况。提醒注意,要鼓励的是探索,动脑筋思考,发表意见要重事实和逻辑,不嘲笑攻击别人。这才是安全探索的环境。和同行讨论时有共识,启发思考,东西方都有好的做法,有共通的东西。简单贴上东方,西方教育的标签,捧一个打一个,是我们一直不赞成的。


******

数学家,数学教育家 Polya 讲过(大意),好老师善于提问题引导学生深入。通过上面讨论,文章开头的问题不是总能做得到。有时能,有时不能。那么什么时候能,什么时候不能呢?可以想一下,答案在文中说明能和不能的两幅插图中找。先注重观察特征,然后再想怎么表达清楚。有兴趣的切磋一下,问问你的孩子。

问题的意义也许不在于记住答案,在于启发思考和表达。在技术和社会领域,要能够跳出框框,这也是能力。对比传统几何教育的套定理证明,这样的探索更有意义,能启发心智(传统几何自有存在意义,此另当别论)。在从众的潮流中能思考堪称可贵。

­