Explanation of Cartesian formula for circumcenter
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
On Wikipedia there is a Cartesian formula for the circumcenter of a triangle. That is, given points $A$, $B$ and $C$ in $mathbb{R}^2$, find point $U$ such that $d(A,U)=d(B,U)=d(C,U)$. The formula, as stated on Wikipedia, is very algebraic, but I found that it can be rewritten as follows.
Define $X:=(A_x,B_x,C_x)$, $Y:=(A_y,B_y,C_y)$, $V:=(1,1,1)$ and $L:=(|A|^2,|B|^2,|C|^2)$. Then define the matrices $M_D:=(V,X,Y)$, $M_X:=(V,X,L)$ and $M_Y:=(V,L,Y)$. Then we have $$U=(|M_Y|,|M_X|) / (2|M_D|).$$
As I am writing a program, I very much enjoy this elegant form. However, such a nice formula needs a nice explanation if you ask me. Can anyone come up with one? I am hoping for an explanation that does not rely on any of the algebraic properties of the determinant and only uses its geometric interpretation based on measures.
geometry determinant triangle intuition
asked Nov 14 at 17:12
SmileyCraft
72819
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
On Wikipedia there is a Cartesian formula for the circumcenter of a triangle. That is, given points $A$, $B$ and $C$ in $mathbb{R}^2$, find point $U$ such that $d(A,U)=d(B,U)=d(C,U)$. The formula, as stated on Wikipedia, is very algebraic, but I found that it can be rewritten as follows.
Define $X:=(A_x,B_x,C_x)$, $Y:=(A_y,B_y,C_y)$, $V:=(1,1,1)$ and $L:=(|A|^2,|B|^2,|C|^2)$. Then define the matrices $M_D:=(V,X,Y)$, $M_X:=(V,X,L)$ and $M_Y:=(V,L,Y)$. Then we have $$U=(|M_Y|,|M_X|) / (2|M_D|).$$
As I am writing a program, I very much enjoy this elegant form. However, such a nice formula needs a nice explanation if you ask me. Can anyone come up with one? I am hoping for an explanation that does not rely on any of the algebraic properties of the determinant and only uses its geometric interpretation based on measures.
geometry determinant triangle intuition
asked Nov 14 at 17:12
SmileyCraft
72819
I’m not sure that there’s any particular geometric insight attached to your rearrangement of the formula, but I’d be quite interested in seeing one. You’ve basically taken a particular set of slices through the matrix in the determinant form of the equation of a circle through three fixed points.
– amd
Nov 14 at 20:01
Sorry, I had a mistake. I fixed it, though. I am confusing my own notation with the Wikipedia notation :/
– SmileyCraft
Nov 14 at 20:01
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
On Wikipedia there is a Cartesian formula for the circumcenter of a triangle. That is, given points $A$, $B$ and $C$ in $mathbb{R}^2$, find point $U$ such that $d(A,U)=d(B,U)=d(C,U)$. The formula, as stated on Wikipedia, is very algebraic, but I found that it can be rewritten as follows.
Define $X:=(A_x,B_x,C_x)$, $Y:=(A_y,B_y,C_y)$, $V:=(1,1,1)$ and $L:=(|A|^2,|B|^2,|C|^2)$. Then define the matrices $M_D:=(V,X,Y)$, $M_X:=(V,X,L)$ and $M_Y:=(V,L,Y)$. Then we have $$U=(|M_Y|,|M_X|) / (2|M_D|).$$
As I am writing a program, I very much enjoy this elegant form. However, such a nice formula needs a nice explanation if you ask me. Can anyone come up with one? I am hoping for an explanation that does not rely on any of the algebraic properties of the determinant and only uses its geometric interpretation based on measures.
geometry determinant triangle intuition
asked Nov 14 at 17:12
SmileyCraft
72819
On Wikipedia there is a Cartesian formula for the circumcenter of a triangle. That is, given points $A$, $B$ and $C$ in $mathbb{R}^2$, find point $U$ such that $d(A,U)=d(B,U)=d(C,U)$. The formula, as stated on Wikipedia, is very algebraic, but I found that it can be rewritten as follows.
