Purely Geometric Proof that Circles Invert to Circles












5












$begingroup$


I recently watched Douglas Hofstadter recall at the beginning of a talk about Feuerbach's Theorem the fact that under circle inversion, circles (which do not pass through the center of inversion) map to circles. He claimed it used the fact that if two inscribed angles cut the same arc, they must have equal measure (chord-angle theorem).



I tried to rediscover the proof, but concluded that his chord-angle theorem was useless. Assuming his definition of circle inversion indeed inverts distances from the center, he must also use some result about distance, but power of a point proves circle inversion easily without direct reference to the chord-angle theorem.



Is there a well known proof involving the chord-angle theorem?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It may help to know that what you call the "chord-angle theorem" is typically called the "Inscribed Angle Theorem". Perhaps a web search using that term will be fruitful.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Sep 11 '17 at 22:33










  • $begingroup$
    Ah yes, thank you. It's one of my favorite theorems, yet I sometimes have trouble remembering the name. I googled some and keep coming across an argument made with the more rudimentary Thales theorem (diameter subtends a right angle) with some angle chasing. I think it could be polished enough to be a pleasing proof.I guess I was expecting something shocking from the way Hofstadter talked about it.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Goldsmith
    Sep 12 '17 at 0:02










  • $begingroup$
    I suppose after some more consideration that the Power of a Point theorem is circle inversion. And, there is a marvelous proof of PoP which uses the Included Angle Theorem. Perhaps you can think of them together as a marvelous proof that circles invert to circles. cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/PPower.shtml
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Goldsmith
    Sep 12 '17 at 1:28
















5












$begingroup$


I recently watched Douglas Hofstadter recall at the beginning of a talk about Feuerbach's Theorem the fact that under circle inversion, circles (which do not pass through the center of inversion) map to circles. He claimed it used the fact that if two inscribed angles cut the same arc, they must have equal measure (chord-angle theorem).



I tried to rediscover the proof, but concluded that his chord-angle theorem was useless. Assuming his definition of circle inversion indeed inverts distances from the center, he must also use some result about distance, but power of a point proves circle inversion easily without direct reference to the chord-angle theorem.



Is there a well known proof involving the chord-angle theorem?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It may help to know that what you call the "chord-angle theorem" is typically called the "Inscribed Angle Theorem". Perhaps a web search using that term will be fruitful.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Sep 11 '17 at 22:33










  • $begingroup$
    Ah yes, thank you. It's one of my favorite theorems, yet I sometimes have trouble remembering the name. I googled some and keep coming across an argument made with the more rudimentary Thales theorem (diameter subtends a right angle) with some angle chasing. I think it could be polished enough to be a pleasing proof.I guess I was expecting something shocking from the way Hofstadter talked about it.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Goldsmith
    Sep 12 '17 at 0:02










  • $begingroup$
    I suppose after some more consideration that the Power of a Point theorem is circle inversion. And, there is a marvelous proof of PoP which uses the Included Angle Theorem. Perhaps you can think of them together as a marvelous proof that circles invert to circles. cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/PPower.shtml
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Goldsmith
    Sep 12 '17 at 1:28














5












5








5


2



$begingroup$


I recently watched Douglas Hofstadter recall at the beginning of a talk about Feuerbach's Theorem the fact that under circle inversion, circles (which do not pass through the center of inversion) map to circles. He claimed it used the fact that if two inscribed angles cut the same arc, they must have equal measure (chord-angle theorem).



I tried to rediscover the proof, but concluded that his chord-angle theorem was useless. Assuming his definition of circle inversion indeed inverts distances from the center, he must also use some result about distance, but power of a point proves circle inversion easily without direct reference to the chord-angle theorem.



Is there a well known proof involving the chord-angle theorem?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I recently watched Douglas Hofstadter recall at the beginning of a talk about Feuerbach's Theorem the fact that under circle inversion, circles (which do not pass through the center of inversion) map to circles. He claimed it used the fact that if two inscribed angles cut the same arc, they must have equal measure (chord-angle theorem).



I tried to rediscover the proof, but concluded that his chord-angle theorem was useless. Assuming his definition of circle inversion indeed inverts distances from the center, he must also use some result about distance, but power of a point proves circle inversion easily without direct reference to the chord-angle theorem.



