See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257442911

Concurrency of the altitudes of a triangle

Article  in  Mathematische Semesterberichte · October 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s00591-013-0123-z

CITATION READS

1 1,740

2 authors, including:

Mowaffaq Hajja
Philadelphia University -- Amman -- Jordan
150 PUBLICATIONS   825 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geometry View project

Ring Theory and Geometry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mowaffaq Hajja on 05 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Concurrency of the Altitudes of a Triangle

Mowaffaq Hajja and Horst Martini

Abstract: Of all the traditional (or Greek) centers of a triangle, the ortho-
center (i.e., the point of concurrence of the altitudes) is probably the one that
attracted the most of attention. This may be due to the fact that it is the only
one that has no exact analogue for arbitrary higher dimensional simplices, for
spherical and hyperbolic triangles, or for triangles in normed planes. But it
possibly has to do also with the non-existence of any explicit treatment of
this center in the Greek works that have come down to us. In this paper we
present different proofs of the fact that the altitudes of a triangle are concur-
rent. These include the first extant proof, in the works of al-Kūhı̄, Newton’s
proof, Gauss’s proof, and other interesting proofs.

Keywords: altitudes, angle bisector, centroid, Ceva’s theorem, circumcen-

ter, complex numbers, cyclic quadrilateral, Euclid’s Elements, incenter, Kūhı̄,
Minkowski plane, orthocenter, perpendicular bisector, triangle centers

MSC (2010): 01A20, 01A30, 51-03, 51M04, 51M15, 51N20

0. An English-German dictionary of keywords For the convenience of German

readers we start with a little dictionary of basic notions used in this article.
acute triangle: spitzwinkliges Dreieck,
angle bisector: Winkelhalbierende,
centroid: Schwerpunkt,
cevian: Dreieckstransversale,
concurrent: kopunktal,
cyclic quadrilateral: Sehnenviereck (einem Kreis einbeschrieben),
median: Seitenhalbierende,
orthocenter: Höhenschnittpunkt,
orthocentric simplex: Simplex mit Höhenschnittpunkt,
perpendicular bisector: Mittelsenkrechte.

1. Introduction Proposition 4 of Book IV of Euclid’s Elements [16] proves that

the angle bisectors of any triangle are concurrent in a point, called the incenter.

1
This point is the center of the incircle, i.e., the circle that touches the sides of the
triangle internally. It is also the point inside the triangle that is equidistant from
the sides. Proposition 5 of the same book proves that the perpendicular bisectors of
the sides are concurrent in a point, called the circumcenter. This point is the center
of the circumcircle, i.e., the circle that passes through the vertices of the triangle.
It is also the point that is equidistant from the vertices.
These two centers are the only true Euclidean centers, being the only ones men-
tioned in Euclid’s Elements. This work does not mention any of the other two
classical (or traditional or Greek) centers, namely the centroid and the orthocenter.
The first mention of the centroid is made by Archimedes in the context of his
investigations of centers of mass. Archimedes proved in Propositions 13 and 14 of his
book entitled On the Equilibrium of Planes (and reproduced in [17, pp. 189–202])
that the center of mass of a lamina (of uniform density) placed over a triangle must
lie on each median, where a median of a triangle is the line segment joining a vertex
of the triangle to the midpoint of the opposite side. This proves that the medians
are concurrent, and that the point of concurrence, now known as the centroid, is
the center of mass of the triangular lamina; see also [7, pp. 301–302], and [27, pp.
21–24]. For a non-standard and short proof that the medians of a triangle (and of
any higher dimensional simplex) are concurrent, see [14].
The orthocenter of a triangle is defined to be the point of concurrence of the
altitudes of the triangle. The fact that the altitudes are concurrent is not in Eu-
clid’s Elements or in any of the extant Greek works, and there is nothing in Euclid’s
Elements that implies Euclid’s awareness of this fact. But this fact is implicit in
Archimedes’ works. Specifically, Archimedes used it, referring to it as a property of
triangles, in his proof of the Arbelos’ (or shoemaker’s knife) theorem, i.e., Proposi-
tion 5 of his book entitled Book of Lemmas and reproduced in [17, pp. 301–318].
This may be an indication that the theorem does appear explicitly in some previous
book that is now lost. Seemingly basing their speculation on a footnote by New-
ton [24], the authors of [25, p. 86] state that the afore-mentioned property (i.e.,
the concurrence of the altitudes) is contained in a lost manuscript of Archimedes
and reappears several times in the works of Pappus, Proclus, Regiomontanus, and
Rudolph van Ceulen, but either without a proof or with an incorrect one, and they
add that the first known proofs are from the 17th century. We must add that this
is not correct, since the theorem appears explicitly and with a correct proof in a
commentary on Archimedes’ Book of Lemmas written by Nasrawı̄ in the eleventh
century and attributed to al-Kūhı̄, a Medieval Islam mathematician who lived in
the tenth century. Nasrawı̄’s commentary is reproduced in full (in Arabic, English,
and Dutch) in [18], where Al-Kūhı̄ states and proves in two separate lemmas what is
equivalent to the fact that the altitudes of a triangle are concurrent, and he uses this
in proving two beautiful generalizations of the afore-mentioned Arbelos’ theorem of
Archimedes. Al-Kūhı̄’s proof does not differ essentially from Proof No. 3 below. It
is also worth mentioning that the author of [11] states in Chapter 5 (p. 58), with-