Define $X:=(A_x,B_x,C_x)$, $Y:=(A_y,B_y,C_y)$, $V:=(1,1,1)$ and $L:=(|A|^2,|B|^2,|C|^2)$. Then define the matrices $M_D:=(V,X,Y)$, $M_X:=(V,X,L)$ and $M_Y:=(V,L,Y)$. Then we have $$U=(|M_Y|,|M_X|) / (2|M_D|).$$
As I am writing a program, I very much enjoy this elegant form. However, such a nice formula needs a nice explanation if you ask me. Can anyone come up with one? I am hoping for an explanation that does not rely on any of the algebraic properties of the determinant and only uses its geometric interpretation based on measures.
geometry determinant triangle intuition
geometry determinant triangle intuition
asked Nov 14 at 17:12
SmileyCraft
72819
asked Nov 14 at 17:12
SmileyCraft
72819
edited Nov 14 at 20:00
asked Nov 14 at 17:12
SmileyCraft
72819
asked Nov 14 at 17:12
SmileyCraft
72819
asked Nov 14 at 17:12
SmileyCraft
72819
72819
I’m not sure that there’s any particular geometric insight attached to your rearrangement of the formula, but I’d be quite interested in seeing one. You’ve basically taken a particular set of slices through the matrix in the determinant form of the equation of a circle through three fixed points.
– amd
Nov 14 at 20:01
Sorry, I had a mistake. I fixed it, though. I am confusing my own notation with the Wikipedia notation :/
– SmileyCraft
Nov 14 at 20:01
add a comment |
I’m not sure that there’s any particular geometric insight attached to your rearrangement of the formula, but I’d be quite interested in seeing one. You’ve basically taken a particular set of slices through the matrix in the determinant form of the equation of a circle through three fixed points.
– amd
Nov 14 at 20:01
Sorry, I had a mistake. I fixed it, though. I am confusing my own notation with the Wikipedia notation :/
– SmileyCraft
Nov 14 at 20:01
I’m not sure that there’s any particular geometric insight attached to your rearrangement of the formula, but I’d be quite interested in seeing one. You’ve basically taken a particular set of slices through the matrix in the determinant form of the equation of a circle through three fixed points.
– amd
Nov 14 at 20:01
I’m not sure that there’s any particular geometric insight attached to your rearrangement of the formula, but I’d be quite interested in seeing one. You’ve basically taken a particular set of slices through the matrix in the determinant form of the equation of a circle through three fixed points.
– amd
Nov 14 at 20:01
Sorry, I had a mistake. I fixed it, though. I am confusing my own notation with the Wikipedia notation :/
– SmileyCraft
Nov 14 at 20:01
Sorry, I had a mistake. I fixed it, though. I am confusing my own notation with the Wikipedia notation :/
– SmileyCraft
Nov 14 at 20:01
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Actually it is really clever. Look what they do on Wikipedia. They are clever enough to point that the distance between the circle's center and each corner on the polygon should be equal ( = the radius). In the next step they form a system of equations. You will have to solve 2 systems of equations: one for x and one for y. In each system you will have only one unknown. There are countless way to solve numerically system of equations.
There are determinants used on Wikipedia. They compute the main determinant, and later "partial determinants". The end result is division of "partial determinant"/"main determinant". It is not good way for numerical methods. You had better stick to other ways of solving this system of equations. I am sorry, but I don't know the native english term for "partial determinant" and "main determinant".
If you have only one type of polygon to crank out, you may be better off with derivation of your formulas, like you are trying to do now. However, if you want to do software, which is going to work with all cyclic polygons, you should do this approach with solving of system of equations.
Good luck!
answered Nov 21 at 9:43
Gregory
262
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Actually it is really clever. Look what they do on Wikipedia. They are clever enough to point that the distance between the circle's center and each corner on the polygon should be equal ( = the radius). In the next step they form a system of equations. You will have to solve 2 systems of equations: one for x and one for y. In each system you will have only one unknown. There are countless way to solve numerically system of equations.
