Pow 2: Fire! Fire!

Victor Vega

October 11, 2021

Problem Statement

Find the set of all points equidistant from 𝑁 lines arranged in the plane.

I. Introduction

The irst thing that comes to mind is to igure out what the distance from a point to a line is. After all, a
line is an in inite set of points, so there are an in inite number of distances for us to consider. The general
consensus is that when we say “the distance between a point and a line”, we’re talking about the shortest
distance.

De inition 1. The distance between a point and a line is the shortest distance from the point to any point
on the line.

It’s helpful to give things names, so from now on i’ll call the point 𝑃, and the line 𝐿. We can show that the
point on 𝐿 perpendicular to 𝑃 is the point on 𝐿 closest to 𝑃 ( igure 1).

Figure 1.
Theorem 1. The point on 𝐿 perpendicular to 𝑃 is the point on 𝐿 closest to 𝑃.

Proof: Consider the point 𝐴 on 𝐿 that is perpendicular to 𝑃, and any point 𝐵 on 𝐿 that isn’t 𝐴. 𝑃, 𝐴, and 𝐵
2 2 2
form a right triangle ( igure 2). The pythagorean theorem gives us that 𝑃𝐴 + 𝐴𝐵 = 𝑃𝐵 .

Figure 2.

2 2 2 2
Since 𝑃𝐵 is equal to 𝑃𝐴 plus some positive number, 𝑃𝐵 is greater than 𝑃𝐴 , and 𝑃𝐵 is greater than 𝑃𝐴.
Since the choice of 𝐵 was arbitrary, 𝐴 is the point on 𝐿 closest to 𝑃, which was to be demonstrated. (We’ve
essentially proved that the side opposite the right angle of a right triangle is the longest side. Neat!)

Now we can move on to the main problem.

II. The case with two lines.

We’re trying to ind all points in the plane that are equidistant from two lines, that is, the distances from
the points to the lines are equal. Let’s work with one point for now ( igure 3).

Figure 3.

The equidistant point seems to be “in between” the two lines. This seems intuitively obvious, but how do
we make it mathematically rigorous? Consider the angle between the two lines, and the line connecting
the equidistant point to the point where the lines intersect ( igure 4).

Figure 4.
This line seems to split the angle in two. In geometry, a line that splits an angle in two is called an angular
bisector.

De inition 2. An angular bisector is a line that splits an angle into two equal angles.

Note that we don’t actually know if our line is an angular bisector, it just looks like it is! For now, let’s just
assume that it is.

We picked one of many points on the bisector. By the looks of it, we could’ve picked any point on the
bisector, and it would’ve been equidistant. Of course, we can’t just assume this is true. This is where we tie
everything together with a proof.

Theorem 2. Any point on the angular bisector of two lines is equidistant from the two lines.

Proof: Consider two lines, their intersection 𝑋, some point 𝑃 on the angular bisector of the two lines, and
two points 𝐴 and 𝐵 on the two lines both perpendicular to 𝑃 ( igure 5). By the de inition of the angular
bisector, ∠𝐴𝑋𝑃 = ∠𝐵𝑋𝑃.

Figure 5.
Since △𝑋𝐴𝑃 and △𝑋𝐵𝑃 share two angles, they are similar triangles, and since they also share a side, they
are congruent triangles. Therefore, 𝑃𝐴 = 𝑃𝐵, which was to be demonstrated.

So our line was indeed an angular bisector, and every point on that line is equidistant.

You may have noticed that two intersecting lines actually make two different angles, and we only
considered one of them. That means there’s another angular bisector that we can get equidistant points
from ( igure 6).

Figure 6.

So any point on one of the two angular bisectors is equidistant from the two lines. Tubular. One last thing.
Note that we considered it given that the 2 lines intersect somewhere.

What about the case when the two lines are parallel? Since the lines never get any closer to each other, we
simply consider the parallel line halfway in between the two lines ( igure 7).