2
out citing a reference, that it seems that Proclus, the fifth-century philosopher and
geometer, has been the first to state it (i.e., that the altitudes are concurrent) ex-
plicitly. We were unable to find confirmation of this in the well known commentary
of Proclus [26].
It is probably worth mentioning also that while the concurrence of the medians
and of the angle bisectors is valid in absolute (or neutral) geometry, the concurrence
of perpendicular bisectors and of altitudes is equivalent, in absolute geometry, to
the parallel postulate. These statements can be found in p. 149, 234, 150, Theorem
3.3 (p. 233), and Exercise 10.9 (p. 259) of [32].
The incenter, circumcenter, and centroid have exact analogues in hyperbolic ge-
ometry, as seen in [31], and in spherical geometry, as seen in [29] and [5]. As for
orthocenters, it is obvious that if a spherical triangle ABC has two right angles at
B and C, then it does not have a well defined altitude from A, since all cevians
from A are perpendicular to BC. However, apart from this extreme case, a spher-
ical triangle does have three unique altitudes that are concurrent. For these and
other issues, see §89 (pp. 59–60), §92 (pp. 62–64), and §153 (pp. 113–114) of [29]
and §71 (p. 70), §74 (pp. 75–76), and §75 (pp. 78–79) of [5]. Orthocenters for
triangles in hyperbolic geometry are more intricate, and they are treated fully in
[20, Theorem 4], where it is shown, among other things, that the orthocenter of a
triangle ABC exists (and is unique) if each of the angles is less than or equal to
120◦ . The treatment of orthocenters in [20] involves deep relations of the existence
of an orthocenter with a Jacobi’s identity in the underlying space.
The incenter, circumcenter, and centroid also have exact analogues for tetrahedra
and, more generally, for n-dimensional simplices for all n ≥ 3. However, for n ≥ 3,
the altitudes of an n-dimensional simplex are not necessarily concurrent. Simplices
whose altitudes are concurrent are known as orthocentric, and they form a very
special class that has attracted a lot of attention and generated a lot of research;
see [8] and [15] for their interesting properties.
In normed (or Minkowski) planes whose unit circles are strictly convex curves
centered at the origin, the notion of altitudes, and hence of orthocenters, of tri-
angles do not have unique interpretations, since in such planes different types of
orthogonality exist. It turns out that the altitudes of a triangle are concurrent if
orthogonality is taken to be the so-called James orthogonality; see [23], However,
if the more common Birkhoff orthogonality is considered, then the altitudes of an
arbitrary triangle are not necessarily concurrent. In fact, the Euclidean subcase is
characterized by this concurrence for arbitrary triangles; see [33]. This subcase is
especially rich in the sense that there is a large variety of elegant and methodolog-
ically very different proofs of orthocentricity. Presentation of these proofs is the
main aim of this note.
Thus we shall give below several proofs that the altitudes of a general triangle in
the Euclidean plane are concurrent, meeting at the point known as the orthocenter.
Two of the proofs, Proofs No. 3 and 10, use simple properties of cyclic quadrilaterals

