Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

Is there a nice proof for the following fact?

In a plane, there does not exist a square such that its vertices are at a rational distance from each vertex of some equilateral triangle.

What if we replace the square with a cyclic quadrilateral?

Well, it seems the following idea works for the first part of the question: It is well known that there is no equilateral triangle in the Cartesian plane with rational coordinates. Let $(x,y)$ be at rational distance from the square with vertices, $(0,0), (0,a), (a,a), (a,0)$. Then it is easily seen that $2a(x-a)$ is rational. Hence if the coordinate system is scaled by a factor of $a$ and the origin is shifted to $(a,a)$, the coordinates become rational.

share|cite|improve this question

It turns out to be false for general cyclic quadrilateral. Let the triangle have unit side length. Take point $P$ on circumcircle so that $PA=\frac{3}{7}; PB=\frac{5}{7}$ (it would lie on a circle, thats easy to prove from cosine rule). By Pompieu theorem, $PC=\frac{8}{7}$. Now take points $Q,R,S$ with the same but permitted distances, and we have a quadrilateral satisfy yours conditions.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.