IMO 2013 #3 Revisited
by Wolstenholme, Oct 28, 2014, 3:40 AM
So I feel bad about my earlier solution... it was ugly and took TOO LONG. I actually did the complex bash without even looking at synthetic stuff because I had heard that it was a massive challenge to do so.
But, since the complex bash was so awful, I revisited the problem and came up with this simple hybrid proof:
Actually, using a key synthetic observation, we can massively simplify the complex bash. Let
be the circumcenter of
. Assume WLOG that
is on arc
not containing
of the circumcircle of
and that
. Then we have that
and it is clear that
. Moreover since angles
and
both subtend arc
of the circumcircle of
they are equal so we have that
so
so
is the midpoint of arc
containing
.
Now we can proceed with the complex bash. Assume WLOG that the circumcircle of
is the unit circle. Let
have coordinates
. Then the center of the
-excircle has coordinate
so we find that
. Similarly
and
. We know from our synthetic observation that
.
Now note that
and that
. Therefore
. We also find
. These expressions should clearly be equal, and writing them as differences of squares we obtain
and rearranging yields
which factors as
. It's clear that
and
are nonzero (or else
or
which is impossible) so
. This implies
and
are antipodes on the circumcircle of
which implies that
as desired.
But, since the complex bash was so awful, I revisited the problem and came up with this simple hybrid proof:
Actually, using a key synthetic observation, we can massively simplify the complex bash. Let


















Now we can proceed with the complex bash. Assume WLOG that the circumcircle of









Now note that