3
that are quite visible in Euclid’s Elements, making it hard to believe that Euclid was
unaware of these proofs. Another proof, Proof No. 6, is an immediate application
of the well known theorem of Ceva that deals with the concurrence of cevians of
a triangle. Proof No. 7 is an immediate application of the Ceva-like theorem that
deals with the concurrence of perpendiculars erected on the sides of a triangle. Proof
No. 8 uses vectors and establishes the concurrence of altitudes together with the
Euler line theorem in one stroke, and Proof No. 9 uses complex numbers. Proof
No. 2, due to Newton, uses simple properties of similar triangles. Proof No. 11 is
quite interesting in that it makes use, in a very non-standard manner, of what can
be thought of as a dual to Proof No. 4.
A most intricate and elegant proof, namely Proof No. 1, consists of creating
an auxiliary triangle whose perpendicular bisectors are the altitudes of ABC. It
must be interesting to know that this extremely elegant and intricate proof is due to
Gauss. The proof also shows that the concurrence of altitudes is equivalent to that
of the perpendicular bisectors, and thus shows that the concurrence of the altitudes
is equivalent, in absolute geometry, to the Parallel Postulate. Other equally elegant
proofs, namely Proofs No. 4 and No. 5, use simple properties of cyclic quadrilaterals
to conclude that the altitudes of ABC are the angle bisectors of another triangle
A′ B ′ C ′ , which are known to be concurrent by Proposition 4 in Book IV of the
Elements.
In view of the simplicity and accessibility of some of these proofs, we find it curi-
ous why there is no mention of the orthocenter in the Elements. An average Greek
geometer spending some hours on the seashore and experimenting with triangles
would naturally have come to the discovery that the altitudes of a triangle are con-
current and would have had very little difficulty proving it. It is interesting to hear
students’ and instructors’ speculations on the complete absence of the orthocenter
in Euclid’s Elements, and we shall announce our share of such speculations later in
this note.

2. A simple reduction To prove that the altitudes of a general triangle are

concurrent, one may restrict oneself to acute-angled (or simply acute) triangles.
This follows from the following simple lemma.

Lemma. If the altitudes of every acute triangle are concurrent, then the altitudes
of every triangle are concurrent.

Proof. Suppose that the altitudes of every acute triangle are concurrent, and let
ABC be a triangle whose angle A is obtuse. Let BB ′ , CC ′ be the altitudes of ABC
from B, C; see Figure 1. If BB ′ , CC ′ are produced to meet at E, then EBC is
an acute triangle having BC ′ , CB ′ as altitudes that meet at A. Hence the third
altitude from E of EBC must pass through A, since the altitudes of EBC, being

4
acute, are assumed to be concurrent. In other words, the altitudes of ABC meet at
E. 

Thus we restrict our attention from now on to acute triangles. Also, we follow
Euler’s practice and denote the angles (and their measures) and side lengths of a
triangle ABC by A, B, C, a, b, c, in the standard order. Both a line segment XY
and its length will be denoted by XY , and the notation ∠XY Z will denote both
the angle (with apex Y ) and its measure. In Proof No. 8 below, the points of the
plane are thought of as position vectors, and their norms are denoted by ∥ · ∥. In
Proof No. 9, the points of the plane are thought of as complex numbers, and they
are added, subtracted, multiplied, and divided as such.

E
C′ A B′
C′
B′
A

B C

A′
B F C
Figure 1 Figure 2

3. Proofs We now present our different proofs of the fact that the altitudes (of
an acute triangle) are concurrent. Note that the first proof constructs an auxiliary
triangle A′ B ′ C ′ such that the altitudes of ABC are the perpendicular bisectors of
the sides of A′ B ′ C ′ , while the second proof constructs a triangle A′ B ′ C ′ such that
the altitudes of ABC are the angle bisectors of A′ B ′ C ′ . Similarly for the third
proof. It would be interesting to construct a triangle A′ B ′ C ′ such that the altitudes
of ABC are the medians of A′ B ′ C ′ .

Proof No. 1. ([19, Exercise 2C.3, page 66]) Referring to Figure 2, we draw
from A, B, and C lines parallel to BC, CA, and AB, respectively, and we let
A′ B ′ C ′ be the triangle thus formed. The altitudes of ABC are obviously the
perpendicular bisectors of the sides of A′ B ′ C ′ , and hence they are concurrent.
According to [22], this proof is due to Gauss. It has appeared in several
textbooks; see, for example, [10, Example 22, p. 122], [1, Exercise 1.28, p. 30],
and [12, §3.2, pp. 36–37].

