Q&A

proving relative lengths on a secant

+1
−0

My kid was given this question. (Well, my statement of it actually includes some results that my kid had to find in previous parts of the question.)

Triangle $ABC$ is equilateral. $D$ is the middle of side $\overline{BC}$. $AD$ is the diameter of a circle centered at $O$. $\overline{AC}$ meets the circle at $F$. Prove that $AF=3CF$.

[I'd appreciate if someone could add a diagram. I can't at the moment.]

I can think of two ways to do this:

1. Draw $\overline{DF}$, prove it's an altitude in triangle $ADC$, and use similar triangles to find the sidelengths.
2. Use the fact that $DC^2=FC\cdot AC$.

Any other methods? I ask because my kid hasn't learned that latter theorem, or similar triangles.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
Why should this post be closed?

Does your kid know about 30-60-90 triangles? Knowing that the short side is half the length of the hypotenuse would be enough. r~~‭ about 1 month ago

@r~~ oh good point. Yes, I think so, actually. msh210‭ about 1 month ago

Would I be correct in guessing that the lack of any comment on my answer is because you haven't seen the final version? Peter Taylor‭ 12 days ago

+0
−1

This image matches the description in the question (note that, in violation of what I consider to be conventional, $O$ is not the centre of the circle but the midpoint of $AD$). I add a perpendicular to $AD$ from $O$ which intersects $AC$ at $G$, and lines $OF$ and $DG$ which intersect at $H$.

The key idea is to show that $AOG$, $DOG$, $DFG$ and $CDF$ are all congruent. Then since the area of a triangle is a half of the base times the height, $$\tfrac{1}{2} \overline{AF} \cdot \overline{DF} = 3 \cdot \tfrac{1}{2} \overline{CF} \cdot \overline{DF}$$

One argument which uses fairly basic lemmata and certainly makes no mention of similar triangles is as follows:

1. Angle $ACD = 60^\circ$ because it's an angle of an equilateral triangle.
2. Angle $CAD = 30^\circ$ because AD is a bisector.
3. $\overline{AO} = \overline{OD}$ by definition of $O$.
4. Angles $AOG = DOG = 90^\circ$ by definition of $G$.
5. Angle $AGO = 60^\circ$ by sum of angles in a triangle.
6. $AOG$ is congruent to $DOG$ by side-angle-side.
7. Angle $ODG = 30^\circ$ and $OGD = 60^\circ$ in consequence.
8. Angle $DGF = 60^\circ$ by sum of angles on a line.
9. $AO$ and $OF$ are radii of the circle, so $AOF$ is isosceles and angle $OFA = OAF = 30^\circ$.
10. Angle $FOG = 30^\circ$ by sum of angles in a triangle.
11. Angle $DOF = 60^\circ$ by e.g. sum of angles on a line.
12. $OD$ and $OF$ are radii of the circle, so $DOF$ is isosceles and angle $ODF = OFD$. But since angles in a triangle sum to $180^\circ$ and $DOF = 60^\circ$ that means that $ODF = OFD = 60^\circ$.
13. The angles of $OGD$ and $DFG$ are all known and they share edge $DG$, so we have enough to show that they're congruent.
14. Angle $DFC = 90^\circ$ by sum of angles on a line.
15. Angle $FDC = 30^\circ$ by e.g. sum of angles in a triangle.
16. The angles of $DFG$ and $DFC$ are known and they share edge $DF$, so we have enough to show that they're congruent.
Why does this post require moderator attention?