Is there a proof of Ptolemy without inversion?
Every proof I know of uses inversion or complex numbers. Is there a purely synthetic one?
A national community for young mathematicians. Learn from mentors who have walked the path, think alongside peers who share your curiosity, and discover where mathematics can take you.
Every proof I know of uses inversion or complex numbers. Is there a purely synthetic one?
Euclid’s argument is the classic. You can also use , or the pairwise coprime Fermat numbers .
Setting gives , so or …
Start from and the inequality drops out.
I keep forgetting whether to subtract first or count everything and remove the bad cases. Is there a rule of thumb?
Engel’s Problem-Solving Strategies, Challenge and Thrill of Pre-College Mathematics, and Evan Chen’s EGMO. What would you add?
This is where students talk about problems, share approaches and ask questions. Read freely. Log in when you want to post. Please share how you thought, not only what the answer was.
Start with what you tried first, even if it failed. Then show the idea that worked, and say why it worked. Keep the final answer for the last line.
Six students, one mentor, a lot of arguing. A circle is where you present your proofs and learn to critique others.
Saturday sessions with mentors. Bring a question, leave with a better one.
A community for school students only works if it feels safe to be wrong. These are the ground rules.