5
Proof No. 2. This proof appears as Exercise 4.4 (p. 108) in [25], where it is
attributed to Newton [24, p. 454, vol. IV]. Referring to Figure 3, we let E be
the intersection of the altitudes AA′ and BB ′ . The similarity of the triangles
BA′ E and AA′ C implies that

EA′ A′ C
= ,
A′ B AA′
and therefore
(A′ C)(A′ B)
EA′ = .
AA′
Similarly, if F is where the altitudes AA′ and CC ′ meet, then it follows by
symmetry that
(A′ B)(A′ C)
F A′ = ,
AA′
and thus EA′ = F A′ and E = F . Thus BB ′ and CC ′ meet AA′ at the same
point, implying that the three of them are concurrent.

A A

C′
B′ B′
E E

B A′ C B A∗ C

Figure 3 Figure 4

Proof No. 3. In this simple proof, we let the altitudes BB ′ and CC ′ of ABC
meet at E, and we extend AE to meet BC at A∗ ; see Figure 4. To show that
AA∗ is perpendicular to BC, we use the facts that AC ′ EB ′ and C ′ B ′ CB are
cyclic quadrilaterals to conclude that

∠BAA∗ = ∠C ′ B ′ B, ∠C ′ B ′ B = ∠C ′ CB.

Hence ∠BAA∗ = ∠C ′ CB, and therefore ACA∗ C ′ is cyclic. Thus ∠AA∗ C =

∠AC ′ C = 90◦ , as desired.
This proof shows that if AA′ , BB ′ , and CC ′ are the cevians through a point
E inside a triangle ABC, and if the quadrilaterals AC ′ EB ′ and C ′ B ′ CB are

6
 cyclic, then E is the orthocenter of ABC. In fact, it is true that if any two of
the six quadrilaterals

AC ′ EB ′ , BA′ EC ′ , CB ′ EA′ , C ′ B ′ CB, A′ C ′ AC, B ′ A′ BA

are cyclic, then they are all cyclic and E is the orthocenter; see [2, Theorem
4].

Proof No. 4. ([19, Exercise 2A.3, page 55, and Exercise 2E.5, page 79]) In this
proof, we let the altitudes AA′ , BB ′ , and CC ′ of ABC meet the circumcircle
of ABC at A′ , B ′ , and C ′ as in Figure 5, and we show that AA′ , BB ′ , and CC ′
bisect the angles of A′ B ′ C ′ , and hence they are concurrent. Note that AA′ ,
BB ′ , and CC ′ are drawn to be in “general position” (i.e., non-concurrent),
since we have not established their concurrence yet.
The fact that AA′ bisects ∠B ′ A′ C ′ follows immediately from

∠B ′ A′ A = ∠B ′ BA = 90◦ − A, ∠C ′ A′ A = ∠C ′ CA = 90◦ − A.

C′
A
A

C′

B B′ B′

A′ B A′ C

Figure 5 Figure 6

Proof No. 5. (See also [19, Corollary 2.43, page 89]) Here again we show that
the altitudes AA′ , BB ′ , and CC ′ of ABC are the angle bisectors of A′ B ′ C ′ ,
and conclude that these altitudes are concurrent. As in the previous proof,
AA′ , BB ′ , and CC ′ are drawn, in Figure 6, to be in “general position” (i.e.,
non-concurrent), since we have not established their concurrence yet. Now the
fact that AA′ bisects ∠B ′ A′ C ′ follows from

∠B ′ A′ A = 90◦ − ∠B ′ A′ C = 90◦ − A, ∠C ′ A′ A = 90◦ − ∠C ′ A′ B = 90◦ − A.

