Is geometry a hoax ?

Shrihari Sridharan
Chennai Mathematical Institute, Chennai.
email: shrihari@cmi.ac.in
December 22, 2011
Geometry is that branch of mathematics where we study angles, sides, gures etc. In fact, we commence
our study of geometry by learning measurement of sides and angles and then move onto study about closed
gures like circles, triangles, quadrilaterals etc. In this article, I shall strive to destruct the basics of geometry
by the proving the following three statements.
1. Every point inside a circle lies on its circumference.
2. All triangles are equilateral.
3. All angles are right angles.
In eect, pending proof of these statements, one infers that there exists no such gure called a circle and it
makes no sense to measure sides or angles. If the foundations of geometry are rendered false, one need not
say anything more about the later theory of geometry that is built on these. In short, is geometry a hoax?
Do I have good news for high school students who hate this dreadful subject? Lets explore.
Let us begin by considering the rst statement, Every point inside a circle lies on its circumference. To
start with, assume that we are given a circle C with O as its centre and radius r > 0 and a point P inside
the circle, i.e., the distance between the points O and P is strictly smaller than r. Our aim is to prove that
the point P lies on the circumference of the circle, i.e., the distance between the points O and P is exactly
equal to r. Equivalently, we will take an appropriate point on the circumference of the circle C and prove
that the distance between this chosen point and P is zero.
In order to achieve our ends, we do the following construction. Let Q be a point on OP produced such that
OP OQ = r2. Observe that since OP < r, the point Q must lie outside the circle to satisfy the condition
that OP OQ = r2. Draw the perpendicular bisector of PQ that meets the circle at U and V and PQ at
R. Please refer to the picture below.
Shrihari Sridharan Is geometry a hoax ?
Figure :
O
P
Q R
U
V
Proof : Observe from the picture that
(1) OP = OR RP; and OQ = OR +RQ = OR +RP,
since by construction R is the mid-point of PQ.
The Pythogoras theorem for right angled triangles says that, The sum of the squares of the sides bearing
the right angle is equal to the square of its hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle). Therefore, since
in triangles OUR and PUR the right angle occurs at R, the Pythogoras theorem tells us that
OU2 = OR2 +RU2 (2)
PU2 = PR2 +PU2 (3)
Hence,
r2 = OP OQ (by construction)
= (OR RP) (OR +RP) (by (1))
= OR2 RP2
= (OU2 RU2) (PU2 RU2) (by (2) and (3))
= OU2 PU2
= r2 PU2
implying PU = 0, i.e., the distance between the points P that lies inside the circle and U that lies on the
circumference of the circle is zero. In other words, there is no such gure called a circle since any point that
lies on the circumference of this circle will remain in the interior of a bigger circle and by the above idea, it
must lie on the circumference of this bigger circle.
Now, we embark on proving the second statement, All triangles are equilateral. We were taught, for sure
that based on the measurement of sides, the triangles are classied as
1. equilateral triangle (where all sides are equal) ;
2. isosceles triangle (where two sides are equal) and
3. scalene triangle (where all sides are unequal).
By the time we complete this proof, are we to wonder that the other two possibilities are ctitious ? Let us
start with an arbitrary triangle ABC. Our aim here is to prove that the sides of this arbitrary triangle
are equal, i.e., AB = BC = CA. We start o with the following construction. Let the angular bisector of
BAC and the perpendicular bisector of side BC meet at O. Draw OP where P is the mid-point of side
BC. Draw OQ and OR perpendicular to the sides AC and AB respectively. Join OB and OC.
Page 2
Shrihari Sridharan Is geometry a hoax ?
Figure :
A
B
C
O
P
Q
R
Proof : We shall make use of congruence amongst triangles in the rst step of this proof. There are several
postulates by which one can prove that two triangles are congruent; SAS (side-angle-side) meaning two
corresponding sides and the angle included between them are equal; SSS (side-side-side) meaning the three
sides of one triangle are equal to the three sides of the other or ASA (angle-side-angle) meaning a side of the
rst triangle and the two angles at the corners of this side are equal to the corresponding ones in the second
triangle. If two triangles are congruent, then they are equal in all respects meaning the three sides and the
three angles of the rst triangle are equal to the corresponding elements of the second triangle.
Observe that in traingles OPB and OPC, since OP is perpendicular bisector of side BC by construction,
we have BP = CP and OPB = OPC = 90. Moreover, the side OP is common to both the triangles.
Hence by SAS postulates, OPB OPC. In particular,
(4) OB = OC.
Also observe that in triangles ARO and AQO, RAO = QAO since AO is the angular bisector of
BAC by construction. ORA = OQA = 90 since OR and OQ are perpendicular to AB and AC by
construction. The side OA is common to both the triangles. Hence by ASA postulates, ARO AQO.
In particular,
(5) AR = AQ and OR = OQ.
Now we shall make use of the Pythogoras theorem on the right-angles triangles ORB and OQC. Making
use of equations (4) and (5), we have
(6) RB =

OB2 OR2 =

OC2 OQ2 = QC.

