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 need to prove that the altitudes of a triangle intersect at a given point using co-ordinate geometry.

I am thinking of assuming that point to be $(x,y)$ and then using slope equations to prove that the point exists and I can think of another way too by taking two equations (altitudes) forming a family of line which must be equal to the third equation for satisfying the condition given in the question, But thinking is all I am able to do, I am unable to put it on the paper. A hint towards solution would be great.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 5 down vote accepted

If we assume that two vertices of the triangle lie on the $x$-axis (which can be obtained by rotation and translation) then the vertices are $(0,0)$, $(x_1,0)$ and $(x_2,y_2)$. Let us try to find the equations of the altitudes.

The first one is easy $$x=x_2 \qquad (1).$$

What about second one? We want to find a line with normal vector $(x_2-x_1,y_2)$ which goes trough the point $(0,0)$. (We know the normal vector since the line has to be to perpendicular on the segment connecting the points $(x_1,0)$ and $(x_2,y_2)$.) Using standard form of the equation of line we get $$(x_2-x_1)x+y_2y=0 \qquad (2).$$

The third of them: We are looking for a line with normal vector $(x_2,y_2)$ which goes through the point $(x_1,0)$. This gives the equation $$x_2x+y_2y=x_2x_1 \qquad (3).$$

The only one thing is missing - to show that the system of linear equations (1), (2) and (3) has a solution.

I think that the solution would not be much more complicated even without the assumption that $y_1=0$ (i.e. without using the rotation). But I would say that moving one of the vertices to $(0,0)$ simplifies things a little. (EDIT: But I agree with Srivatsan's comment that working out the details of the actual computation could be messy.)

share|cite|improve this answer
This table lists the coordinates of the various triangle centers:…. I am expecting that the expression would look slightly messy because it involves $\sec A, \sec B, \sec C$. Perhaps this problem might become easier if we used complex numbers instead. – Srivatsan Dec 25 '11 at 19:38
I have a slicker proof that uses vector algebra and I'll refrain from adding it here as OP seems to not want it. – user21436 Dec 25 '11 at 19:45
@KannappanSampath Even if it is (perhaps) not that much interesting for OP, it could be useful for other users... – Martin Sleziak Dec 25 '11 at 19:50
Thanks! Your approach to place the triangle on one of the axis is great. I am taking the co-ordinates as $(b,c), (0,0)$ and $(a,0)$. Now, the equations I am getting are $x = b, y = \frac{a-b}{c}x $ and $y = \frac{-c}{b}x + \frac{ac}{b}$. And now I think we can apply the condition for concurrency $$\left[\begin{matrix}a_1&a_2&a_3\\b_1&b_2&b_3 \\ c_1 &c_2&c_3\end{matrix}\right] =0$$ comparing it with standard equation $a_ix + b_iy + c_i=0$ – Ishaan Singh Dec 25 '11 at 20:02
@Ishaan Singh: The line $y = \frac{-c}{b}x + \frac{ac}{b}$ from your comment is perpendicular to the vector $(c,b)$ and you want to get a line perpendicular to the vector $(b,c)$. (I hope I did not miss something.) – Martin Sleziak Dec 25 '11 at 20:12

I'll prove this proposition by Vector algebra, (not to solve OP's problem, but essentially for other users who might find it useful):

Let $\Delta ABC$ be a triangle whose altitudes $AD$, $BE$ intersect at $O$. In order to prove that the altitudes are concurrent, we'll have to prove that $CO$ is perpendicular to $AB$.

Taking $O$ as the origin, let the position vectors of $A$, $B$, $C$ be $\vec{a}$, $\vec{b}$, $\vec{c}$ respectively. Then $\vec{OA}=\vec{a}$, $\vec{OB}=\vec{b}$ and $\vec{OC}=\vec{c}$.

Now, as $AD \perp BC$, we have $\vec{OA} \perp \vec{BC}$. This means $\vec{OA} \cdot \vec{BC}=0$. This means, $$\vec{a} \cdot (\vec{c}-\vec{b})=0$$

Similarly $\vec{OB} \perp \vec{CA}$ and that gives you, $$ \vec{b} \cdot (\vec{a} -\vec{c})=0$$ Adding these you'll have, $$ (\vec{a}-\vec{b}) \cdot \vec{c} =0$$ This reads off immediately that $\vec{OC} \perp \vec{BA}$. This proves the proposition.

Our Triangle

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.