7
 We have used the fact that ABA′ B ′ is cyclic, which follows from the assump-
tion that
∠AB ′ B = ∠AA′ B = 90◦ .
Note. The short proof above has the advantage of showing that the altitudes
AA′ , BB ′ , CC ′ of ABC are the angle-bisectors of A′ B ′ C ′ without assuming
that AA′ , BB ′ , CC ′ are concurrent. With the assumption that AA′ , BB ′ ,
CC ′ are concurrent, this has appeared as a problem, with an unduly com-
plicated proof, in [21]. The proof was later simplified, but still assuming the
concurrency of AA′ , BB ′ , CC ′ , in [30]. The same is done in [3, Problem 4,
p. 153].
Proof No. 6. This proof uses Ceva’s Theorem, which states that the cevians AX,
BY , CZ are concurrent if and only if
AX BY CZ
= 1;
XC Y A ZB
see, for example, [19, (4.2), p. 126] or [25, Theorem 4.5, p. 88]. The con-
currence of the altitudes AA′ , BB ′ , CC ′ of ABC now follows from Ceva’s
Theorem and the simple calculations
BA′ CB ′ AC ′ c cos B a cos C b cos A
′ ′ ′
= = 1.
AC BA C B b cos C c cos A a cos B
Note. We have essentially used the facts that
AB ′ AC ′
cos A = , cos A =
AB AC
to conclude that
AB ′ AC ′
= .
AB AC
But this follows from the similarity of triangles CAC ′ , BAB ′ without any
resort to trigonometry. This is what is done in [4, Cor. 3.18, pp. 43–44].
Proof No. 7. Ceva’s Theorem is quite handy for establishing the concurrence
of the cevians that pertain to the centroid, the incenter, and the orthocenter.
However, it does not work for the circumcenter, since the perpendicular bisec-
tors of the sides are not cevians. A Ceva-like theorem that works beautifully
in this situation is established in [6], where it is proved that the perpendic-
ulars erected on the sides BC, CA, and AB at the points A′ , B ′ , and C ′ ,
respectively, are concurrent if and only if
(BA′ )2 + (CB ′ )2 + (AC ′ )2 = (A′ C)2 + (B ′ A)2 + (C ′ B)2 . (1)
The concurrence of the altitudes is immediate, since each side of (1) is equal,
by Pythagoras’ Theorem, to
( 2 ) ( )
c + a2 + b2 − (AA′ )2 + (BB ′ )2 + (CC ′ )2 .

8
Proof No. 8. ([19, Theorem 2.10, page 61]) In this short vector proof, we place
ABC in the cartesian plane in such a way that the circumcenter C coincides
with the origin O, and we prove that the line joining A to the point H =
A + B + C is perpendicular to the line joining B and C. This follows easily
from the simple calculation

((A + B + C) − A) · (B − C) = ∥B∥2 − ∥C∥2 = R2 − R2 = 0,

where R is the circumradius. Thus H lies on the altitude from A, and similarly
on all the altitudes.
The proof shows that the altitudes are concurrent and their point of concur-
rence is H = A+B +C. Since the centroid G is given by G = (A+B +C)/3, it
follows that the centroid G is on the line segment joining the circumcenter O
and the orthocenter H and divides it in the ratio 1 : 2. This is the celebrated
Euler Line Theorem.

Proof No. 9. ([13, §2.4, p. 71] and [34, pp. 49–50]) In this proof, we use complex
numbers. We place the triangle ABC in the plane so that its circumcenter
P lies at the origin, and we assume, without loss of generality, that the cir-
cumradius is 1. We let α, β, and γ be the complex numbers representing the
vertices A, B, and C, respectively, and we let µ be the point representing the
midpoint M of BC. Then µ = (β + γ)/2.
Let σ = α + β + γ, and let S be the point that σ represents. Since P M is
perpendicular to BC, it follows that (γ − β)/µ is purely imaginary. Therefore
(γ − β)/(2µ) (i.e., (γ − β)/(σ − α)) is purely imaginary. Therefore SA ⊥ BC.
This shows that S lies on the altitude from A. Similarly, S lies on all the
altitudes, showing that the altitudes are concurrent.

Proof No. 10. ([19, Problem 2.6, page 53, and Exercise 2A.4, page 55]) In this
proof, we extend the altitude AA′ of ABC to meet the circumcircle of ABC
at A∗ , as shown in Figure 6, and we take P on the line segment AA′ so that
P A′ = A′ A∗ . Clearly, the triangles BP A′ and BA∗ A′ are congruent, and hence
∠P BA′ = ∠A∗ BA′ . Also, ∠A∗ BA′ = ∠CAA′ . Therefore ∠P BA′ = ∠CAA′ ,
and therefore ABA′ B ′ is cyclic. Hence ∠BB ′ A = ∠BA′ A = 90◦ . In other
words, the altitude from B crosses AA′ at P . Similarly, the altitude from C
crosses AA′ at P , proving that the altitudes are concurrent.

