1
$\begingroup$

A planar region C such that there is an interior point that bisects all chords of C that passes through it may be termed centrally symmetric. It appears that such figures exist in non-Euclidean geometry as well.

Question: Are these claims (shown to be valid in Euclidean plane at A claim on the concurrency of area bisectors of planar convex regions) meaningful and valid in the hyperbolic plane (assumption: area bisector and perimeter bisector are definitions that go over to hyperbolic geometry)?

  • A planar convex region is centrally symmetric if and only if its area bisectors are all concurrent.

  • A planar convex region is centrally symmetric if and only if its perimeter bisectors are all concurrent.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know if you were taking 'unique' as part of your definition, but it already follows from the rest of the definition: if there are two points $P$ and $Q$ then only one of them can bisect the chord passing through both of them. $\endgroup$ Commented May 7 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. no need to emphasize 'unique'. Edited. $\endgroup$ Commented May 7 at 18:21

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

"Only if" part (for a symmetric region, bisectors are concurrent) is rather clear.

Now "if" part. Assume that the common point of all bisectors exists, denote it by $O$. Clearly every chord $AOB$ through $O$ is a bisector, otherwise we may find a bisector not passing through $O$. Denote by $X$ our region and by $Y$ the region obtained from $X$ by a symmetry with respect to $O$. One of $X, Y$ can not be a proper subset of another, and we should prove $X=Y$. Assume the contrary. Consider the set $\alpha$ of points on the boundary $\gamma$ of $X$ which belong to the boundary of $Y$. They exist and they form a closed symmetric (with respect to $O$) set. Our assumption $\alpha \ne \gamma$ allows to find an inclusion-maximal interval $PQ$ in the complement $\gamma\setminus \alpha$. Consider two sectors, each formed by $PO, QO$ and arcs of the boundaries of $X, Y$ respectively joining $P$ and $Q$. They must have equal area or perimeter, but one is contained in another. A contradiction.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. As far as I can make out, this argument also settles the claims in the euclidean case as well and can replace the two proofs at mathoverflow.net/questions/448712/…. What does the phrase "if part is rather clear" mean? $\endgroup$ Commented May 8 at 3:42
  • $\begingroup$ "only if" part is rather clear. For a symmetric regions bisectors pass through a center of symmetry $\endgroup$ Commented May 8 at 3:49
  • $\begingroup$ I hope that the answer covers both parts $\endgroup$ Commented May 8 at 7:29
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you again. And I think the nice thing about this argument is its independence from whether the plane is euclidean or otherwise. $\endgroup$ Commented May 8 at 16:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .