Circle tangent to circular arcs
By Brad Rodgers (P1930) on Tuesday,
January 23, 2001 - 11:37 pm :
If circular arcs AC and BC have centers at B and A,
respectively, then there exists a circle tangent to both arc AC
and arc BC, and to segment AB. If the length of arc BC is 12,
then the circumference of the inner circle is what?

Any hints or answers are greatly appreciated.
By Tom Hardcastle (P2477) on
Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 07:13 pm :
A first step would be to find the radius of the arcs. This can be done by
considering that
(from the information in the question, where
is the angle through which the arc is traced, in radians) and that
(since the two arcs are symmetrical and meet.)

By Brad Rodgers (P1930) on Thursday,
January 25, 2001 - 12:33 am :
,
. You can see this also by seeing that triangle ABC
is equilateral. Where do I go from here though?
Thanks,
Brad
By Tom Hardcastle (P2477) on Thursday,
January 25, 2001 - 12:49 pm :
Here's a possible way to do it that also introduces a useful
idea for similar problems.
Say that the origin is at A.
Then the cartesan equation for the arc BC is
The cartesan equation for the inscribed circle is
(x - 0.5r)2 + (y - q)2 = q2
where q is the radius of the inscribed circle (can you see
why?).
Then you use these equations to eliminate y and form a quadratic
in x (exercise for the reader).
Because the inscribed circle is at a tangent to the arc, it
touches the arc at only one point.
Therefore, there is only one solution to the quadratic.
Therefore, the determinant of the quadratic is zero,
(b2 - 4ac = 0). Use this to determine q, the radius of
the inscribed circle, and its circumference turns out to be 27.
By Brad Rodgers (P1930) on Friday,
January 26, 2001 - 01:06 am :
That's a good approach, Tom.
Brad
By Michael Doré (Md285) on Saturday, January
27, 2001 - 01:16 pm :
This problem can be solved very simply, using
Mobius maps. In particular we can use the map
(where
is a
complex number representing the position vector of a point on the diagram,
relative to a fixed point). Apparently this map is sometimes called
inversion (for obvious reasons). We take our origin as the midpoint of
(let's call this
), and then replace each point
in the diagram with a
point
such that
, and so that the vectors
and
are in the same direction. (And technically you should
flip the diagram over too because if
then the argument of the
complex number is negated but we don't need to bother about that.)
Now remember that in another discussion we showed that if you apply this
inversion Mobius map then the following changes occur:
- circles and lines which pass through the origin turn into lines.
- circles and lines which don't pass through the origin turn into circles.
OK, let's apply this at
then. Forget completely the inner circle for the
moment. Let
be the line through
,extending to infinity in each
direction.
Now imagine drawing out the whole circle, which coincides with the arc
.
Call this circle
. First note that the circumference of circle
intersects
at
and one other point, call it
(this one is to the
right of
). You can see
(as
is the radius of
,
as Tom and you worked out above). So
and
.
Now
and
(those are the images of
and
under the Mobius map)
must lie on
, and the image of
(which we'll call
) is going to be a
circle with diameter on
(by symmetry about
). It follows that
and
are on the diameter of
. We know that
and
and clearly
,
,
appear in that order, so
.
So
is a circlewith diameter along
, and of radius
.
Now by symmetry, the image of
(called
) also is a circle on the line
of radius
- it is simply the reflection of
in the line
.
Now what is the image of
, the ''inscribed circle''?
passes through
and
and its image must be a line (as it passes through
). This line
is horizontal (by symmetry in the line
). It passes through circles
and
(each at only one point; each point is the image of the
intersection points of circles
and
, and of circles
and
respectively). But circles
and
both have diameters on
and are
of equal radius therefore
must be tangential to both
,
, and a
distance of
from
(because the radius of
and
is
).
Obviously
is parallel to
. So if we draw a perpendicular (vertical)
line from
till the intersection point with
, it would be of length
and the intersection point is the image of the highest point of the
original inscribed circle
, therefore the diameter of
is the reciprocal
of
, so circumference of
as
Tom obtained.
Obviously that's not how you're supposed to do it, but I think it is a fun
approach. I think that the inversion approach could be quite useful generally.
The reason it works here is because we are able to change the inscribed circle
, which intersects with theother two circles, into a line. It is much,
much easier to see how lines intersect with things than circles, so the proof
is then relatively straightforward.