OK.

We've skirted around

them long enough.

We've talked about

Thales' theorem

on constructing right
triangles in circles

from their diameters.

And as we've mentioned

in lecture 1,

this is the oldest recorded

result, with proof,

in geometry.

And we've talked

about circle-ometery.

But we've never

talked explicitly

about circles themselves.

It is time to study
circles in their own right

and prove facts about them.

Particular, we need to
prove Thales' discoveries.

So let's start with acute

activity, as follows.

Here on the whiteboard

are two nails.

Actually, that's not true.

I've just drawn two dots.

I didn't want to ruin the board.

But what I'm going to do is

take the 90-degree corner

of a piece of paper and bring

it up between the two nails,

and see where that corner lies.

And, in fact, I'll mark the

corner of that 90-degree angle.
There it is.

Not very exciting.

But I'm going to do

this lots of times,

coming in at
different positions.

Over here now, now the

top of the paper is there.

At this angle of
insertion, it's about here.

But I come in all

different directions.

In fact, if I do it this I
don't know, 20, 30, 500 times,

you can see that these

dots are starting

to trace out a curve,

[inaudible] very slightly

to the left, right there.

And [inaudible] very slightly

to the right, as well.

Why not?

There we go.

Right there.

And my question
is, yes, these dots

seem to be tracing a curve.

What curve could that be?

Well, since I seem to be

talking about circles,

I'm probably going to

guess that it is a circle.

In which case, all

these green dots

should be some equidistant

from a given special dot.
So my first question is, what
could be the possible center

in this picture?

What location seems to be

special in this diagram?

Well, if you think

about that for a moment,

I think when I'm

thinking equidistance,

maybe the midpoint of my two

nails is going to be special.

All right.

So let's give a name

to that distance.

I'll call it r
inches and r inches.

So the question is, do these

dots from the 90-degree corner

of my piece of paper
actually lie on a circle

with maybe this midpoint-- which

is a guess-- as its center?

That is, could I

prove, for example,

this point up here is also

r inches from that midpoint?

Oh, that seems tricky.

The only thing I

know about this point

up here is coming from the

corner of a piece of paper,

so it really is part
of a right triangle.

So let me draw on
that right triangle.

So it comes in from a corner

of a piece of paper like so,

and has a 90-degree angle.

So is there any
reason to believe

its distance from the

midpoint is also r inches?

Doesn't look like it right now.

Hmm.

But I do have a right triangle,

with a right angle in it,

for sure, which means the other

two angles-- so I'll call them,

say, x degrees and y

degrees-- we definitely have

that x plus y is
the remaining 180.

Already got 90, so x plus

y must be the other 90

degrees in that triangle.

Does that help at all?

Not sure.

All right.

So I'm going to stare

at this for a while

and wait for an epiphany.

And this could be a

very boring lecture,

if you're going to wait for

me to have an epiphany, so I'm

going to speed this

along a little bit.

I did have an epiphany one day

when I realized a clever thing

to do is to recopy
this right triangle,

but as a rotated version

underneath itself.

Here goes.

What I mean by that, literally

copy this right triangle,

put the right angle down here,

so I flipped it 180 degrees.

This angle x is now over here.

This angle y is now over here.

And I guess this line

I'm talking about now

looks like that, but down below.

Now why is that helpful?

Well, I see shape with two

90-degree angles in it,

and I see two angles, x plus y.

But what's x plus y?

It's 90 degrees.

So actually, these two

triangles, together,

make a perfect rectangle.

And look at the

lines I've drawn.

The original line segment is

one diagonal of the rectangle,

and it looks like the other line

segment is the other diagonal.

And if you remember,

we actually proved

that the diagonals of a

rectangle are congruent,

they're the same length, and

they cut each other perfectly

in half-- which is perfect,

because this diagonal has

the length 2 r, twice the

radius, or twice the length r,

and, which case, this other

diagonal also has length 2 r,

but it's cut in half,

must be r and r.
So I said radius.

I was actually right.

It really is the
radius of a circle.

