3

Can you prove or disprove the following claim:

Construct a hexagon circumscribed around a conic section. Intersection points of its non-principal diagonals lie on a new conic section.

enter image description here

GeoGebra applet that demonstrates this claim can be found here.

Pedja
  • 12,883
  • And the conic section may not necessarily be an ellipse. – Anindya Prithvi Oct 06 '20 at 08:53
  • 1
    It is sufficient to prove this when the hexagon is circumscribed about a circle. (This will not necessarily make the derived conic a circle.) The fact that all (non-degenerate) conics are "projectively equivalent" to a circle helps with understanding many such results (for instance, Pascal's Theorem), and exploiting that fact often streamlines proofs. – Blue Oct 06 '20 at 09:16
  • You might consider reposting the heptagon version that you deleted a few months ago. – brainjam Mar 19 '21 at 23:39
  • 1
    @brainjam https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4069038/15660 – Pedja Mar 20 '21 at 05:13
  • @PeđaTerzić I remember you posted a similar problem about 3 principal diagonals meeting a point and 6 circumcenters lying a conic. Where is the post now? – auntyellow Sep 22 '21 at 10:11

1 Answers1

2

This is a consequence of Pascal and Brianchon's Theorems.

The intersections of the non-principal diagonals can also be seen as the intersections of the triangles $\triangle{DBF}$ and $\triangle{CAE}$. By Brianchon's theorem, the principal diagonals $EB,FC,AD$ are concurrent at a point $X$. Thus the two triangles are perspective. A converse of Pascal's theorem says that the points of intersection of two perspective triangles lie on a common conic.

Details and more precise statements can be found in Hatton's Projective Geometry, pg 189. There you can find Pascal's theorem, its converse, Brianchon's theorem and proofs.

brainjam
  • 8,626