Properties of a Configuration of Repeatedly Reflected

Points over Reflection-Determined Lines

Matthew J. Cox
January 15, 2017

Abstract
We explore a certain configuration of reflections of points over lines determined by these
points’ reflections, and discover some of this configuration’s properties.

Contents
1 Introduction 1

2 Properties 1
2.1 Monotonically Decreasing Angles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.2 Convergence to Angle 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3 Rate of Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3 Conclusion 5

4 Acknowledgements 5

5 About the Author 5

1 Introduction
Reflections have simple properties in basic geometry texts,
but can become quite complex after multiple iterations. This P00
article explores a configuration of reflections with very in-
teresting properties. The configuration is defined as fol- P10
lows:

Let point P0 lie at a distance r from point O, and A

let line j lie at a distance d, which is greater than r, j
from O. (Point A is the foot of the perpendicular P2
from O to j.) Point P00 is the reflection of P0 over P1
←−→
j, and P1 is the reflection of P0 over line OP00 .
Similarly, point P10 is the reflection of P1 over j, P0
←−→
and P2 is the reflection of P1 over line OP10 . Iterate r
this indefinitely to find P3 , P4 , P5 , . . . ; Figure 1 O
shows the first 2 iterations. Note that all points Figure 1
Pk (for k ∈ Z≥0 ) lie on circle O with radius r.
In this paper, angles are assumed to lie in [0, π]
and are non-directed.

2 Properties
To explore this problem, I constructed a simulation in
Pk0 the dynamic geometry software Geometer’s Sketchpad
(GSP). I started reflecting points over lines, creating
lines based on those reflections, and re-reflecting the
points over those lines, when I recognized an inter-
A
esting occurrence. The sequence {Pk }∞k=0 appeared to
j converge, and it seemed that the rate of convergence
6 Pk OPk0 depended only on the ratio of r to OA.
The first hypothesis I formed from my GSP con-
Pk+1
θk+1 struction was that Pk converged to the intersection
θk point of ω and OA as k → ∞. It is convenient to
Pk
introduce several lemmas to prove this.
O

2.1 Monotonically Decreasing Angles

Lemma 1. For all nonnegative integers k, and
Figure 2
m∠AOPk > 0, m∠AOPk+1 < m∠AOPk .

Proof. Notice that

∠Pk OPk0 ∼
= ∠Pk+1 OPk0 ,

θk = m∠AOPk0 + m∠Pk0 OPk ,

and
θk+1 = m∠Pk+1 OPk0 − m∠AOPk0 = m∠Pk0 OPk − m∠AOPk0 .

Mathematical Reflections 1 (2017) 1

However, angles were defined earlier to lie in [0, π], so we must take the absolute value of this so we
do not receive a negative angle. Rearrange to see that

θk − θk+1 = m∠AOPk0 + m∠Pk0 OPk − m∠Pk0 OPk − m∠AOPk0  .

 

Taking both cases for the absolute value sign (corresponding to whether or not Pk+1 is on the same
←→
side of AO as Pk ; both cases do occur), either

θk − θk+1 = m∠AOPk0 + m∠Pk0 OPk − (m∠Pk0 OPk − m∠AOPk0 ) = 2m∠AOPk0

or
θk − θk+1 = m∠AOPk0 + m∠Pk0 OPk + (m∠Pk0 OPk − m∠AOPk0 ) = 2m∠Pk0 OPk .
Because both of these angles have positive measure, in both cases it holds that

θk > θk+1

We have shown {θk }∞

k=1 to be a monotonic decreasing sequence of positive numbers. Therefore,
it must converge. However, we must still show that it converges to 0.

2.2 Convergence to Angle 0

Lemma 2. lim θk = 0
k→∞

Proof. This proof will be developed through contradiction. Suppose that lim θk = α for some nonzero
k→∞
α. Then when we perform the transformation on a point at angle α, we expect the resulting point
to also have angle α. However, Lemma 1 proves that θk+1 < θk for nonzero θk . Therefore, the angle
of the resulting point is less than α. It is easy to see that when we perform the transformation on a
point at angle 0, the result is the same point, at angle 0. It follows that

lim θk = 0.
k→∞

Now that it is evident that θk decreases for each successive k, the next step is to find the rate at
which it decreases. It seems that as k increases, the ratio Qk = θk+1θk
converges to a value dependent on
1
r (the radius of ω). Several data points from the GSP construction were gathered to run a regression
d 2
analysis, which yielded a model (Figure 3) comparing
 the
 ratio r to Sketchpad’s last defined Qk value.
This regression suggested that the curve Q∞ =  2d−3r fit the data very well (for r < d). This model
 
2d−r 
provides a hypothesis for the rate of convergence, so the next step is to verify this by proof.
Note that GSP tends to suffer from rounding error and displays that Qk = 00 starting at approximately k = 10.
1
2
The ratio generally converged quickly enough that the last few defined values differed by less than GSP’s display
resolution of one ten-thousandth, so in general, this last defined Qk is indistinguishable from lim Qk (denote this as
k→∞
Q∞ ).