This point is, indeed, r

inches from that midpoint.

In fact, the same argument

would work for any point

r inches, r inches, r inches,

coming from this construction

of paper.

So we've just proved

that actually bringing

in a 90-degree angle up
between two given points

is, in fact, going to trace

a perfect circle for us.

Absolutely brilliant.

So this has led us to

some theory of circles.

It's not quite Thales' theorem.

In fact, that's the

backwards version of Thales'.

So to get to Thales' proper,

let's talk about some jargon

and notation for circles.

So just to be absolutely
clear, a circle

is a set of points all the same

distance from a given point.

And that given

point's usually called

the center of the circle.

All right?

The notation for this, if I

give the center point a name,
say, maybe center
point p, geometrists

like to write circle

with a dot in it,

p, to be read as the circle

with center labeled p.

Grand.

So that's the
notation for circles.

And then we give special

names to features of circles.

For example, if I draw a line

segment from that center, p,

out to some point,

a, on the circle,

then that line segment's

called a radius of the circle.

For that line segment,

it's technically a picture.

So there's a picture of
a radius of a circle.

But we sometimes use the word

radius for just the number,

for the length of

that line segment.

So the word radius is

used in two senses--

as an actual picture
of a line segment,

or as a number being the

length of that line segment,

just the distance between

the points p and a.

So there is the
radius of a circle.

More jargon?

If I have a line
segment which is

connecting any two points on

the circle, it's called a chord.

And if that chord happens to

also go through the center,

then the chord is

given a special name.

It's called the

diameter of the circle.

Again, it's actually

two senses of the word.

It could actually be the

physical picture of a diameter,

or [inaudible] length of
that chord, in which case,

the diameter is a number.

And as numbers, it's pretty

clear from the picture,

that the diameter

equals twice the radius.

Grand.

Carrying on, a line

that goes infinitely

far in both directions, that

cuts the circle at two places,

is called a secant line.

Just a name.

And if that line happens

to just touch the curve,

then it's called a tangent line.

Actually, this is
kind of curious.

If you think of our

lecture on trigonometry,

Joachim Rhaeticus
gave the name tangent

to a ratio of sides
of a right triangle,

and he also gave the name

secant to another ratio of sides
in a right triangle.

It's very curious he chose

the words secant and tangent

for that work.

Hmm.

That's a little
bit of a mystery.

Anyhow, carrying on, if I just

name two points on the circle,

they will define a region,

some part of the circumference

of the circle.

Circumference is the whole

outer rim of the circle.

And recall the region

between two points, the arc.

So example, here's
a shaded region

of the circumference
of the circle,

and that would be called the

arc between the points A and B,

as denoted with a little

curved symbol above the names

of the two points.

Now this is actually a

little bit confusing,

because there technically

are two arcs in that picture.

And you see the small

one that I've shaded.

But there's also the big

one that goes all the way

outside that shaded region.

So there's a little
bit of ambiguity.

When I say arc AB, I could

mean one of two arcs.

It's become the

convention to assume

that the author doesn't specify,

he or she means the small arc.

In fact, the name of the

smaller arc is the minor arc,

and the name of the larger

one is the major arc.

So if the author wanted

me to think of the bigger

arc in this picture,

she would say, please

think about the major arc AB.

She doesn't specify otherwise,

assumes the smaller one.

All right.

Carries on with this jargon.

One usually measures

arcs, and, now this

is strange, by an angle,
because an arc represents,

actually, an amount of turning.

So if, for example, I say the

arc AB has measure 62 degrees,

I don't mean the

length of 62 degrees.

Doesn't make any sense.

I mean the amount of

turning it represents

is 62 degrees of turning.

So it's actually an angle.

So the measure of
an arc is an angle.

And to be very clear,

the actual angle

sits right at the

center of the circle.

If I were to draw the two radii

to the end points A and B,

that makes an angle,

and that angle

is 62 degrees in this picture.

So it really does represent

62 degrees of turning.

It's a little confusing.

People tend not to

draw the central angle.

That's the name

of an angle coming

to the center of the circle.