Is there a well known proof involving the chord-angle theorem?







geometry circle






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Sep 11 '17 at 20:46









Aaron GoldsmithAaron Goldsmith

15310




15310








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It may help to know that what you call the "chord-angle theorem" is typically called the "Inscribed Angle Theorem". Perhaps a web search using that term will be fruitful.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Sep 11 '17 at 22:33










  • $begingroup$
    Ah yes, thank you. It's one of my favorite theorems, yet I sometimes have trouble remembering the name. I googled some and keep coming across an argument made with the more rudimentary Thales theorem (diameter subtends a right angle) with some angle chasing. I think it could be polished enough to be a pleasing proof.I guess I was expecting something shocking from the way Hofstadter talked about it.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Goldsmith
    Sep 12 '17 at 0:02










  • $begingroup$
    I suppose after some more consideration that the Power of a Point theorem is circle inversion. And, there is a marvelous proof of PoP which uses the Included Angle Theorem. Perhaps you can think of them together as a marvelous proof that circles invert to circles. cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/PPower.shtml
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Goldsmith
    Sep 12 '17 at 1:28














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It may help to know that what you call the "chord-angle theorem" is typically called the "Inscribed Angle Theorem". Perhaps a web search using that term will be fruitful.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Sep 11 '17 at 22:33










  • $begingroup$
    Ah yes, thank you. It's one of my favorite theorems, yet I sometimes have trouble remembering the name. I googled some and keep coming across an argument made with the more rudimentary Thales theorem (diameter subtends a right angle) with some angle chasing. I think it could be polished enough to be a pleasing proof.I guess I was expecting something shocking from the way Hofstadter talked about it.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Goldsmith
    Sep 12 '17 at 0:02










  • $begingroup$
    I suppose after some more consideration that the Power of a Point theorem is circle inversion. And, there is a marvelous proof of PoP which uses the Included Angle Theorem. Perhaps you can think of them together as a marvelous proof that circles invert to circles. cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/PPower.shtml
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Goldsmith
    Sep 12 '17 at 1:28








1




1




$begingroup$
It may help to know that what you call the "chord-angle theorem" is typically called the "Inscribed Angle Theorem". Perhaps a web search using that term will be fruitful.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Sep 11 '17 at 22:33




$begingroup$
It may help to know that what you call the "chord-angle theorem" is typically called the "Inscribed Angle Theorem". Perhaps a web search using that term will be fruitful.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Sep 11 '17 at 22:33












$begingroup$
Ah yes, thank you. It's one of my favorite theorems, yet I sometimes have trouble remembering the name. I googled some and keep coming across an argument made with the more rudimentary Thales theorem (diameter subtends a right angle) with some angle chasing. I think it could be polished enough to be a pleasing proof.I guess I was expecting something shocking from the way Hofstadter talked about it.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Goldsmith
Sep 12 '17 at 0:02




$begingroup$
Ah yes, thank you. It's one of my favorite theorems, yet I sometimes have trouble remembering the name. I googled some and keep coming across an argument made with the more rudimentary Thales theorem (diameter subtends a right angle) with some angle chasing. I think it could be polished enough to be a pleasing proof.I guess I was expecting something shocking from the way Hofstadter talked about it.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Goldsmith
Sep 12 '17 at 0:02












$begingroup$
I suppose after some more consideration that the Power of a Point theorem is circle inversion. And, there is a marvelous proof of PoP which uses the Included Angle Theorem. Perhaps you can think of them together as a marvelous proof that circles invert to circles. cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/PPower.shtml
$endgroup$
– Aaron Goldsmith
Sep 12 '17 at 1:28




$begingroup$
I suppose after some more consideration that the Power of a Point theorem is circle inversion. And, there is a marvelous proof of PoP which uses the Included Angle Theorem. Perhaps you can think of them together as a marvelous proof that circles invert to circles. cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/PPower.shtml
$endgroup$
– Aaron Goldsmith
Sep 12 '17 at 1:28










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

Here's a straightforward proof of the circles-invert-to-circles theorem, where the linchpin is the Inscribed Angle Theorem (more-specifically, Thales' Theorem: An angle inscribed in a semicircle is a right angle.).



enter image description here



Consider a point $C$ on some circle. We wish to invert $C$ in a circle with center $O$. Let $overline{AB}$ be the diameter of $C$'s circle such that $O$, $A$, $B$ are collinear. Let the inversions of $A$, $B$, $C$ be $A^prime$, $B^prime$, $C^prime$.



