Math.Comput.Sci.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11786-018-0369-x Mathematics in Computer Science

Dynamic Geometry Software Supplemented with a Computer

Algebra System as a Proving Tool
R. Hašek

Received: 30 November 2017 / Revised: 11 May 2018 / Accepted: 25 May 2018

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract The topic of this contribution is aimed at lower and upper secondary school mathematics teaching as well
as at university training of teachers of mathematics. Joint use of computer algebra (CAS) and dynamic geometry
software (DGS) or even an incorporation of CAS into DGS brings new possibilities to the teaching of mathematics,
such as experimentation, the modelling of real-world situations or the deriving and proving of conjectures. We will
deal with all these issues and how they can be realized with the free dynamic mathematics software GeoGebra,
mainly in terms of the use of its tools of automated theorem proving. Particular examples of possible ways of
utilizing the methods and tools of automated theorem proving will be presented with the aim of illustrating that
dynamic geometry enriched with algebraic features can contribute to the effective fulfilment of the requirements
for educational proof, from a decision on the correctness of a geometric property to the modelling of real-world
phenomena.

Keywords Dynamic geometry · Automated theorem proving · Proof · Mathematics education · Real-world
problem

Mathematics Subject Classification 97C70 · 97D40 · 97D50 · 97B50

1 Introduction

The topic of this paper is aimed at lower and upper secondary school mathematics teaching as well as at the university
training of teachers of mathematics.
Joint use of computer algebra (CAS) and dynamic geometry software (DGS) or even an incorporation of CAS
into DGS brings new possibilities to the teaching of mathematics such as experimentation, the modelling of real-
world situations or the deriving and proving of conjectures [13,14,17]. We will deal with all these issues and how
they can be realized in the free dynamic geometry software GeoGebra [10], mainly in terms of the use of its tools
of automated theorem proving [23]. Our findings on GeoGebra will relate to its version 5.0.395.0.

R. Hašek (B)
University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
e-mail: hasek@pf.jcu.cz
 R. Hašek

2 Proof in Mathematics Education

Formulation of conjectures and their proving are core operations in the development of mathematics, and they also
play an irreplaceable role in mathematics teaching. According to the experience of practitioners and the knowledge
of experts, argumentation and proving should be integral components of school mathematics. This insight, however,
differs somewhat from reality. A lack of interest in proving and an inadequate perception of the necessity of proof
for the final confirmation of the correctness of a conjecture in mathematics among students is well documented in
professional literature (e.g. [7,12]) and has been witnessed by many practicing teachers.
To improve this situation, consideration of the various roles or functions that proof plays in mathematics could
be helpful. For example, de Villiers identifies in [7] the following functions of proof in mathematics: verification,
explanation, systematization, discovery and communication. Those functions also apply to mathematics education,
even though we have special requirements for proofs used in education that are related to their didactic use. Formal
proof is a proof which, above all, satisfies the rules of logic. Educational proof should primarily be understandable
to students. When making a proof more comprehensible for pupils, a computer can no doubt play a positive role.
However, its success is not guaranteed. For example, when considering the verification function it sometimes appears
that in the minds of students the computer operates to the detriment of the mathematical proof. The verifying of a
conjecture using the dynamic features of DGS frequently causes a decrease in whatever interest students have in
formal proof. They are satisfied with the visual verification and do not feel the necessity to finalize it by formal
proof. De Villiers proposes to overcome this effect by emphasizing other functions of a proof from the given list
[6,7].