People tend not to

draw those radii,

and just write the

numbers on the arcs.

But if you need to, you can

always draw back in the radii

and see where that

actual angle lives.

Now, the reason why

this is confusing,

because on different
sized circles, arcs

can have exactly

the same measure

and clearly not be

the same length.

For example, here's a whole

series of concentric circles

with the same center.

And all these three arcs have

the same measure of 50 degrees.

In fact, you can see

they each represent

the same amount of turning

along there own circumferences.

However, clearly, the lengths,

the actual physical lengths,

of each arc is different.

So watch out.

Arc are measured by

angles representing

the mass of turning,

have nothing

to do with their lengths.

All right.

The jargon continues.

If I'm given an arc, I

might, for some reason,

need to draw an angle

coming from that arc.

And what I mean by that

is an inscribed angle,

draw an angle from

the two end points

to some point on the circle.

And that creates an angle

called the inscribed angle

for that arc.

In fact, here on the

picture on the left,

I have three inscribed

angles from the same arc.

Some people call them

peripheral angles,

but I think the preferred term

nowadays is inscribed angles.

If the arc is particularly

big, like the one on the right,

then the inscribed angle

can be a bit tricky to see.

But it is an angle, if
you look at the picture,

coming from the two

endpoints of the arc

to some other point on

the rest of the circle.

So the inscribed angle is

kind of a big, obtuse angle

down near the bottom there.

Bit tricky to
read, but there it.

Ah!

All right.

I feel like that's

enough jargon for now.

What I'd like to do is

go back to the whiteboard

and play with some ideas.

So let me give you

a practice question.

So here's a very typical

geometry practice question.

Suppose I've got two circles,

circle with center A,

and circle with center

B. And I'll tell you

these are congruent circles,

which I haven't defined yet,

so I have to think what

that means in a moment.

But here's two circles

with center A and center

B. I will tell you

they're congruent.

I'll give you some information.

The two points of

intersection are

going to be labeled C and D. And

in this question I'm making up,
I'll tell you that AC is 17
units, and AB is 30 units.

And my question for

the day is, what

is the length of the common

chord of these two circles?

So what chord do these two

circles have in common?

Well, if I look at CD, I

think this is the chord.

It's definitely a chord

of the left circle,

circle A. It's a chord of the

right circle, circle B. It's

a chord in common.

I want the length of

that common chord, CD.

And the only piece I

haven't put on the board

is that these are

congruent circles.

Oh, I shouldn't circle that.

It's a bit confusing.

All right.

What's going on here?

Well, starters, let me draw

the information we've got.

We're told that the

length AC is 17,

so at least I know this

length here is 17 units.

We're told that AB is 30 units.

OK?

Let me draw that.

30 units.

That's all I've got.

And somehow I have to
figure out length CD.

Very scary.

All right.

Let's take it slowly.

Congruent.

Two circles are

probably congruent

means they're identical

in some sense.

After all, congruent

line segments

were line segments

the same length.

Congruent angles were angles

that had the same measure.

So I'm guessing congruent

circles means two circles that

are basically the same.

They must have the same radius.

So I'm going to guess since

the radius of the circle A

is clearly 17-- there's a

radius-- then the circle B also

has radius 17.

In fact, if I draw this radius,

there must be 17, as well.

I bet that's what

congruent means.

I keep going.

There's another radius.

A to D is a radius, so
that must be 17, and B to D

is also a radius of
the right-hand circle.

All right?
Now I've got some more
information on the picture.

Can I get to the length CD yet?

Hmm.

It still looks hard.

All right.

Stare at this for a while.

Does anything come to me?

Ah-- I'm seeing four 17s.

This shape is
actually a rhombus.

And, in fact, if I remember

from my days of equidistance,

since I've got to a point

equidistant from A and B,

another point
equidistant from A and B,

they must lie on the

perpendicular bisector of AB.

In fact, we did prove that

the diagonals of a rhombus

bisect each other and

are perpendicular.

