1
$\begingroup$

I've come across a geometry proof which seems like it should be easy, but I'm struggling with it:

Suppose you have a convex quadrilateral $ABCD$ whose diagonals intersect at $E$. Given that angles $ABC$ and $BCD$ are congruent, and the two "legs" of the diagonals $EA$ and $ED$ are congruent, show that the sides $BC$ and $AD$ are parallel (that is, show that this quadrilateral is an isosceles trapezoid). (If this cannot be proven, please explain why or give a counterexample.)

I know that we can use the isosceles triangle theorem on triangle $AED$ to show that angles $EAD$ and $EDA$ are congruent, and I know that the angles $BEA$ and $CED$ are congruent, as well as $BEC$ and $DEA$. I'm trying to get a pair of congruent triangles that will show that the sides $AB$ and $CD$ are congruent, but I'm always missing one constraint.

For example, if I try to show that triangles $ABC$ and $DCB$ are congruent, I have a side $BC$ congruent to itself, and two angles $ABC$ and $DCB$ congruent, but I can't show that the diagonals are congruent because I only know that $AE$ is congruent to $DE$, and I don't know that $EB$ is congruent to $EC$.

If I try to show that triangles $AEB$ and $DEC$ are congruent, I have side $AE$ congruent to side $DE$, and angles $AEB$ and $DEC$ congruent, but I can't show that any other pair of angles is congruent, since I only know angles $EAD$ and $EDA$ are congruent and angles $ABC$ and $DCB$ are congruent, but I can't show that angles $EBA$ and $ECD$ are congruent.

I have a strong intuition that this proposition is true, but I can't prove it. I'm hoping someone here can either give a sound proof or give a counterexample that explains why this proposition is false.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Can we work with the following fact?

Because $\Delta XBC$ is an Isosceles triangle, the only way $A'E_2$ and $E_2 D$ (or $A E_1$ and $E_1 D'$) can be of equal length, is that $A'$ and $A$ (or $D'$ and $D$) coincide.

Therefore, $\angle XAD$ must be equal to $\angle XDA$ for $AE$ to be equal to $DE$. And since $\angle XAD + \angle XDA = \angle XBC + \angle XCB$, it is evident that $AD$ and $BC$ are parallel.

enter image description here

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

$\def\C{{\cal C}}$ Let $\C_A$ and $\C_D$ be the circumscribed circles of $\triangle ABC$ and $\triangle DBC$, respectively.

Assume these circles do not coincide: $\C_A\ne\C_D$.

Since the circles intersect at points $B$ and $C$ one of them is inside the other in the upper half-plane (the half-plane created by the line $BC$, where the points $A$ and $D$ are situated). Without loss of generality we may assume it is the circle $C_D$. This means that $D$ is an inner point of the circle $C_A$ (see figure).

Continue the lines $CD$ and $AD$ till intersection with the circle $\C_A$. Let $F=(CD)\cap\C_A$, $G=(AD)\cap\C_A$. Observe that $G$ is an inner point of the arc $FC$.

In view of $\angle ABC=\angle BCF$ we have: $$ \triangle ABC\cong \triangle FCB. $$

Hence: $$ \angle DAE=\angle GAC=\frac12 \overset{\mmlToken{mo}{⏜}}{GC} <\frac12 \overset{\mmlToken{mo}{⏜}}{FC} =\frac12\overset{\mmlToken{mo}{⏜}}{AB}<\angle ADB=\angle ADE, $$ which contradicts to the condition that $ADE$ is isosceles triangle.

Thus, the assumption $\C_A\ne \C_D$ was false, and the quadrilateral $ABCD$ is in fact cyclic. The conclusion $AD\parallel BC$ follows immediately.

enter image description here

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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