2.1 Conjecture Proving Features

We do not need to refer to any complex problems when we want to illustrate the usefulness of dynamic geometry
software for proving in school mathematics. Even such a simple problem as the classical Heron’s shortest distance
problem works in this direction: Given two points A and B on one side of a straight line, to find the point P on
the line so that |A P| + |P B| is as small as possible [20]. See Fig. 1. Dragging point Q along line l and applying
the triangle inequality theorem to the triangle A B Q a pupil immediately experiences the essence of the proof by
contradiction of the correctness of its solution.
In the same manner DGS can contribute to removing some geometric fallacies still prevailing among school
pupils, for example, that the median of a triangle bisects its corresponding interior angle. A pupil familiar with this
software finds many triangles for which this claim obviously does not apply immediately. Of course, there are other
scenarios described in literature of the use of DGS alone or joined with CAS for proving theorems or conjectures
in school mathematics.
As stated before we will focus on the joint use of DGS and CAS features of GeoGebra from the perspective
of its relatively new tools of automated theorem proving. Specifically, we mean a packet of functions that either

Fig. 1 Heron’s shortest

distance problem
Dynamic Geometry Software Supplemented with a Computer Algebra System

Fig. 2 Scott Russell

linkage

respond to queries about the relationship of selected geometric objects (namely the function Relation), or provide
a proof of some geometric properties of a given figure (functions Prove and ProveDetails), or use the algorithms of
automated theorem proving to compute equations of various locus curves or envelopes (functions LocusEquation
and Envelope). For their detailed overview see [23]. Compared to what the ‘classical’ tools of the software have to
offer, these new ‘intelligent’ tools put the teacher in a new situation. While the use of the former, based prevailingly
on experimenting, is limited primarily to a constructivist approach to solving the problem, the latter can give
a straightforward solution, without a user’s contribution. For example, let us consider the task of finding the
locus of vertices of right angles subtended by a given line segment, the solution of which leads to the converse
of Thales’ theorem [30]. With GeoGebra, we can derive the conjecture about the locus experimentally, using
its geometric tools, including dragging and tracing points, as well as directly obtain the locus equation, using
the LocusEquation command, namely its form LocusEquation(<Boolean E x pr ession>, <Fr ee Point>) [23,
25].
No doubt the use of such functions in the teaching of mathematics requires discussion among the teachers and
educational experts. Although currently we can hardly expect a computer assembled with the tools of automated
theorem proving (ATP) itself to teach a pupil to effectively apply propositions such as the Pythagorean theorem
or the right triangle altitude theorem, there are other promising roles that such software can play in mathematics
education.
One of the possible uses of these ‘intelligent’ functions is the area of applied mathematics where such tools allow
students to realize explorations beyond their current knowledge. In the following, through two such examples, we
will present the use of a selection of such tools available in GeoGebra at the present time.
The first example is inspired by [2]. Consider a linkage of the configuration according to Fig. 2. This mechanism,
called the Scott Russell linkage, see [29], the principle of which is used, for example, in some kinds of car jacks,
consists of two bars, labeled AC and B P in Fig. 2, so that |AC| = |BC| = |C P| = a. The bars can pivot about
joints C and A, the latter attached to the base p. The task is to find the loci of points P, C and Q (the arbitrary point
between C and P) when B is moving along p.
The assignment consists of three sub-tasks of increasing complexity, each of which requires knowledge from
a different level of mathematics education. That the locus of C is a circle (we will deal with general loci in what
follows, without consideration of the physical constraints of the mechanism) comes directly from the definition of
a circle as a locus of points equidistant from a given point, which is its center. That point P moves along a line
perpendicular to AB intersecting it at A can be proven as a consequence of applying the exterior angle theorem,
namely the formulation that states that “an exterior angle of a triangle is equal to the sum of the remote interior
angles” [20], to an isosceles triangle. Finally, the ellipse being the locus of Q is known to everyone who is familiar
with the notion of an ellipse motion from kinematics [11] or related paper strip construction of an ellipse, namely
the one where the drawing point is between points moving along the ellipse’s axes [9].
Here, being interested in the use of a computer to solve the problem, we adopt another approach to do so. We
take advantage of the environment of the dynamic computer geometry and algebra of GeoGebra to investigate
the problem and subsequently to solve it by means of the available tools. We start from the geometric model
corresponding to Fig. 2 created as follows. Giving two of its points we draw the line p (using the tool Line), the
defining points then hidden. Then we place points A, R and B on p and draw two circles centered at A and B,
respectively, the former passing through R (the tool Circle with Centre through Point), R being then hidden, the
 R. Hašek