Recall that the nature of inversion is that
$$|overline{OX}||overline{OX^prime}| = left(;text{radius of $bigcirc O$};right)^2 tag{1}$$
The radius is irrelevant; what matters is the constant product, so that we have
$$|overline{OA}||overline{OA^prime}| = |overline{OB}||overline{OB^prime}| = |overline{OC}||overline{OC^prime}| tag{2}$$



This allows us to argue as follows:
$$begin{align}
frac{|overline{OA}|}{|overline{OC}|} = frac{|overline{OC^prime}|}{|overline{OA^prime}|}
&implies triangle OAC sim triangle OC^prime A^prime
implies angle A^prime C^prime C = angle A tag{3a} \[8pt]
frac{|overline{OB}|}{|overline{OC}|} = frac{|overline{OC^prime}|}{|overline{OB^prime}|}
&implies triangle OBC sim triangle OC^prime B^prime
implies angle B^prime C^prime O = angle B tag{3b}
end{align}$$



Consequently,
$$angle ACB cong angle A^prime C^prime B^prime tag{4}$$



Now, Thales both sets us up and brings us home ...



$$begin{align}
text{$C$ lies on a semicircle on $overline{AB}$}quad
&impliesquad text{$angle ACB$ is a right angle} \[6pt]
&impliesquad text{$angle A^prime C^prime B^prime$ is a right angle} \
&impliesquad text{$C^prime$ lies on a semicircle on $overline{A^prime B^prime}$}
end{align}$$



Thus, the points on a circle invert to points on another circle, and (with some handwaving about continuity and bijection) we're done. $square$





In point of fact, the restriction to Thales' Theorem and right angles and diameters is unnecessary. We can take $overline{AB}$ to be any (non-degenerate) chord of $C$'s circle, so long as it's collinear with $O$, and the proof effectively works as-is, requiring only that we replace "right angle" and "semi-circle" with appropriately-generic descriptors.





By request, here are diagrams for varying configurations. In all cases, $(2)$ leads to similar triangles that imply $(3a)$, $(3b)$, and, ultimately $(3c)$, so that $angle A^prime C^prime B^prime$ is a right angle. "Usually", this means that $C^prime$ lies on a regular circle with diameter $overline{A^prime B^prime}$; when $A=O$, we have that $A^prime$ is the "point at infinity", and we see that $C^prime$ lies on the perpendicular line (that is, a circle of infinite radius) through $B^prime$.



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Sorry for reviving this old answered post, but what does it look like to use these methods to prove all possible cases (circle through the center of inversion circle, circle crossing the inversion circle, circle encompassing the center of the inversion circle, etc.) ? Could you link a good source? Most sources I find include a discussion of this that goes like "We will take it on faith that circles invert to circles, because there are many cases to consider" :( As always, thanks blue! You're amazing!
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:27








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MathEnthusiast: See my edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Dec 20 '18 at 20:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Spectacular! Thanks so much!
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 21 '18 at 0:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MathEnthusiast: In the $A=O$ case, we want that $C^prime$ lies on the perp at $B^prime$; this actually follows from the similarity in $(3b)$, which guarantees a right angle at $B^prime$. That said, it's not wrong —merely inefficient — to argue as in the other cases. Taking "$angle A^prime C^prime C$" to mean the appropriate angle between $overline{CC^prime}$ and the "horizontal" through $C^prime$, the angle equality in $(3a)$ holds by parallelism; with $(3b)$, this implies $(4)$, giving a right angle at $C^prime$. This makes $overline{B^prime C^prime}$ "vertical", as desired.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Dec 22 '18 at 23:21








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Aha! I missed the similarity in 3b that showed OB'C' was a right angle, thanks for the clarification
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 23 '18 at 0:21