Figure 7.

So any point on this line is equidistant from the two lines. Simple enough.
III. The case with three lines.

There are four different ways to arrange three lines in the plane ( igures 8-12).

Figures 8-12.

You might already be able to see that some of these arrangements don’t have any equidistant points, but
for now let’s start with the top left arrangement that makes a triangle ( igures 8-12).
Let’s call the 3 lines 𝐴, 𝐵, and 𝐶. We’re trying to ind points that are equidistant from 𝐴, 𝐵, and 𝐶. Consider
an angular bisector of 𝐴 and 𝐵, and an angular bisector of 𝐵 and 𝐶 ( igure 13).

Figure 13.

Any point on an angular bisector of 𝐴 and 𝐵 is equidistant from 𝐴 and 𝐵, and any point on an angular
bisector of 𝐵 and 𝐶 is equidistant from 𝐵 and 𝐶. Therefore, the point where the two bisectors intersect is
equidistant from 𝐴, 𝐵, and 𝐶. Radical. Just like before, we can do the same thing with all the other angles,
which gives us 3 more equidistant points, giving us a total of 4 points for this arrangement ( igure 14).

Figure 14.
The same idea can be used to ind equidistant points in the top right arrangement ( igures 8-12). We have
3 lines, 𝐴, 𝐵, and 𝐶, except this time 𝐴 is parallel to 𝐵. We’re trying to ind points that are equidistant from
𝐴, 𝐵, and 𝐶. Consider the angular bisector of 𝐴 and 𝐶, and the angular bisector of 𝐵 and 𝐶 ( igure 15).

Figure 15.

Voila. The point where the bisectors intersect is equidistant from 𝐴, 𝐵, and 𝐶. Now we do the same thing
with the other angles, just like before ( igure 16).

Figure 16.

So this arrangement of lines has 2 equidistant points.

Now for the bottom two arrangements ( igures 8-12). If we use the same method on the bottom left
arrangement ( igures 8-12), inding where the angular bisectors intersect, ( igure 17)

Figure 17.

we’ll notice that the angular bisectors only intersect at one point, where the three lines intersect.
Technically, this point is equidistant from the three lines, but of course it is! It’s right on top of them!
Mathematicians have a special name for solutions that are ridiculously simple and of little interest such as
this one: trivial. We might modify our problem statement to exclude trivial solutions.

Finally, we have the bottom right arrangement ( igures 8-12), and it’s the easiest one. If we use our
method from before ( igure 7) ( igure 18),

Figure 18.

we’ll see that since all the lines are parallel to each other, there are no intersections, meaning there are no
equidistant points in this arrangement. That’s all of the 3 line arrangements.
IV. The case with four or more lines.

Repeating this process for all of the four line arrangements seems daunting, but we really only need to
re lect on how our method for inding solutions applies to 4 lines.

All of our solutions for the 3 line case involved the intersection of 2 angular bisectors from 3 different
lines, so 4 line solutions will involve the intersection of 3 angular bisectors from 4 different lines. It
worked for 3 lines because 2 non-parallel lines will intersect, but 3 non-parallel lines are not guaranteed
to intersect. In fact it would be quite special if they did!

For example, consider this 4 line arrangement ( igure 19).

Figure 19.

Since there are no places where 3 angular bisectors from 3 different angles intersect, this con iguration
doesn’t not have any equidistant points. We can deduce that this will be the case for all other 4 line
arrangements, as well as any arrangement of 5 or more lines.
V. Re lection.

While working on this problem I was particularly fascinated by the delicate arrangements of lines we
were working with. I realised that mathematics has no shortage of challenging problems, even in its most
elementary areas. Something as fundamental as cutting the plane up with lines left me utterly
bamboozled, and to me, this shows just how beautiful mathematics is, and inspires me to keep moving
forward.

VI. Extension question.

Does there exist a way to generate all arrangements of 𝑁 lines with our current mathematical tools?