Fig. 3 Investigation of loci

of P and Q using Trace On
(left) or Locus (right)

Fig. 4 Relation between P

and q, line perpendicular to
AB at A

latter with the radius Segment(A,R) (Circle with Centre and Radius). From the points of intersection of the circles
we select the upper one and label it C (Intersect). If the circles do not intersect, we move B toward A so that
this happens. Having C we reflect the point B in it to get the point P. Finally, we connect points A, C and B, P,
respectively, by line segments. A simple model of the Scott Russell linkage, controlled by the movement of B along
p, is created and we proceed to explore it by means of the tools of GeoGebra.
The use of the Trace On [31] option for the respective points is a natural and illustrative method of getting an
initial idea of the shape of a locus. As shown in Fig. 3, left, when point B is moved, the loci of points P and Q,
respectively, are indicated. Having a strong belief that the locus of P is the perpendicular line through A, q in
the following, we can draw it, using the Perpendicular Line tool, and by means of the tool Relation (also existing
in a form of command) [28], ask GeoGebra about the relation of P and q. The answers of two levels, numerical
and symbolic, according to the method used, are shown in Fig. 4. The symbolic verification, with the automated
theorem proving algorithms in the background, is selectable by pressing the button More, whereby the algorithms
can be used. Although a definite answer is not always guaranteed, in the case of our construction we are provided
with a generally valid statement about the relation of P and q, as we can see in Fig. 4, right, where the output of
pressing More is captured. The correctness of the message will be proved in the following paragraphs. For more
about possible scenarios of the interaction with the Relation tool see [23]. For an interactive applet that deals with
the Scott Russell linkage as the mechanism for drawing a straight line see [22]. A more detailed view of the use of
GeoGebra automated reasoning tools to investigate planar mechanisms, namely those drawing a straight line or its
approximation, is provided in [21].
To draw the locus curves of the points, but without their equations, we apply the Locus [24] function for each
of them. As shown in Fig. 3, right, for P it draws a segment and for Q parts of an ellipse. However, the latter
can not just be arbitrarily put on the segment C P. In Fig. 3, right, Q is the midpoint of C P. Generally, Q has to
divide the segment in some geometrically given ratio, constructed, for example, using the intercept theorem [19].
For the symbolic derivation of the locus equation we call the LocusEquation [25] command, with the syntax of
LocusEquation(P,B) for P and LocusEquation(Q,B) for Q, where B is used as the so called ‘mover’, the point
movement of which changes the position of P or Q respectively.
Let us look in more detail at the derivation of the locus equation for P using the LocusEquation(P,B) command,
another command with ATP support that we will deal with in this paper. Inserting it through CAS the equation of
the locus is provided and the corresponding curve is drawn, as shown in Fig. 5. Containing a circle, along with
the assumed line, it brings an unexpectedly inspiring moment into the lesson. Its message is clear confirmation
of the fact that there is no one-to-one correspondence between a geometric task and the solution of its algebraic
representation. It relates to the fact that definition of the locus L as the set of all points satisfying some conditions
Dynamic Geometry Software Supplemented with a Computer Algebra System

Fig. 5 LocusEquation(P,B)

Fig. 6 Positioning of
model of the linkage in the
coordinate system, when
computing the locus of
point P (left) and Q (right),
respectively

