7

How can one prove that the distance between any two interior points in a triangle less than largest side by elementary way using euclidian geometry.

PS : I'm aware of this answer which cannot be delivered to school students

Distance between interior points of triangle

ahmed
  • 1,273
  • 6
  • 10

2 Answers2

3

How about something like this...

Lemma 1: If AB is the largest side of $\Delta ABC$, there is no interior point $M$ of $\Delta ABC$ such that $AM > AB$.

Proof: Suppose there exists such point $M$.
Draw circle with center $A$ and radius $AB$.

Since $AM > AB$ this means $M$ lies outside of the cirlce.

But on the other hand $M$ lies inside $\Delta ABC$ and hence in the circle. This is a contradiction.

Lemma 2: For any interior point $M$ of any triangle $ABC$, we have that $CM$ is smaller than $r = \max(CA,CB)$

Proof: Draw circle with center $C$ and radius $r$. Again: $M$ has to be inside $ABC$ but outside the circle - again contradiction.

Now let $K,L$ be any two points inside the triangle $ABC$.

Case 1) $L$ is inside $AKC$. Then $KL$ is smaller than the max of $KA$ and $KC$ (by lemma 2).
But $KA$ is smaller than the max of $AC$ and $AB$ (again by lemma 2).
And $KC$ is smaller than the max of $CA$ and $CB$ (again by lemma 2).

Case 2) $L$ is inside $BKC$. The argument here goes identical to case 1)

Case 3) $L$ is inside $AKB$
Then $KL$ is smaller than the max of $KA$ and $KB$. Then we apply lemma 2 to $KA$ and $KB$ (and the big triangle $ABC$) and we get the desired result.

Of course one needs to polish some edge cases e.g. the case when $L$ lies on the boundary of some of the smaller triangles.
But this proof as a whole should work.

I just realized I do not use Lemma 1 anywhere in the proof.

peter.petrov
  • 12,568
  • @MarkBennet OK, yeah, that doesn't work. Need to come up with another construction. But the first part of the proof works for students, I think, and is rigorous enough. Or... ? – peter.petrov Sep 29 '20 at 10:29
  • In spite of previous comment I like the approach. I think you can say $AK$ and $BK$ are less than $AB$ using this. And $K$ divides the interior into three triangles and $L$ must be in one of them. That might have a chance ... ? – Mark Bennet Sep 29 '20 at 10:31
  • @MarkBennet I modified the proof along these lines. – peter.petrov Sep 29 '20 at 13:22
  • Good to see this worked out – Mark Bennet Sep 29 '20 at 13:36
1

A pictorial proof: enter image description here

The base B is the longest side of the triangle. If there exists a segment L bigger than it(B) that lies inside the triangle, we can join the endpoints to the vertices of the longest side (B) as shown. Also, we must have endpoint X of L inside the triangle. But, by basic proportionality theorem, the green segment(which is at most L) is smaller (a fraction) than the longest side B, so point X must lie outside the triangle always; so L can't lie inside the triangle.

  • In your diagram, which line is the proposed "segment bigger than it" (the longest side of the triangle)? – Adam Rubinson Sep 29 '20 at 11:42
  • In "segment bigger to it", segment refers to the red line which is apparently longer than the longest side and simultaneously inside the triangle. "it" refers to the longest side of the triangle, which is the horizontal base as in the diagram. If you are confused by 2 red lines, I have translated one to the endpoint of the base so that it forms a parallelogram. This allows us to understand why it is not possible as proposed of the segment – Sarthak Rout Sep 29 '20 at 18:26