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2425789%2fpurely-geometric-proof-that-circles-invert-to-circles%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









7












$begingroup$

Here's a straightforward proof of the circles-invert-to-circles theorem, where the linchpin is the Inscribed Angle Theorem (more-specifically, Thales' Theorem: An angle inscribed in a semicircle is a right angle.).



enter image description here



Consider a point $C$ on some circle. We wish to invert $C$ in a circle with center $O$. Let $overline{AB}$ be the diameter of $C$'s circle such that $O$, $A$, $B$ are collinear. Let the inversions of $A$, $B$, $C$ be $A^prime$, $B^prime$, $C^prime$.



Recall that the nature of inversion is that
$$|overline{OX}||overline{OX^prime}| = left(;text{radius of $bigcirc O$};right)^2 tag{1}$$
The radius is irrelevant; what matters is the constant product, so that we have
$$|overline{OA}||overline{OA^prime}| = |overline{OB}||overline{OB^prime}| = |overline{OC}||overline{OC^prime}| tag{2}$$



This allows us to argue as follows:
$$begin{align}
frac{|overline{OA}|}{|overline{OC}|} = frac{|overline{OC^prime}|}{|overline{OA^prime}|}
&implies triangle OAC sim triangle OC^prime A^prime
implies angle A^prime C^prime C = angle A tag{3a} \[8pt]
frac{|overline{OB}|}{|overline{OC}|} = frac{|overline{OC^prime}|}{|overline{OB^prime}|}
&implies triangle OBC sim triangle OC^prime B^prime
implies angle B^prime C^prime O = angle B tag{3b}
end{align}$$



Consequently,
$$angle ACB cong angle A^prime C^prime B^prime tag{4}$$



Now, Thales both sets us up and brings us home ...



$$begin{align}
text{$C$ lies on a semicircle on $overline{AB}$}quad
&impliesquad text{$angle ACB$ is a right angle} \[6pt]
&impliesquad text{$angle A^prime C^prime B^prime$ is a right angle} \
&impliesquad text{$C^prime$ lies on a semicircle on $overline{A^prime B^prime}$}
end{align}$$



Thus, the points on a circle invert to points on another circle, and (with some handwaving about continuity and bijection) we're done. $square$





In point of fact, the restriction to Thales' Theorem and right angles and diameters is unnecessary. We can take $overline{AB}$ to be any (non-degenerate) chord of $C$'s circle, so long as it's collinear with $O$, and the proof effectively works as-is, requiring only that we replace "right angle" and "semi-circle" with appropriately-generic descriptors.





By request, here are diagrams for varying configurations. In all cases, $(2)$ leads to similar triangles that imply $(3a)$, $(3b)$, and, ultimately $(3c)$, so that $angle A^prime C^prime B^prime$ is a right angle. "Usually", this means that $C^prime$ lies on a regular circle with diameter $overline{A^prime B^prime}$; when $A=O$, we have that $A^prime$ is the "point at infinity", and we see that $C^prime$ lies on the perpendicular line (that is, a circle of infinite radius) through $B^prime$.



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Sorry for reviving this old answered post, but what does it look like to use these methods to prove all possible cases (circle through the center of inversion circle, circle crossing the inversion circle, circle encompassing the center of the inversion circle, etc.) ? Could you link a good source? Most sources I find include a discussion of this that goes like "We will take it on faith that circles invert to circles, because there are many cases to consider" :( As always, thanks blue! You're amazing!
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:27








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MathEnthusiast: See my edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Dec 20 '18 at 20:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Spectacular! Thanks so much!
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 21 '18 at 0:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MathEnthusiast: In the $A=O$ case, we want that $C^prime$ lies on the perp at $B^prime$; this actually follows from the similarity in $(3b)$, which guarantees a right angle at $B^prime$. That said, it's not wrong —merely inefficient — to argue as in the other cases. Taking "$angle A^prime C^prime C$" to mean the appropriate angle between $overline{CC^prime}$ and the "horizontal" through $C^prime$, the angle equality in $(3a)$ holds by parallelism; with $(3b)$, this implies $(4)$, giving a right angle at $C^prime$. This makes $overline{B^prime C^prime}$ "vertical", as desired.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Dec 22 '18 at 23:21