has the form of an equivalence, i.e. every point of the plane having the respective property P belongs to the set L
while every point of this set L has the property P.
For the linkage positioned with respect to the coordinate system according to Fig. 6, left, the resulting equation
x(x 2 + y 2 − 4) = 0 of the locus of P arises from the solution of system e1 : l 2+m 2−a 2 = 0, e2 : (l−k)2+m 2−a 2 =
0, e3 : x +k−2l = 0, e4 : y−2m = 0 and a = 1 (the latter equation sets the basic dimension a of the mechanism)
by elimination of parameters k, l, m. How did the circle x 2 + y 2 − 4 = 0 appear in the solution? The answer is
that, compared to the real situation, the algebraic solution permits points A and B to merge, i.e. the parameter k,
the x-coordinate of B, to be zero. This leads to the merging of circles e1 and e2 with radii a centered at A and B,
respectively, that define point C as their intersection, see Fig. 5, the dashed circles. Then, with C being any point of
the circle with center A and radius a, the structure of the linkage degenerates into a segment of length 2a rotating
around A. Let us remember that this is the state of the construction ‘degeneration’ mentioned in the Relation output
in Fig. 4, right. To avoid this, we need to add the non-degenerate condition in the form of kn − 1 = 0, where n is
an additional parameter [27], as applied in the following case of point Q.
−→
Finally, we are to examine the locus of point Q, an arbitrarily chosen point on ray C P, differing from C and
P, see Fig. 6, right. Generally such a point satisfies the condition Q − B = q(C − B), where q is a parameter
determining its position on the ray BC, ideally controlled by the slider bar of GeoGebra, as in Fig. 7. Consequently
the locus equation of Q results from the elimination of parameters k, l, m, n from the system f 1 : l 2 +m 2 −a 2 =
 R. Hašek

Fig. 7 Algebraic derivation of the locus of Q (for an interactive applet see [15])

0, f 2 : (l−k)2 +m 2 −a 2 = 0, f 3 : x−k− q(l − k) = 0, f 4 : y−qm = 0, f 5 : kn − 1 = 0, where the latter equation

f 5 is the aforesaid non-degenerate condition, which ensures that the parameter k is never equal to zero.
Compared to the previous case of point P we use a different approach to the solution in GeoGebra so that we can
apply the non-degenerate condition f 5 . Instead of using the LocusEquation command, on the background of which
the derivation of the respective system of algebraic equations and its subsequent solution applying the elimination
method using the Groebner bases are carried out, we derive the equations f 1 , . . . , f 5 manually and use the command
Eliminate as needed. Finally, to plot the locus curve in the Graphics View of GeoGebra we assign a = 1. A complete
solution in the CAS View as well as the resulting ellipse, the shape and equation of which is controlled by the slider
bar q is shown in Fig. 7.
Let us go back to the implementation of the Eliminate command in GeoGebra, which is worth the atten-
tion. As we have seen, it reflected the non-degenerate condition and gave us the expected solution, the equa-
tion of an ellipse, with no added circle. Such an output is a consequence of the utilization of the Groebner
bases method behind this command that, according to the ‘Elimination theorem’, provides the best elimina-
tion result, so the other polynomials eliminating the respective variables are its multiples [5]. Although per-
haps all computer algebra systems offer a command called Eliminate (or eliminate) they are not often based
on Groebner bases and therefore can provide slightly more complex results of elimination. Specifically, in the
case of the aforesaid locus equation of Q such commands return the polynomial, the factor of which is, besides
the expected ‘ellipse’ q 2 x 2 + q 2 y 2 − 4qy 2 + 4y 2 − a 2 q 4 + 4a 2 q 3 − 4a 2 q 2 = 0 (for particular value of
q = 13/10 can be seen in Fig. 7, CAS View, row 6), also the ‘circle’ x 2 + y 2 − a 2 q 2 = 0, which is not in
compliance with the non-degenerate condition f 5 . To get the right result we usually have to call an appropri-
ate command from some special package of functions dealing with Groebner bases. For example, in the case of
Maple [26] we should use the function EliminationIdeal from the package PolynomialIdeals, namely by invoking
Dynamic Geometry Software Supplemented with a Computer Algebra System

Fig. 8 Model of the Chords

Bridge suspension system

Fig. 9 Apollonius’ theorem

the command PolynomialIdeals[EliminationIdeal]( f 1 , f 2 , f 3 , f 4 , f 5 , {x, y, q, a}). In wxMaxima [32] then we

need to use the function poly_elimination_ideal from the package grobner calling the sequence load(grobner);
poly_elimination_ideal ([ f 1 , f 2 , f 3 , f 4 , f 5 ],4,[k, l, m, n, x, y, q, a]);.