There are determinants used on Wikipedia. They compute the main determinant, and later "partial determinants". The end result is division of "partial determinant"/"main determinant". It is not good way for numerical methods. You had better stick to other ways of solving this system of equations. I am sorry, but I don't know the native english term for "partial determinant" and "main determinant".
If you have only one type of polygon to crank out, you may be better off with derivation of your formulas, like you are trying to do now. However, if you want to do software, which is going to work with all cyclic polygons, you should do this approach with solving of system of equations.
Good luck!
answered Nov 21 at 9:43
Gregory
262
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Actually it is really clever. Look what they do on Wikipedia. They are clever enough to point that the distance between the circle's center and each corner on the polygon should be equal ( = the radius). In the next step they form a system of equations. You will have to solve 2 systems of equations: one for x and one for y. In each system you will have only one unknown. There are countless way to solve numerically system of equations.
There are determinants used on Wikipedia. They compute the main determinant, and later "partial determinants". The end result is division of "partial determinant"/"main determinant". It is not good way for numerical methods. You had better stick to other ways of solving this system of equations. I am sorry, but I don't know the native english term for "partial determinant" and "main determinant".
If you have only one type of polygon to crank out, you may be better off with derivation of your formulas, like you are trying to do now. However, if you want to do software, which is going to work with all cyclic polygons, you should do this approach with solving of system of equations.
Good luck!
answered Nov 21 at 9:43
Gregory
262
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Actually it is really clever. Look what they do on Wikipedia. They are clever enough to point that the distance between the circle's center and each corner on the polygon should be equal ( = the radius). In the next step they form a system of equations. You will have to solve 2 systems of equations: one for x and one for y. In each system you will have only one unknown. There are countless way to solve numerically system of equations.
There are determinants used on Wikipedia. They compute the main determinant, and later "partial determinants". The end result is division of "partial determinant"/"main determinant". It is not good way for numerical methods. You had better stick to other ways of solving this system of equations. I am sorry, but I don't know the native english term for "partial determinant" and "main determinant".
If you have only one type of polygon to crank out, you may be better off with derivation of your formulas, like you are trying to do now. However, if you want to do software, which is going to work with all cyclic polygons, you should do this approach with solving of system of equations.
Good luck!
answered Nov 21 at 9:43
Gregory
262
Actually it is really clever. Look what they do on Wikipedia. They are clever enough to point that the distance between the circle's center and each corner on the polygon should be equal ( = the radius). In the next step they form a system of equations. You will have to solve 2 systems of equations: one for x and one for y. In each system you will have only one unknown. There are countless way to solve numerically system of equations.
There are determinants used on Wikipedia. They compute the main determinant, and later "partial determinants". The end result is division of "partial determinant"/"main determinant". It is not good way for numerical methods. You had better stick to other ways of solving this system of equations. I am sorry, but I don't know the native english term for "partial determinant" and "main determinant".
If you have only one type of polygon to crank out, you may be better off with derivation of your formulas, like you are trying to do now. However, if you want to do software, which is going to work with all cyclic polygons, you should do this approach with solving of system of equations.
Good luck!
answered Nov 21 at 9:43
Gregory
262
edited Nov 21 at 9:56
answered Nov 21 at 9:43
Gregory
262
answered Nov 21 at 9:43
Gregory
262
answered Nov 21 at 9:43
Gregory
262
262
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2998538%2fexplanation-of-cartesian-formula-for-circumcenter%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I’m not sure that there’s any particular geometric insight attached to your rearrangement of the formula, but I’d be quite interested in seeing one. You’ve basically taken a particular set of slices through the matrix in the determinant form of the equation of a circle through three fixed points.
– amd
Nov 14 at 20:01
Sorry, I had a mistake. I fixed it, though. I am confusing my own notation with the Wikipedia notation :/
– SmileyCraft
Nov 14 at 20:01