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Aha! I missed the similarity in 3b that showed OB'C' was a right angle, thanks for the clarification
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 23 '18 at 0:21
















7












$begingroup$

Here's a straightforward proof of the circles-invert-to-circles theorem, where the linchpin is the Inscribed Angle Theorem (more-specifically, Thales' Theorem: An angle inscribed in a semicircle is a right angle.).



enter image description here



Consider a point $C$ on some circle. We wish to invert $C$ in a circle with center $O$. Let $overline{AB}$ be the diameter of $C$'s circle such that $O$, $A$, $B$ are collinear. Let the inversions of $A$, $B$, $C$ be $A^prime$, $B^prime$, $C^prime$.



Recall that the nature of inversion is that
$$|overline{OX}||overline{OX^prime}| = left(;text{radius of $bigcirc O$};right)^2 tag{1}$$
The radius is irrelevant; what matters is the constant product, so that we have
$$|overline{OA}||overline{OA^prime}| = |overline{OB}||overline{OB^prime}| = |overline{OC}||overline{OC^prime}| tag{2}$$



This allows us to argue as follows:
$$begin{align}
frac{|overline{OA}|}{|overline{OC}|} = frac{|overline{OC^prime}|}{|overline{OA^prime}|}
&implies triangle OAC sim triangle OC^prime A^prime
implies angle A^prime C^prime C = angle A tag{3a} \[8pt]
frac{|overline{OB}|}{|overline{OC}|} = frac{|overline{OC^prime}|}{|overline{OB^prime}|}
&implies triangle OBC sim triangle OC^prime B^prime
implies angle B^prime C^prime O = angle B tag{3b}
end{align}$$



Consequently,
$$angle ACB cong angle A^prime C^prime B^prime tag{4}$$



Now, Thales both sets us up and brings us home ...



$$begin{align}
text{$C$ lies on a semicircle on $overline{AB}$}quad
&impliesquad text{$angle ACB$ is a right angle} \[6pt]
&impliesquad text{$angle A^prime C^prime B^prime$ is a right angle} \
&impliesquad text{$C^prime$ lies on a semicircle on $overline{A^prime B^prime}$}
end{align}$$



Thus, the points on a circle invert to points on another circle, and (with some handwaving about continuity and bijection) we're done. $square$





In point of fact, the restriction to Thales' Theorem and right angles and diameters is unnecessary. We can take $overline{AB}$ to be any (non-degenerate) chord of $C$'s circle, so long as it's collinear with $O$, and the proof effectively works as-is, requiring only that we replace "right angle" and "semi-circle" with appropriately-generic descriptors.





By request, here are diagrams for varying configurations. In all cases, $(2)$ leads to similar triangles that imply $(3a)$, $(3b)$, and, ultimately $(3c)$, so that $angle A^prime C^prime B^prime$ is a right angle. "Usually", this means that $C^prime$ lies on a regular circle with diameter $overline{A^prime B^prime}$; when $A=O$, we have that $A^prime$ is the "point at infinity", and we see that $C^prime$ lies on the perpendicular line (that is, a circle of infinite radius) through $B^prime$.



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Sorry for reviving this old answered post, but what does it look like to use these methods to prove all possible cases (circle through the center of inversion circle, circle crossing the inversion circle, circle encompassing the center of the inversion circle, etc.) ? Could you link a good source? Most sources I find include a discussion of this that goes like "We will take it on faith that circles invert to circles, because there are many cases to consider" :( As always, thanks blue! You're amazing!
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:27








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MathEnthusiast: See my edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Dec 20 '18 at 20:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Spectacular! Thanks so much!
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 21 '18 at 0:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MathEnthusiast: In the $A=O$ case, we want that $C^prime$ lies on the perp at $B^prime$; this actually follows from the similarity in $(3b)$, which guarantees a right angle at $B^prime$. That said, it's not wrong —merely inefficient — to argue as in the other cases. Taking "$angle A^prime C^prime C$" to mean the appropriate angle between $overline{CC^prime}$ and the "horizontal" through $C^prime$, the angle equality in $(3a)$ holds by parallelism; with $(3b)$, this implies $(4)$, giving a right angle at $C^prime$. This makes $overline{B^prime C^prime}$ "vertical", as desired.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Dec 22 '18 at 23:21