3 Automated Derivation of Curve Equations

Another example deals with the well known Chords Bridge in Jerusalem [4]. Opened less than 10 years ago, it has
become world-renowned for the lightness and elegance of its suspension system as well as its geometric properties
[1]. Its geometric model consists of two segments p and d with a common endpoint, directed differently. The
segments, representing the pylon and the deck, respectively, are connected by segments (cables in reality), the
endpoints each of which are dividing segments p and d in the same ratio but in opposite directions, see Fig. 8. It is
primarily a curve rendered by the cables, which is a distinctive aesthetic element of the bridge. Of course, from the
geometric point of view it is not just a curiosity. That an envelope of such a family of lines is the parabola is a well
known consequence of the following property of parabola, which was formulated by Apollonius od Perga around
200 BC: Any three tangents of a parabola are divided by their points of intersection and points of tangency into
|AD|
segments of like proportion, [8]. Thus, according to Fig. 9, it is as follows |DG| = |G E| |DC|
|E B| = |C E| .
Let us now show how it is possible to obtain an equation of the curve from the geometric model using Envelope and
LocusEquation, GeoGebra functions supported by the ATP. First of all, it is necessary to state that the construction,
to be convertible into algebraic equations, should be Euclidean (for more on this see [18]). Therefore we start in the
Graphics view with the construction of such a geometric model consisting of the segments AB and AC, representing
 R. Hašek

Fig. 10 Parabola as an envelope of the family of lines

Fig. 11 Parabola as the locus of S

the deck and the pylon, respectively, and of segment k = M N , the endpoints of which belong to AB and AC so that
|AM| |C N | |AM| |C N |
|M B| = |N A| , sliding M along AB, N moves along AC, see Fig. 10. Equality of ratios |M B| and |N A| is assured
|AM| |C E| |C N |
by the use of two parallel projections, so that |M B| = |E B| = |N A| , as indicated by the dashed lines viewed in the
figure. To get the envelope of the family of lines k (it does not matter if only its segment is plotted) from this model
we invoke the command Envelope(k,M), where the movement of M gives rise to the particular lines of the family.
The resulting equation and its graph are also shown in Fig. 10.
The same parabola is, of course, the result of the command LocusEquation(S,M), applied on the geometric model
based again on the same segments AB, AC and M N , but the latter being divided by point S into two segments so
|N S| |AM| |C N |
that |S M| = |M B| = |N A| . See the result in Fig. 11. When constructing point S we make do with the facts that the
parallel projection generally and the central projection between parallel lines preserve the ratio. Then, as shown in
Fig. 12, the equalities |C N| |G H | |N S|
|N A| = |H B| = |S M| are valid. On the use of the GeoGebra environment to derive equations
of loci and envelopes ’manually’ see [14,17,18].
To prove the above stated Apollonius’ theorem with students we can take advantage of the dynamic geometry
features of GeoGebra and modify the geometric proof provided by Dörrie in [8]. The resulting ’visual’ proof is
presented in [16].
Dynamic Geometry Software Supplemented with a Computer Algebra System

Fig. 12 Construction of S
dividing MN in a given ratio

4 Conclusion

While the positive role of a proof in mathematics teaching and learning is obvious [12], the meaningful use of
computers to improve the status of proving in school mathematics still requires detailed research. In this context,
the actual integration of DGS with algorithms of automated theorem proving [3] calls for special attention.
The aim of the paper is to illustrate that dynamic geometry enriched with algebraic features can contribute to
the effective fulfillment of the requirements for educational proof, from the modelling of real-world phenomena to
a decision on the correctness of a geometric property.

