Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Browse Groups

• Dear Hyacinthists, looking at the archives, I ve looked at a discussion about the notation for the cevian quotient. Here is an (original?) argument for the
Message 1 of 1 , Jun 30, 2001
View Source
Dear Hyacinthists,
looking at the archives, I've looked at a discussion about the
notation for the cevian quotient.
Here is an (original?) argument for the notation P/M :
Consider an isocubic with pivot P, note multiplicatively the group
law of the cubic and take P as 1, then

For any point M on the cubic, P/M is the inverse of M in the group -
hence, it seems to be a quite correct notation -.

Proof :
Let M*(pyz, qzx, rxy ) be the isoconjugate of M(x,y,z); P =(u,v,w)
P/M = [x (-x/u + y/v + z/w), ...].
Then det(M,P/M,P*) = -2 det(M, M*, P)
Thus M lies on the cubic <=> the line M,P/M goes through P*
<=> P/M lies on the cubic (with P/M instead of M)
Hence, if M lies on the cubic, P/M lies on the cubic and the line
M,P/M intersects again the cubic at P*; as the line PP* touches the
cubic at P, the proof is complete.

I think that it is often very interesting to consider an isocubic
with pivot P as the locus of M such as the line M,P/M goes through a
fixed point (P*)
Friendly. Jean-Pierre
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.