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Aha! I missed the similarity in 3b that showed OB'C' was a right angle, thanks for the clarification
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 23 '18 at 0:21














7












7








7





$begingroup$

Here's a straightforward proof of the circles-invert-to-circles theorem, where the linchpin is the Inscribed Angle Theorem (more-specifically, Thales' Theorem: An angle inscribed in a semicircle is a right angle.).



enter image description here



Consider a point $C$ on some circle. We wish to invert $C$ in a circle with center $O$. Let $overline{AB}$ be the diameter of $C$'s circle such that $O$, $A$, $B$ are collinear. Let the inversions of $A$, $B$, $C$ be $A^prime$, $B^prime$, $C^prime$.



Recall that the nature of inversion is that
$$|overline{OX}||overline{OX^prime}| = left(;text{radius of $bigcirc O$};right)^2 tag{1}$$
The radius is irrelevant; what matters is the constant product, so that we have
$$|overline{OA}||overline{OA^prime}| = |overline{OB}||overline{OB^prime}| = |overline{OC}||overline{OC^prime}| tag{2}$$



This allows us to argue as follows:
$$begin{align}
frac{|overline{OA}|}{|overline{OC}|} = frac{|overline{OC^prime}|}{|overline{OA^prime}|}
&implies triangle OAC sim triangle OC^prime A^prime
implies angle A^prime C^prime C = angle A tag{3a} \[8pt]
frac{|overline{OB}|}{|overline{OC}|} = frac{|overline{OC^prime}|}{|overline{OB^prime}|}
&implies triangle OBC sim triangle OC^prime B^prime
implies angle B^prime C^prime O = angle B tag{3b}
end{align}$$



Consequently,
$$angle ACB cong angle A^prime C^prime B^prime tag{4}$$



Now, Thales both sets us up and brings us home ...



$$begin{align}
text{$C$ lies on a semicircle on $overline{AB}$}quad
&impliesquad text{$angle ACB$ is a right angle} \[6pt]
&impliesquad text{$angle A^prime C^prime B^prime$ is a right angle} \
&impliesquad text{$C^prime$ lies on a semicircle on $overline{A^prime B^prime}$}
end{align}$$



Thus, the points on a circle invert to points on another circle, and (with some handwaving about continuity and bijection) we're done. $square$





In point of fact, the restriction to Thales' Theorem and right angles and diameters is unnecessary. We can take $overline{AB}$ to be any (non-degenerate) chord of $C$'s circle, so long as it's collinear with $O$, and the proof effectively works as-is, requiring only that we replace "right angle" and "semi-circle" with appropriately-generic descriptors.





By request, here are diagrams for varying configurations. In all cases, $(2)$ leads to similar triangles that imply $(3a)$, $(3b)$, and, ultimately $(3c)$, so that $angle A^prime C^prime B^prime$ is a right angle. "Usually", this means that $C^prime$ lies on a regular circle with diameter $overline{A^prime B^prime}$; when $A=O$, we have that $A^prime$ is the "point at infinity", and we see that $C^prime$ lies on the perpendicular line (that is, a circle of infinite radius) through $B^prime$.



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Here's a straightforward proof of the circles-invert-to-circles theorem, where the linchpin is the Inscribed Angle Theorem (more-specifically, Thales' Theorem: An angle inscribed in a semicircle is a right angle.).



enter image description here



Consider a point $C$ on some circle. We wish to invert $C$ in a circle with center $O$. Let $overline{AB}$ be the diameter of $C$'s circle such that $O$, $A$, $B$ are collinear. Let the inversions of $A$, $B$, $C$ be $A^prime$, $B^prime$, $C^prime$.