References

1. Barrow, J.D.: 100 Essential Things You Didn’t Know You Didnt Know About Math and the Arts, 1st edn. W. W. Norton & Company,
New York (2016)
2. Bolt, B.: Mathematics Meets Technology. Cambridge University Press, New York (1991)
3. Botana, F., Hohenwarter, M., Janičić, P., Kovács, Z., Petrović, I., Recio, T., Weitzhofer, S.: Automated theorem proving in GeoGebra:
current achievements. J. Autom. Reason. 55(1), 39–59 (2015)
4. Chords Bridge. (n. d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 20, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chords_Bridge
5. Cox, D.A., Little, J.B., O’Shea, D.: Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms: An Introduction to Computational Algebraic Geometry and
Commutative Algebra, 3rd edn. Springer, New York (2007)
6. de Villiers, M.: The role and function of proof in mathematics. Pythagoras 24, 7–24 (1990)
7. de Villiers, M.: The role and function of proof with Sketchpad. Excerpt from Introduction to De Villiers, M. Rethinking Proof with
Sketchpad. Key Curriculum Press (1999)
8. Dörrie, H.: 100 Great Problems of Elementary Mathematics: Their History and Solution. Dover Publications, New York (1965)
9. Ellipse. (n. d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
10. GeoGebra, free mathematics software for learning and teaching. http://www.geogebra.org
11. Glaeser, G.: Geometry and Its Applications in Arts, Nature and Technology, 1st edn. Springer, New York (2012)
12. Hanna, G., de Villiers, M. (eds.): Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education: The 19th ICMI Study. Springer, Dordrecht (2011)
13. Hašek, R.: Investigation of logarithmic spirals in nature by means of dynamic geometry and computer algebra systems [online].
Electron. J. Math. Technol. 6(3), 216–230 (2012). https://php.radford.edu/~ejmt/ContentIndex.php#v6n3
14. Hašek, R.: Systems of computer algebra and dynamic geometry as tools of mathematical investigation. Int. J. Technol. Math. Educ.
20(3), 103–108 (2013)
15. Hašek, R.: Scott Russell linkage. GeoGebra online material. https://www.geogebra.org/m/kbsqGYwb (2018)
16. Hašek, R.: Apollonius’ theorem. GeoGebra online material. https://www.geogebra.org/m/qKFZpBQU (2018)
17. Hašek, R., Zahradník, J.: Study of historical geometric problems by means of CAS and DGS. Int. J. Technol. Math. Educ. 22(2),
53–58 (2015)
18. Hašek, R., Kovács, Z., Zahradník, J.: Contemporary interpretation of a historical locus problem with the use of computer algebra.
In: Kotsireas, I.S., Martıinez-Moro, E. (eds.) Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics: Applications of Computer Algebra,
vol. 1, pp. 191–205. Springer International Publishing AG (2017)
19. Intercept theorem. (n. d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercept_theorem
20. Jacobs, H.R.: Geometry: Seeing, Doing, Understanding, 3rd edn. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York (2003)
21. Kovács, Z.: Reasoning on linkages. GeoGebra Book. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://www.geogebra.org/m/sDCTVGrg
22. Kovács, Z.: Russell’s guide linkage. GeoGebra Applet. https://www.geogebra.org/m/xVA23k2a (2018)
23. Kovács, Z., Recio, T., Vélez, M.P.: GeoGebra automated reasoning tools—a tutorial [online]. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://
github.com/kovzol/gg-art-doc/blob/master/pdf/english.pdf (2018)
 R. Hašek

24. Locus Command. (n. d.). Retrieved November 20, 2017, from https://wiki.geogebra.org/en/LocusCommand
25. LocusEquation Command. (n. d.). Retrieved November 20, 2017, from https://wiki.geogebra.org/en/LocusEquationCommand
26. Maple (Release 13). Maplesoft, a division of Waterloo Maple Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
27. Pech, P.: Selected Topics in Geometry with Classical vs Computer Proving. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore (2007)
28. Relation. (n. d.). Retrieved November 20, 2017, from https://wiki.geogebra.org/en/RelationCommand
29. Scott Russell linkage. (n. d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 20, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Russell_
linkage
30. Thales’ theorem. (n. d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales%27s_theorem
31. Tracing. (n. d.). Retrieved November 20, 2017, from https://wiki.geogebra.org/en/Tracing
32. wxMaxima (Version 13.04.2). http://wxmaxima.sourceforge.net/