Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I already have my own solution for the following question. But I am still interested in other elegant solutions without trigonometry if possible.

This is my own solution. I am lazy to upload the TeX code, I am sorry.

enter image description here

enter image description here

share|cite|improve this question
What is your solution? – The Chaz 2.0 Jul 4 '11 at 8:16
@Friendly Ghost: You certainly don't need trigonometry here. You can simply name the missing angles and using the fact that angles in a triangle add up to $180^{\circ}$, and similar things you can write down a linear system of equations and determine its solutions. I haven't done it myself (and I won't) but you have so many triangles here that I'd be surprised if this would not lead to a unique solution. – t.b. Jul 4 '11 at 8:37
@Theo: I'm not sure that your method will work. Point $P$ is unique with the given properties, and therefore, if your assertion is true, we should find angle $\alpha$ using only angles in the quadrilateral $PDCB$, which i doubt(from my experience in olympiad problems) it will lead to a solvable system for $\alpha$. – Beni Bogosel Jul 4 '11 at 8:48
@Beni: While I don't really understand what you're telling me, I guess you have a point. The problem is indeed trickier than I initially thought. @Friendly Ghost: Sorry for not taking the problem seriously enough, no offense intended. – t.b. Jul 5 '11 at 2:53
up vote 5 down vote accepted

A hint:

Draw a regular $18$-gon $Q$. It has the property that the angle between neigbouring diagonals emanating from the same vertex is $10^\circ$.

The points $B$, $C$, $D$ of your figure can be realized as vertices of $Q$; furthermore the line $C\vee P$ is a diagonal emanating from $C$, and $D\vee A$, $\ D\vee E$ are diagonals emanating from $D$.

I think that the solution of your problem is hidden in this figure. The nontrivial point is the fact that the line $B\vee P$ is also a diagonal, i.e, that three diagonals of $Q$ meet at $P$. This in turn has to do with algebraic relations among the $18$th roots of unity.

share|cite|improve this answer
$E$ and $A$ are not vertices of 18-gon $Q$, because they cannot lie on the circle through $B$, $C$, and $D$: if they did, then $\angle ABE$ and $\angle ADE$ --inscribed angles subtending the arc $AE$-- would have to be congruent, but these angles are given distinct measures. Moreover, we know from prior solution of the problem (whereby $\alpha = 40^\circ$) that not even $A$ alone lies on that circle: if quadrilateral $ABCD$ were "cyclic", then $\angle ADC$ and $\angle ABC$ --as inscribed angles subtending arcs that make up the whole circle-- would be supplementary, which is not the case. – Blue Jul 5 '11 at 9:32
@Day Late Don: You are right; I was too fast in this regard. – Christian Blatter Jul 5 '11 at 18:04

Let's try for $\alpha$ ...

In $\triangle BPQ$, we have $\angle B = \alpha$ and $\angle P = 120 - \alpha$.

$$\begin{eqnarray*} \frac{\sin(120-\alpha)}{\sin\alpha}=\frac{BQ}{PQ}=\frac{BQ}{CQ} \frac{CQ}{DQ} \frac{DQ}{PQ}=\frac{\sin 40}{\sin 20}\frac{\sin 50}{\sin 70} \cdot 1=\frac{2\sin 40 \cos 40}{2\sin 20 \cos 20}=\frac{\sin 80}{\sin 40} \end{eqnarray*}$$

Observe that $80 + 40 = 120$. Thus,

$$\begin{eqnarray*} \sin(120-\alpha) \sin 40 &=& \sin \alpha \sin( 120-40 ) \\ (\sin 120 \cos\alpha - \cos 120 \sin \alpha ) \sin 40 &=& \sin\alpha ( \sin 120 \cos 40 - \cos 120 \sin 40 ) \\ \cos\alpha \sin 40 &=& \sin\alpha \cos 40 \\ 0&=& \sin( \alpha - 40 ) \\ \alpha &=& 40 \text{ is the only possible answer} \end{eqnarray*}$$

Note: Generalizing $120$ to an angle $\gamma$ such that $\sin{\gamma} \neq 0$, we have

$$\frac{\sin(\gamma-\alpha)}{\sin\alpha} = \frac{\sin(\gamma - \beta)}{\sin\beta} \implies \sin(\alpha-\beta) = 0$$

share|cite|improve this answer
+1 for answering but actually I don't want to use trigonometry again. :-) – Friendly Ghost Jul 5 '11 at 8:51
Well, it's slightly-more-direct trigonometry. :) I had thought the "80+40=120" thing (in the sense of the $\gamma$ generalization) was key, but I'm not seeing how anything along those lines helps streamline your approach to $\theta$. (I do think your $\theta$ derivation can be shortened a bit, though.) As for avoiding trig altogether ... I'm at a loss. – Blue Jul 5 '11 at 12:46

enter image description here Autocad can do . ...................................................................................................................................................................a a a a a a a a a ............

share|cite|improve this answer
Nice answer!!!! – user34304 Aug 29 '14 at 3:41

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.