Recall that the nature of inversion is that
$$|overline{OX}||overline{OX^prime}| = left(;text{radius of $bigcirc O$};right)^2 tag{1}$$
The radius is irrelevant; what matters is the constant product, so that we have
$$|overline{OA}||overline{OA^prime}| = |overline{OB}||overline{OB^prime}| = |overline{OC}||overline{OC^prime}| tag{2}$$



This allows us to argue as follows:
$$begin{align}
frac{|overline{OA}|}{|overline{OC}|} = frac{|overline{OC^prime}|}{|overline{OA^prime}|}
&implies triangle OAC sim triangle OC^prime A^prime
implies angle A^prime C^prime C = angle A tag{3a} \[8pt]
frac{|overline{OB}|}{|overline{OC}|} = frac{|overline{OC^prime}|}{|overline{OB^prime}|}
&implies triangle OBC sim triangle OC^prime B^prime
implies angle B^prime C^prime O = angle B tag{3b}
end{align}$$



Consequently,
$$angle ACB cong angle A^prime C^prime B^prime tag{4}$$



Now, Thales both sets us up and brings us home ...



$$begin{align}
text{$C$ lies on a semicircle on $overline{AB}$}quad
&impliesquad text{$angle ACB$ is a right angle} \[6pt]
&impliesquad text{$angle A^prime C^prime B^prime$ is a right angle} \
&impliesquad text{$C^prime$ lies on a semicircle on $overline{A^prime B^prime}$}
end{align}$$



Thus, the points on a circle invert to points on another circle, and (with some handwaving about continuity and bijection) we're done. $square$





In point of fact, the restriction to Thales' Theorem and right angles and diameters is unnecessary. We can take $overline{AB}$ to be any (non-degenerate) chord of $C$'s circle, so long as it's collinear with $O$, and the proof effectively works as-is, requiring only that we replace "right angle" and "semi-circle" with appropriately-generic descriptors.





By request, here are diagrams for varying configurations. In all cases, $(2)$ leads to similar triangles that imply $(3a)$, $(3b)$, and, ultimately $(3c)$, so that $angle A^prime C^prime B^prime$ is a right angle. "Usually", this means that $C^prime$ lies on a regular circle with diameter $overline{A^prime B^prime}$; when $A=O$, we have that $A^prime$ is the "point at infinity", and we see that $C^prime$ lies on the perpendicular line (that is, a circle of infinite radius) through $B^prime$.



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 20 '18 at 20:54

























answered Sep 12 '17 at 7:23









BlueBlue

48.7k870156




48.7k870156












  • $begingroup$
    Sorry for reviving this old answered post, but what does it look like to use these methods to prove all possible cases (circle through the center of inversion circle, circle crossing the inversion circle, circle encompassing the center of the inversion circle, etc.) ? Could you link a good source? Most sources I find include a discussion of this that goes like "We will take it on faith that circles invert to circles, because there are many cases to consider" :( As always, thanks blue! You're amazing!
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:27








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MathEnthusiast: See my edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Dec 20 '18 at 20:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Spectacular! Thanks so much!
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 21 '18 at 0:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MathEnthusiast: In the $A=O$ case, we want that $C^prime$ lies on the perp at $B^prime$; this actually follows from the similarity in $(3b)$, which guarantees a right angle at $B^prime$. That said, it's not wrong —merely inefficient — to argue as in the other cases. Taking "$angle A^prime C^prime C$" to mean the appropriate angle between $overline{CC^prime}$ and the "horizontal" through $C^prime$, the angle equality in $(3a)$ holds by parallelism; with $(3b)$, this implies $(4)$, giving a right angle at $C^prime$. This makes $overline{B^prime C^prime}$ "vertical", as desired.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Dec 22 '18 at 23:21








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Aha! I missed the similarity in 3b that showed OB'C' was a right angle, thanks for the clarification
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 23 '18 at 0:21


















  • $begingroup$
    Sorry for reviving this old answered post, but what does it look like to use these methods to prove all possible cases (circle through the center of inversion circle, circle crossing the inversion circle, circle encompassing the center of the inversion circle, etc.) ? Could you link a good source? Most sources I find include a discussion of this that goes like "We will take it on faith that circles invert to circles, because there are many cases to consider" :( As always, thanks blue! You're amazing!
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:27