Hence, equations (5) and (6) imply,
(7) AB = AR +RB = AQ+QC = AC.
Had one started with the angular bisector of ABC and the perpendicular bisector of side AC, then one
ends with the conclusion AB = BC. Therefore, all the sides are equal in a triangle. Further, we know that
all the three angles of an equilateral triangle should be equal to 60. However, the next statement claims
that, All angles are right angles. This means, the only triangle that could possibly exist, the equilateral
triangle also ceases to be. Should we throw out the protractor from our geometry boxes ? Let us verify the
proof rst.
In order to prove the third statement, we will consider an arbitrary obtuse angle and prove that it is a right
angle. If an obtuse angle is a right angle, then the corresponding acute angle is also a right angle. Hence, if
Page 3
Shrihari Sridharan Is geometry a hoax ?
all obtuse angles are right angles then all acute angles also follow suit. Take a square ABCD of side length
s. Let E be a point outside the square beyond side BC such that BE = s and ABE is obtuse. Our aim is
to prove that this angle is a right angle. Let P, Q and R be the mid-points of the sides AB, DC and DE
respectively. Join QP and produce it to meet the perpendicular bisector of DE at O. Join OA, OB, OD
and OE.
Figure :
A
O
B
E
C
Q
D
P
R
Proof : We shall again work with congruence of triangles to reach our ends. Consider triangles ORD
and ORE. It is a straight-forward observation that DR = ER and ORD = ORE = 90 since OR is
the perpendicular bisector to DE by construction. Further, the side OR is common to both the triangles.
Therefore by SAS postulates, ORD ORE. In particular,
(8) OD = OE.
Similarly, in triangles OPA and OPB, AP = BP and OPA = OPB = 90 since OP is the perpen-
dicular bisector to AB by construction. And the side OP is common to both the triangles. Hence by SAS
postulates again, OPA OPB. In particular,
(9) OA = OB and OAB = OBA.
Finally, in triangles OAD and OBE, using equations (8) and (9), we know that two sides of one triangle
are equal to the other; namely OD = OE and OA = OB. Moreover, AD = BE = s. Hence by SSS
postulates, OAD OBE. In particular,
(10) OAD = OBE.
Observe from the picture that one can write ABE as OBE OBA. But from equations (9) and (10),
this is the same as OAD OAB. Again, from the picture, this nothing but BAD which is an angle
of the square ABCD. But one already knows that all angles are right angles in a square and therefore
ABE is a right angle. What we have glossed over is the positioning of O in the picture. The point O could
very well lie at P or inside the square on PQ. Then, in the former case,
ABE = OBE = OAD = right angle,
while in the latter case,
ABE = OBE +OBA = OAD +OAB = right angle.
Page 4
Shrihari Sridharan Is geometry a hoax ?
If angles and sides make no sense, then we should seriously introspect the contents of geometry in our
mathematics text-books. Or should we introspect ourselves and our understanding of the concepts dealt
with. Let us investigate.
In the rst gure, let OP = p. Then OQ = r2/p by construction. Since P lies inside the circle, r > p.
Therefore, the square of the positive number rp should be strictly bigger than zero; (rp)2 > 0. Expanding
the squares, r2 + p2 > 2pr. Dividing this by 2p, we have (1/2)[p + (r2/p)] > r. But, this means from the
rst two equations of this paragraph that (1/2)[OP + OQ] > r. Since R is the mid-point of PQ, the left
hand side of the inequality measures the distance OR and we have OR > r, meaning the point R lies outside
the circle. In short, a wrong gure led us to a false conclusion.
My gut feeling says we could have done the same mistake again. Let us analyse the second gure now. Any
three points are always cyclic, i.e., there exists one and only one circle that passes through any three given
points. Consider the circle through the vertices of the given triangle ABC. The perpendicular bisector of
the chord BC bisects the arc BC as BO and CO on the circle. Further, equal arcs subtend equal angles,
BAO = CAO. In other words, the point O lies outside the triangle ABC. Again, the wrong picture
misled us.
But, I dont believe that we could be fooled thrice. In fact, being over cautious, we did discuss the position
of point O at a possible three dierent places even as we proved the last of the three statements. Here, at
least the picture must be correct. Or is it ? We know that the perpendicular bisectors of the sides of any
triangle meet at a point called the circumcentre. Consider CED. Since the perpendicular bisectors of CD
and DE pass through O, the perpendicular bisector of CE must also pass through O. Moreover, considering
the isosceles triangle BCE, the perpendicular bisector of CE must pass through B (BC = BE = s as
given). Therefore, if the perpendicular bisector of CE meets the line at Z, then the points O, B and Z are
collinear, i.e., they lie on a straight line. In other words, OE can never intersect BC and must be on the
other side of B.
Moral of the story : Never trust a gure. Geometry is not a hoax and learn more of it to get the right
gures.
Page 5