So, which case the line I

want, the dotted line, CD,

must be perpendicular
to AB, and they're

chopping each other in half.

Now my picture's
getting messy, but I

think I'm basically there.

Because 30, A to B is 30.

It gets chopped in half.

Let me erase that out

then and write 15 and 15.
And I have a right
triangle to play with,

and I can't help

but think Pythagoras

whenever I see a right triangle.

Look at this.

Here's a right triangle.

One side of 15, one side I

don't know, hypotenuse is 17.

However, I can now work

out at least this side

of the right triangle.

Let me do Pythagoras's theorem.

All right.

So 15 squared plus blank

squared equals 17 squared.

Rearrange that
formula in my mind.

This must be the square root

of 17 squared minus 15 squared.

All right, arithmetic.

That's always the hardest part.

17 squared.

For some reason, I have

that number in my head.

It's 289.

15 squared.

I actually have that

number in my head, too.

It's 225.

There's no shame in
getting out a calculator

to just find these things out.

289 and 225.

They differ by 64.

This is the square root of 64.

Square root of 64?

Ah.

The author of this

question was very

nice, chose very nice numbers.

It's 8.

Oh!

But that's the answer

to the question.

This part is 8 units

long, and it's half of CD.

So CD must actually be 8
units plus another 8 units.

We've got it.

It's 16 units long.

That is lovely.

That circle's brought back

the ideas of rhombuses,

and properties of
equidistance, and so forth.

It's not actually

surprising it does that.

After all, circles are

sets of equidistant points.

All of these things

will come back to us.

But let me bring back

some old ideas, as well,

and play with this some more

in a very beautiful way.

Let's just clean the board,

give yourself some space.

Do you recall that the shortest

way to get from a point

to a line?
We proved it's given by-- excuse
me-- the perpendicular line

segment.

Hold on to that thought.

Suppose I gave us a
circle with some center,

and I draw a tangent line.

Remember, a tangent
line's a line

that just comes and touches.

Maybe that's the point

of contact right there.

My question is,
what's the shortest

way to get from the center

of the circle to anywhere

on that tangent line?

Now, if I draw a length like

this, which is clearly wrong,

but just to get a feel

for what's happening,

you can see that this distance

is the radius of the circle

plus a bit more.

This length is the radius of the

circle plus still a bit more.

Maybe that's shorter.

This length is the radius of

the circle plus a bit more.

But this length to

the point of contact

is just the radius

of the circle.

So I can actually
say, that must be

the shortest way to get from

the center to the tangent line.
Go straight to the
point of contact.

But, by what we know

before, the shortest path

actually makes a 90-degree

angle to the line.

So we just proved a
pretty amazing fact.

Whenever you have a

radius to a tangent line,

it must make a 90-degree

angle, because it

has to be the shortest

path to the tangent line.

I call that the

Radius-Tangent theorem.

That's a very handy result.

The Radius-Tangent theorem,

radii and tangents always

make 90-degree angles

at the point of contact.

But let's keep going.

Here's a second charming

little result. Instead

of talking about
one tangent, what

if I talked about two tangents?

Here's a circle.

There's its center.

I'm going to choose a

point outside the circle.

And I want to draw the

whole tangent lines,

but there's two tangent

lines I can draw,

and I'll just draw the segments

to each point of contact.
There's one tangent
line segment.

Well, I mean, it's actually,

if it were a full line

it would be just touching once.

Here's a second
tangent line segment,

meaning if it were a
full line it would just

touch the circle just once.

My question is,
is there anything

interesting going on in
this picture of, what is it?

An ice cream cone, or a

megaphone, or something?

OK.

So I guess the first question

is, what's the question?

I can't help but wonder that

this may be something going on

with the lengths.

If this is a inches long,

and that's b inches long,

doesn't it feel suspiciously

like it could be that a equals

b?

Could we prove that?

Let's try.

So we've just established

the radius tangent theorem

and I feel very

compelled to draw

some radiuses to these tangents,

so I'm going to do that.

For, with the

Radius-Tangent theorem,
I know that's going to
make a 90-degree angle.