9
 A
A
C′

B′

B′ I
B P

B C
A′
C

A∗ A′
Figure 7 Figure 8

Proof No. 11. This proof is based on one of the problems of the 1987 Australian
Mathematics Competition and may be thought of as a dual to Proof No. 4. A
rather lengthy treatment of the problem is given in [28, Problem 4.1, pp. 50–
52]. Here we give an extremely short proof, and we describe how the problem
implies, in a rather non-standard manner, the concurrence of the altitudes of
a triangle.
The problem starts with a triangle ABC, lets its angle bisectors, when ex-
tended, meet the circumcircle of ABC at A′ , B ′ , C ′ , and asks us to show that
A′ A, B ′ B, C ′ C are altitude lines of the triangle A′ B ′ C ′ ; see Figure 8. The
fact that AA′ is perpendicular to B ′ C ′ follows from
∠C ′ B ′ A′ + ∠B ′ A′ A = ∠C ′ B ′ B + ∠A′ B ′ B + ∠B ′ A′ A
= ∠C ′ CB + ∠A′ AB + ∠B ′ BA
C A B
= + + = 90◦ .
2 2 2
This shows that the altitudes of A′ B ′ C ′ are concurrent. Since the angles of
A′ B ′ C ′ are given by
B C A
A′ =+ = 90◦ − , etc.,
2 2 2
and since the angles U , V , W of an arbitrary acute triangle are given by
A B C
U = 90◦ − , V = 90◦ − , W = 90◦ −
2 2 2
for some triangle ABC, it follows that the altitudes of an arbitrary acute
triangle are concurrent.

10
Proof No. 12. We add here that a proof using analytical geometry (i.e., cartesian
coordinates) can be found in [4, Theorem 8.9, pp. 167–168].

4. Remarks
Remark 1. Orthocenters for tetrahedra and higher dimensional sim-
plices. It is well known that the altitudes of a tetrahedron, and similarly for an
n-dimensional simplex (n ≥ 4), are not necessarily concurrent. When they are, the
simplex is called orthocentric, and the point of concurrence is called the orthocenter.
Orthocentric simplices have attracted a lot of attention, and there is a lot of research
on them; see [8] and [9]. They seem to be the natural generalizations of arbitrary
triangles in the sense that many of the triangle’s properties that do not hold true
for general n-dimensional simplices hold beautifully for orthocentric ones. This is
elaborated on lengthily in [15]
Remark 2. Interrelations among various concurrences. In Gauss’s proof
No. 1, the concurrence of altitudes is made to follow from that of perpendicular
bisectors. In Proofs No. 4, 5, and 11, it is made to follow from the concurrence of
angle bisectors. It is natural to search for a proof in which the concurrence of the
medians plays a key role.
Remark 3. Concurrence of altitudes as a non-absolute theorem. At first
sight, Proofs No. 4, 5, and 10 seem to imply that if the angle bisectors of every
triangle are concurrent, then the altitudes of every acute triangle (and hence every
triangle) are concurrent. Since the concurrence of the angle bisectors is an absolute
theorem, this seems to imply that the concurrence of the altitudes is also an absolute
theorem, contradicting a previous statement. However, a quick examination of these
proofs reveals that they all use, besides the concurrence of the angle bisectors, other
non-absolute theorems, such as the sum of the angles of a triangle being equal to π,
etc.
Remark 4. Speculations. As mentioned earlier, many of the proofs mentioned
above fit quite well in Euclid’s Elements, making it more curious why none of them
is in there, and making one wonder whether Euclid was aware of and uneasy about
the non-concurrence of the altitudes of a general tetrahedron. One might fancy that
the Euclideans were aware of the fact that the altitudes of a triangle are necessarily
concurrent and that the altitudes of an arbitrary tetrahedron are not, and that
they swore to keep secret every detail of such an irritating fact; and having learnt
the lesson of the√Pythagorean who lost his life for revealing the equally irritating
irrationality of 2, the Euclideans fully respected their oath. This would be a
realistic speculation if there was evidence that the Greeks knew anything about
the incenter, circumcenter, or centroid of a tetrahedron. In all cases, it raises the
question, for historians of mathematics, whether they did.

11
References
[1] J. M. Aarts, Plane and Solid Geometry, Springer, New York, 2008.

[2] S. Abu-Saymeh and M. Hajja, In search for more triangle centres - a source of
classroom projects in Euclidean geometry, Internat. J. Math. Ed. Sci. Tech. 36
(2005), 889–912.

[3] T. Andreescu and B. Enescu, Mathematical Olympiad Treasures, Birkhäuser,

Boston, 2004.