Mathematical Reflections 1 (2017) 2

 Figure 3
2.3 Rate of Convergence
   
 2d−3r   2d−3r 
Theorem 1. As k tends towards infinity, Qk approaches  2d−r ; that is, Q∞ =  2d−r 
Proof. As in the proof of Lemma 1, place the figure in the (x, y) plane with O as the origin, and set
j as the line y = d (Figure 4). This gives Pk the coordinates
(r sin(θk ), r cos(θk ))
Then, we find that Pk0 , as the reflection of Pk over j, has coordinates
(r sin(θk ), 2d − r cos(θk )).
As shown above,
θk+1 = m∠Pk0 OPk − m∠AOPk0 
 

and
m∠Pk0 OPk = θk − m∠AOPk0 .
Therefore,
θk+1 = θk − 2m∠AOPk0  .
 

(r sin(θk ), 2d − r cos(θk ))

A
j
r sin(θk )
|θk − 2 arctan( 2d−r cos(θk ) )|
θk+1
θk
(r sin(θk ), r cos(θk ))
O

Mathematical Reflections 1 (2017) 3

 Since the coordinates of Pk0 are (r sin(θk ), 2d − r cos(θk )), we see that
r sin(θk )
tan(m∠AOPk0 ) = ,
2d − r cos(θk )
so
r sin(θk )
m∠AOPk0 = arctan( )
2d − r cos(θk )
 
 r sin(θ k ) 
θk+1 = θk − 2 arctan( )
2d − r cos(θk )
 
r sin(θk )
θk − 2 arctan( 2d−r cos(θ )
 
k)

Qk = .
θk
Since Q∞ = lim Qk , we know that
k→∞
 
r sin(θk )
θk − 2 arctan( 2d−r cos(θk ) )
 
Q∞ = lim .
k→∞ θk
However, since lim θk = 0 (Lemma 2),
k→∞
 
r sin(θk )
θk − 2 arctan( 2d−r cos(θk ) )
 
Q∞ = lim .
θk →0 θk
 
 2d−3r 
A symbolic processor in Mathematica was used to simplify that limit to Q∞ =  r−2d , equivalent to
the result of the regression analysis3 .
Alternatively, near x = 0, tan(x) ≈ x, so we may discard the arctangent to obtain that
 
2r sin(θk ) 
θk − 2d−r cos(θk ) 

Q∞ = lim .
θk →0 θk
Since angles are nonnegative (and thus cannot approach 0 from below), we may also write that
 
2r sin(θk ) 
θk − 2d−r cos(θk ) 

Q∞ = lim+
θk →0 θk
 
2r sin(θk ) 
 θk − 2d−r cos(θk ) 

= lim+  
θk →0  θk 

  
 2r sin(θ k )
=  lim+ 1 −
 
θk (2d − r cos(θk )) 

θk →0
  
 2r sin(θ k ) 1
= 1 − lim+
 
θk 2d − r cos(θk ) 

 θk →0
 
 sin(θ k ) 1 
= 1 − 2r lim+ · lim+ 
θk →0 θk θk →0 2d − r cos(θk ) 
 
 1 
= 1 − 2r · 1 · 
2d − r 
 
 2d − 3r 
=  
2d − r 
3
This may be verified by differentiating the numerator and denominator to use L'Hôpital's Rule, then substituting
in 1 for cos(θk ) and 0 for sin(θk ) (since θk is tending towards 0).

Mathematical Reflections 1 (2017) 4

 Notice that the model (see Figure 3) predicts that Q∞ = 0 if dr = 32 . This does indeed appear to
be the case: when viewing the geometric model with dr = 23 , small angles θk result in much smaller
angles θk+1 after the iteration. This very fast convergence may be related to the fact that dr = 32 is
the point where the absolute value changes signs; that is, when dr < 32 , an infinitesimally small θk lies
←→
on the same side of AO as the θk+1 that it determines, and dr > 23 , an infinitesimally small θk lies
←→
on the opposite side of AO as the θk+1 that it determines, so when dr = 32 , an infinitesimally small θk
←→
would result in a θk+1 very close to AO.

3 Conclusion
We have proved that θk monotonically decreases as k increases, and lim θk = 0. We have also proved
  k→∞
θk+1  2d − 3r 
that lim = . In order to make these conjectures, we used dynamic geometry software
k→∞ θk 2d − r 
for visualization, and we used a symbolic processor for algebraic computations.

4 Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Evan Glazer, principal of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and
Technology, for advising me as I wrote this. I would also like to thank Dr. Jonathan Osborne for
reviewing various drafts and providing feedback.

5 About the Author

Matthew J. Cox is a freshman at the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. He
enjoys doing contest and olympiad math and is a member of the school’s math and physics teams.
He also plays percussion in the school’s band and marching band.

Mathematical Reflections 1 (2017) 5