Ditto for the second tangent.

All right.

That feels helpful.

Does that prove that

a equals b in any way?

Oh, I don't to see it yet.

Well, these are both radiuses.

They're at the same length.

I can write that.

Well, as with many proofs

in geometry, sometimes

it's good to draw just

a single diagonal line

[inaudible] triangle.

So let me draw
this line, as well.

It's some length.

I don't know-- call it h.

Make up a name.

Does that prove

that a equals b yet?

Yes, it does.

We have a right triangle.

r squared plus a squared

equals h squared.

So if I do the algebra
on that, by Pythagoras,

this must be the square root

of h squared minus r squared.

Look at the second

triangle down below.

It's also a right triangle.

r squared plus a squared

equals b squared.

Do the algebra on this.

b squared must be
the square root

of h squares minus r squared.

It's identical.

Yes.

a does equal b.

So we've just proved what I

like to call the Two Tangents

theorem.

Whenever two tangents

from an outside point

meet a circle at the

two points of contacts,

then those two segments

of those tangents

are going to be the same length.

Grand.

Actually, that's a lot to go on.

We can do some more

practice questions.

Let's have a look

this sort of exercise.

Try this.

Here's a whole bunch of

circles, and a whole bunch

of line segments coming

from those circles.

Very confusing.

Hmm.

The question is, what is the

length of the line segment x?

Without knowing any

geometry, I could just
guess the answer is going
to be 6, because 6 is

the only number on the board.

But actually, can we

see why it has to be 6?

Well, yes.

Look at the first circle.

These are two tangent

line segments,

and we just proved

they're congruent.

So this length is 6.

These are a pair of

tangent line segments.

They must be congruent, so

this is 6 and 6, and 6 and 6,

and 6 and 6, in which

case, x is, indeed, 6.

Ah.

Grand.

How about this question?

I've drawn a hexagon

around a circle.

All right.

So far, so good.

Then, I'm going to

ask, in doing so,

I alternated colors-- blue,

red, blue, red-- with my pens.

Did I use more blue ink than

red ink when I drew this figure?

Or did I use more red ink

than blue when I drew this?

Or is it impossible to tell?

Hmm.

All right.
Well, let's have a look at this.

Ah-- I actually see lots

of tangent segments.

This section of blue is

a tangent line segment,

which is matched with

this tangent line segment.

So actually, they're
the same length.

That portion of the blue

matches that portion of the red.

In fact, this next

portion of the red

is also a tangent line segment.

Matches this
portion of the blue.

Another tangent side of

the segments must match.

So if I go all the
way around, there's

always a portion of blue that's

matched with a portion of red,

and a portion of red that's

matched with a portion of blue.

We have, in fact, matching

tangent line segments

all over the place.

In fact, I can now say the

amount of red I used here

in this diagram is exactly the

same as the amount of blue,

which is crazy.

Draw a random hexagon around

a circle, alternate colors,

the amount of red and blue ink

you'll use is exactly the same.

All right.
Let me now come to what I
think is my most favorite,

and what I think is the

most stunning, theorem

in all of circle geometry.

It goes as follows.

If I draw an arc, and I draw a

whole bunch of inscribed angles

from that arc, and if I

actually measure the angles

in these inscribed positions,

you will find-- well,

I will find.

If you try it, you

will find that they're

all the same measure.

Then it gets even

more surprising.

If this red arc

represented, say,

30 degrees of turning,
than each inscribed angle

equals 15 degrees,
actually half the measure

of the turning of the arc.

In fact, in general,
we can prove

that no matter which inscribed

angle you draw from an arc,

it is guaranteed to be half
the measure of the arc.

Seems completely unbelievable,

it's utterly surprising,

and it's truly beautiful.

So what I need to do is see why

that could possibly be true.

Here goes.
It's going to be a
bit involved, so it's

going to be a bit of a roller

coaster ride for our brains.

But we can do it.

So here's a picture.

I've just drawn one inscribed

angle, angle x, coming

from an arc of measure y.