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MathEnthusiast: See my edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Dec 20 '18 at 20:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Spectacular! Thanks so much!
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 21 '18 at 0:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MathEnthusiast: In the $A=O$ case, we want that $C^prime$ lies on the perp at $B^prime$; this actually follows from the similarity in $(3b)$, which guarantees a right angle at $B^prime$. That said, it's not wrong —merely inefficient — to argue as in the other cases. Taking "$angle A^prime C^prime C$" to mean the appropriate angle between $overline{CC^prime}$ and the "horizontal" through $C^prime$, the angle equality in $(3a)$ holds by parallelism; with $(3b)$, this implies $(4)$, giving a right angle at $C^prime$. This makes $overline{B^prime C^prime}$ "vertical", as desired.
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    Dec 22 '18 at 23:21








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Aha! I missed the similarity in 3b that showed OB'C' was a right angle, thanks for the clarification
    $endgroup$
    – Math Enthusiast
    Dec 23 '18 at 0:21
















$begingroup$
Sorry for reviving this old answered post, but what does it look like to use these methods to prove all possible cases (circle through the center of inversion circle, circle crossing the inversion circle, circle encompassing the center of the inversion circle, etc.) ? Could you link a good source? Most sources I find include a discussion of this that goes like "We will take it on faith that circles invert to circles, because there are many cases to consider" :( As always, thanks blue! You're amazing!
$endgroup$
– Math Enthusiast
Dec 20 '18 at 19:27






$begingroup$
Sorry for reviving this old answered post, but what does it look like to use these methods to prove all possible cases (circle through the center of inversion circle, circle crossing the inversion circle, circle encompassing the center of the inversion circle, etc.) ? Could you link a good source? Most sources I find include a discussion of this that goes like "We will take it on faith that circles invert to circles, because there are many cases to consider" :( As always, thanks blue! You're amazing!
$endgroup$
– Math Enthusiast
Dec 20 '18 at 19:27






1




1




$begingroup$
@MathEnthusiast: See my edit.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Dec 20 '18 at 20:55




$begingroup$
@MathEnthusiast: See my edit.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Dec 20 '18 at 20:55




1




1




$begingroup$
Spectacular! Thanks so much!
$endgroup$
– Math Enthusiast
Dec 21 '18 at 0:02




$begingroup$
Spectacular! Thanks so much!
$endgroup$
– Math Enthusiast
Dec 21 '18 at 0:02




1




1




$begingroup$
@MathEnthusiast: In the $A=O$ case, we want that $C^prime$ lies on the perp at $B^prime$; this actually follows from the similarity in $(3b)$, which guarantees a right angle at $B^prime$. That said, it's not wrong —merely inefficient — to argue as in the other cases. Taking "$angle A^prime C^prime C$" to mean the appropriate angle between $overline{CC^prime}$ and the "horizontal" through $C^prime$, the angle equality in $(3a)$ holds by parallelism; with $(3b)$, this implies $(4)$, giving a right angle at $C^prime$. This makes $overline{B^prime C^prime}$ "vertical", as desired.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Dec 22 '18 at 23:21






$begingroup$
@MathEnthusiast: In the $A=O$ case, we want that $C^prime$ lies on the perp at $B^prime$; this actually follows from the similarity in $(3b)$, which guarantees a right angle at $B^prime$. That said, it's not wrong —merely inefficient — to argue as in the other cases. Taking "$angle A^prime C^prime C$" to mean the appropriate angle between $overline{CC^prime}$ and the "horizontal" through $C^prime$, the angle equality in $(3a)$ holds by parallelism; with $(3b)$, this implies $(4)$, giving a right angle at $C^prime$. This makes $overline{B^prime C^prime}$ "vertical", as desired.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Dec 22 '18 at 23:21






1




1




$begingroup$
Aha! I missed the similarity in 3b that showed OB'C' was a right angle, thanks for the clarification
$endgroup$
– Math Enthusiast
Dec 23 '18 at 0:21




$begingroup$
Aha! I missed the similarity in 3b that showed OB'C' was a right angle, thanks for the clarification
$endgroup$
– Math Enthusiast
Dec 23 '18 at 0:21


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2425789%2fpurely-geometric-proof-that-circles-invert-to-circles%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Aardman Animations

Are they similar matrix

“minimization” problem in Euclidean space related to orthonormal basis