[4] O. Byer, F. Lazebnik, and D. L. Smeltzer, Methods for Euclidean Geometry,

MAA, Washington, D. C., 2010.

[5] J. Casey, A Treatise on Spherical Trigonometry, and Its Applications to Geodesy

and Astronomy, Longmans, Green, & Co., London, 1889.

[6] P. E. Clement, The concurrence of perpendiculars, Amer. Math. Monthly 65

(1958), 601-605.

[7] E. J. Dijksterhuis, Archimedes, translated by C. Diksboorn, Princeton Univer-

sity Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1987.

[8] A. L. Edmonds, M. Hajja, and H. Martini, Orthocentric simplices and their

centers, Results Math. 47 (2005), 266-295.

[9] A. L. Edmonds, M. Hajja, and H. Martini, Orthocentric simplices and biregu-

larity, Results Math. 52 (2008), 41-50.

[10] H. G. Forder, A School Geometry, Cambridge at the University Press, Cam-

bridge, 1949.

[11] M. Gardner, Mathematical Circus, Knopf, New York, 1979.

[12] V. Gutenmacher and N. B. Vasilyev, Lines and Curves, Birkhäuser, Boston,

2004.

[13] L-s. Hahn, Complex Numbers & Geometry, MAA, Washington, D. C., 1994.

[14] M. Hajja and P. Walker, Why must the triangle’s medians be concurrent? Math.
Gaz. 85 (2001), 481-482.

[15] M. Hajja and H. Martini, Orthocentric simplices as the true generalizations of

triangles in space, Math. Intelligencer 35 (2013), to appear.

[16] T. L. Heath, Euclid – The Thirteen Books of the Elements, Vols. 1, 2, 3, second
edition, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1956.

12
[17] T. L. Heath, The Works of Archimedes, Dover Publications, Inc., New York,
2002.
[18] J. P. Hogendijk, Two beautiful geometrical theorems by Abū Sahl Kūhı̄ in a
17th century Dutch translation, Tārı̄kh-e Elm: Iran. J. Hist. Sci., 6 (2008),
1–36.
[19] I. M. Isaacs, Geometry for College Students, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, Cali-
fornia, 2001. Reprinted by Amer. Math. Soc., Rhode Island.
[20] N. V. Ivanov, Arnol’d, Jacobi identity, and orthocenters, Amer. Math. Monthly
118 (2011), 41–65.
[21] V. F. Ivanoff, Problem 837, Math. Mag. 45 (1972), p. 166–167; solution, ibid
46 (1973), 110–111.
[22] H. Martini, Recent results in elementary geometry, Part II, Proceedings of the
2nd Gauss Symposium. Conference A: Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
(Munich, 1993), 419–443, Sympos. Gaussiana, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1995.
[23] H. Martini and M. Spirova, The Feuerbach circle and orthocentricity in normed
planes, Enseign. Math. (2) 53 (2007), 237–258.
[24] I. Newton, The Mathematical Papers of Isaac Newton, 8 vols., edited by D. T.
Whiteside, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1967–1981.
[25] A. Ostermann and G. Wanner, Geometry by Its History, Springer, New York,
2012.
[26] Proclus, A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements, Translated
with Introduction and Notes by Glenn R. Morrow, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey, 1970.
[27] S. Stein, Archimedes – What Did He Do Besides Cry Eureka?, MAA, Wash-
ington, D. C., 1999.
[28] T. Tao, Solving Mathematical Problems, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.
[29] L. Todhunter, Spherical Trigonometry, MacMillan and Co., 1866.
[30] C. W. Trigg, Comment on Problem 837, Math. Mag. 47 (1974), 59.
[31] A. A. Ungar, Hyperbolic Triangle Centers, Springer, New York, 2010.
[32] G. A. Venema, Foundations of Geometry, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2006.
[33] G. Weiss, The concepts of triangle orthocenters in Minkowski planes, J. Geom.
74 (2002), 145–156.

13
 [34] I. M. Yaglom, Complex Numbers in Geometry, Academic Press, New York,
1968.

Mowaffaq Hajja
Department of Mathematics
Yarmouk University
Irbid – Jordan
mhajja@yu.edu.jo, mowhajja@yahoo.com

and

Horst Martini
Faculty of Mathematics
Chemnitz University of Technology
09107 Chemnitz – Germany
horst.martini@mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de

14

View publication stats