5

What is the correct way to think about a circumcircle of a degenerate triangle, i.e. one where all 3 vertices are collinear? Obviously whenever you choose 3 collinear points on the plane it's impossible to construct a circle around them, but from a theoretical point of view, could the degenerate triangle (specifically a line) be thought of as an infinitely small line (which would in turn degenerate into a point) lying on some hypothetical circle?

In that case, a circumcircle around a degenerate triangle like that would be a real projective line which would be an extension of the triangle; given the triangle is infinitely small, the circle would have to be relatively infinitely large and we'd never see any sort of curvature. Only when we'd "infinitely zoom out" would we see the triangle as a single point and the line as a circle. Is this problem even related to the real projective line?

Or is the case of a degenerate triangle just safely left undefined?


Edit: I noticed some people have considered the case where two or more vertices of the triangle are equal, which was not what I meant but certainly not something I excluded in the question body. Nevertheless these examples led me to interesting results as well. Thanks for that!

aachh
  • 65
  • 1
    If the points are distinct but collinear, then their "circumcircle" is the common line. (Inviting lines into the Circle Club is advantageous in many contexts; see, eg Descartes' "Kissing Circles" Theorem.) If exactly two points coincide (for an extra-degenerate triangle), then there are infinitely-many "circumcircles" (including the common line) in the pencil with centers along the perpendicular bisector of a non-zero side. If all three points coincide (extra-extra-degenerate!), then, of course, any circle (or line) through them/it will do. – Blue Mar 30 '21 at 09:19
  • I think this has to do with a simple proof of how you can't construct a circle such that all points of a given segment lie on it. You would approach a proof by contradiction, making a assumption that such a construction could exist. You'd construct two rays from the center of the circle to any two points of the segment. Normally you'd be left with an equilateral triangle, but this triangle would have to have two 90° angles, which not only is a contradiction (I think!), but proves that the segment would have to be a single point (from the fact that the angle between the rays would be 0°). – aachh Mar 30 '21 at 09:25
  • 2
    If you consider an isosceles triangle whose vertex angle shrinks to $0^\circ$, then its base angles become $90^\circ$, making an arguably-"valid" (though necessarily degenerate) triangle. A lot of things still work (area formula, Law of Cosines, Law of Sines (in an appropriate form), etc). ... Degeneracy is problematic in that if you just look at a degenerate figure as-is, you often can't tell what it's trying to show you; but a degenerate member of a family of figures (as with the isosceles triangles) can bring completeness and unity to that family. – Blue Mar 30 '21 at 09:34
  • 2
    For another example, consider right $\triangle XOY$, with $X$ on the positive $x$-axis, $Y$ on the positive $y$-axis, and $O$ at the origin. Certainly, $\triangle XOY$ has a unique circumcircle, and continues to do so as $Y$ moves toward $O$ ... and even if $Y$ jumps past $O$. But when $Y$ coincides with $O$, $\triangle XOY$ degenerates. Someone viewing that particular instance of $\triangle XOY$ would say that its "circumcircle" isn't uniquely determined. However, as a member of the family, that instance clearly prefers the circle with diameter $\overline{OX}$. Context matters. – Blue Mar 30 '21 at 09:57

3 Answers3

3

A circle by three aligned points is a straight line, nothing else.

If you don't believe it, consider the pencil of circles by two fixed points and a moving one. When the moving point comes to alignment, the quadratic terms vanish from the equation. The curvature is zero.

E.g. The pencil by the points $(-1,0),(1,0),(0,t)$ has the equation

$$\begin{vmatrix}x^2+y^2&x&y&1\\1&-1&0&1\\1&1&0&1\\t^2&0&t&1\end{vmatrix}=0$$

or

$$t(x^2+y^2)+y(1-t^2)-t=0.$$

This is the equation of a circle of center $\left(0,\dfrac{t^2-1}{2t}\right)$ and radius $\dfrac{1+t^2}{2|t|}$, and it degenerates to the straight line $y=0$ when $t=0$.

2

The circumcircle of a degenerate triangle can be thought of intuitively as a circle which is infinitely large whose boundary consists of the infinite straight line which contains the degenerate triangle. Think about what happens (or use a graphics tool) to watch the size of the circumcircle as one of the angles gets closer and closer to 180 degrees. The circle gets bigger and bigger.

Prime Mover
  • 5,214
  • 2
  • 16
  • 32
1

Sometimes it is convenient to consider the degenerate triangle with two coincided points as a degenerate isosceles triangle. The area of the isosceles triangle with sides $a,a,b$ is

\begin{align} S&=\tfrac14b\sqrt{4a^2-b^2} ,\\ \text{and }\quad R&=\frac{a^2b}{4\cdot\tfrac14b\sqrt{4a^2-b^2}} =\frac{a^2}{\sqrt{4a^2-b^2}} , \end{align}
and for the degenerate case when $b=0$, we naturally have

\begin{align} R&=\frac a2 \tag{1}\label{1} . \end{align}

Of course, as @Blue noted in the comments, there are infinitely-many circles and a line, passing through these three points, but \eqref{1} can be considered more appropriate in some practical cases, like for example, it is often convenient to consider that $0^0=1$.

But in other cases this would be a wrong choice for the value of circumradius.

Consider this construction:

enter image description here

$\triangle ABC$, $D,E\in AB$, $|CD|=u,\ |DE|=v,\ |CE|=w$, $\angle CDE=\angle CDB=\delta$. Let $R,R_1,R_2,R_3,R_4$ be the radii of circumscribed circles around $\triangle ABC,\ \triangle CAD,\ \triangle CDE,\ \triangle CEB$ and $\triangle CDB$, respectively. Then we have an identity

\begin{align} R_1\cdot R_3&= R\cdot R_2 \tag{2}\label{2} . \end{align}

Now, let's move the point $E$ toward $D$ until they coincide. Then $R$ and $R_1$ stay the same, $R_3$ becomes $R_4$. And what will happened to $R_2$? From this point of view, $R_2=\tfrac u2$ would be a wrong choice. More appropriate would be to consider this degenerate triangle $CDD$ as one with the fixed side length $u$ and fixed angle $\delta$:

\begin{align} S_{CDE}&=\tfrac12uv\sin\delta ,\\ R_{CDE}=R_2&= \frac{uvw}{4\cdot \tfrac12uv\sin\delta} =\frac{w}{2\sin\delta} \tag{3}\label{3} , \end{align}

so when $w\to u$, to get sensible result in \eqref{2}, we must have

\begin{align} R_{CDD}&= \frac{|CD|}{2\sin\delta} \tag{4}\label{4} , \end{align}

and \eqref{2} transforms into

\begin{align} R_1\cdot R_4&= R\cdot \frac{|CD|}{2\sin\delta} \tag{5}\label{5} . \end{align}

So, the definition for the circumradius of the degenerate triangles is indeed context-sensitive.

g.kov
  • 13,841
  • It's not unlike how Algebra declares "$0/0$" to be undefined/indeterminate/just-plain-nonsensical, yet Differential Calculus might as well be sub-titled "$0/0$ plus context". :) – Blue Mar 30 '21 at 15:37