So our goal is to prove

that x is half of y.

Just to be very clear,

y is actually an angle.

It's actually an angle from

the center of the circle.

So let me draw that

in, to be very clear.

There's the actual

angle y in the picture.

So we're going to prove that x

is half of y, or y is double x.

Either way would do.

I can't help but be tempted

to draw it in a radius.

That feels compelling,

so I'm going to do it.

But when I do that, I actually

get an isosceles triangle

on the left.

Radius and radius

makes isosceles.

And an isosceles
triangle on the right.

I've actually got two

isosceles triangles

in this picture, which means

I must have congruent base

angles going on.

Those two angles
a are base angles

of an isosceles triangle.

Ditto for the angles b.

Which means x, at the

very least, is a plus b.

All right.

But what does that do for me?

I mean, there's a formula

for x, in terms of a and b.

I wonder if I can get a formula

for y, in terms of a and b.

And hopefully, it will

be double that formula.

Well, there's 180

degrees in a triangle.

The triangle on the

left has two angles a,

so it means the remaining,

unlabelled angle

must be 180 minus 2 a.

Ditto for the

triangle on the right.

It's blank angle must

be 180 minus 2 b.

So is it getting
me to angle y yet?

Why, yes.

Because I happen to
know that there's

a full 360 degrees

around that center.

So y plus 180 minus 2

a, plus 180 minus 2 b,

must be a full 360 degrees.

That's a mouthful, but

I'm going to write it
out and see what it gives me.

If I do the algebra, 360

minus 2 a minus 2 b plus y

is the full 360.

It gets me that y is
2 a plus 2 b-- that

is, y is double a plus b.

Yes.

x was a plus b, y is double a

plus b, y is, indeed, double x,

or x is half of y.

Now, I was particularly

nice for us here, I

chose an inscribed angle

that was sort of positioned

above the central angle.

It is possible that
the inscribed angle

could be lopsided to one

side, in which case, we'll

have to do this proof

again for that case.

But I suggest you

draw in a radius.

And I bet you could chase

through some angles,

just like we did now,

using isosceles triangles,

because I happened to see

several isosceles triangles

in that picture, and I

bet you can prove again

that y is double x.

Wow.

So that gives us the what I

call the Inscribed/Central Angle
theorem, that a whole
bunch of inscribed angles

from a central angle that

is coming from the same arc,

and have the same

measure, and, in fact,

their measure is half

the measure of that arc.

In fact, when my students

see this picture,

they sometimes call this theorem

the Sydney Opera House theorem.

And you kind of see why.

It's absolutely beautiful.

All right.

So we're almost at
the point now where

we can finally, finally

prove Thales' theorem, which

I mentioned way
back in lecture 1,

and we've gone all this

length of this course so far

and have never

actually proved it.

Here it is.

Now, Thales' theorem

was about angles coming

from the diameter of a circle.

Here's a diameter.

How much turning does

the diameter represent?

Well, for the arc

underneath a diameter,

that's half the circle, so

that's 180 degrees of turning.

Now, we just proved

that any inscribed angle
coming from an arc must have
half the measure of that arc.

What's half of 180 degrees?

90.

So any angle coming

from this diameter

must have measure 90 degrees.

And there is Thales'

theorem, at long, long last.

Now, I should
mention, this is not

how Thales proved

this result first off.

There's actually a much

easier way to do it.

And I invite you to actually do

the isosceles triangle method.

I'm going to say,

draw this radius here,

and you will see two

isosceles triangles.

Using those isosceles

triangles, I

bet you can prove that

the angle at the top,

just like we did earlier,

has a nice property-- namely,

that the angles must add up

to 90 degrees at the corner.

So there we have it.

Paper pushing, if I'd

start with 90-degree angles

and bring them up,

and make a curve,

that curve must be a circle.

And reverse, if
we have a circle,
then any angle coming
from that diameter

must, in fact, be a right angle.

This is absolutely beautiful.

It's brought the whole

story full circle,

so it's a lovely place

to end for today.

I feel very satisfied.

Thanks very much.