In a recent article [1], Ron Shail has given a Cartesian proof of an interesting theorem due to J. A. Lester. This states that, for any triangle, the circumcentre O, the nine-point centre O9 and the two Fermat points F and Fʹ, (which are the points of concurrence of the joins of its vertices to the vertices of equilateral triangles drawn outwards/inwards on the opposite sides), are concyclic. He refers to Lester's own treatment as needing complex coordinates with computer-assisted algebra; his own proof uses an unpromising method, and results in similar problems. Contemplation of the configuration would suggest that the location of the point of intersection of FFʹ with the Euler line OO9 might lead to a simple proof. The theorem is in fact a corollary from the properties of a remarkable configuration originating with Morley [2, p. 209], and shown in Figure 1. He did not deduce Lester’s result, nor label the crucial point J in the diagram, which was drawn without that particular intersection. Also involved in this figure is a rectangular hyperbola known by the name of its describer Kiepert [3]. It is helpful to discuss all three together. What follows is a journey through country nowadays rather unfamiliar, avoiding the computerised motorway and using older tracks via complex numbers, trilinear coordinates and Euclidean methods which reveal much more than is apparent from a Cartesian treatment.

The cover picture shows a 22° halo seen in Preston on Sunday 28 October 2001 at 10 am. In contrast with a rainbow, the red band is on the inside rather than the outside, the colour bands are much thinner, and the arc is centred round the sun instead of being opposite to the sun. Also, it is not raining. Haloes occur on still sunny days when there is plenty of cirrus cloud. It is possible to see a full circle depending on how high the sun is in the sky. This never happens with a rainbow except when seen from an aeroplane. Sometimes the colours are particularly vivid at the 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock points. These vivid areas are called parhelia or mock suns. Sometimes the parhelia are all that can be seen.

If the bisectors of the base angles of a triangle are equal, the triangle is isosceles.

Several solutions of the problem are given in the Gazette for July 1932, and again in the issue of May 1933. It is stated in the former that the problem was mentioned in the Lady’s and Gentleman’s Diary of 1859 and of 1860. The history of the problem is interesting. It appears that it was first proposed in 1840 by Professor Lehmus of Berlin to Jacob Steiner, who had been Professor of Geometry at Berlin since 1834 and held that post until his death in 1863.

We have already explained pp. (25-31) that there are two types of uniform three-dimensional space, viz., finite or elliptic space, in which the geodesies or straight lines are closed and of constant length, and infinite or hyperbolic space, in which the geodesies are unclosed and of infinite length. Euclidean or parabolic space may be regarded as a special third type, or as the dividing case between the two general types; but it is best to regard it as a variety of hyperbolic space, owing to the reality of the infinite. In elliptic space all geodesies through a point either return without intersecting again, or have at most one other fixed point of intersection. In hyperbolic space it does not appear necessary that a geodesic should consist of only a single branch, though this is of course the simplest case; if the geodesies have several branches, all geodesies through a point will have a fixed point on each branch, and two geodesies which intersect will have as many points of intersection as they have branches. When we consider two-dimensional space we find that, even in the elliptic type, the geodesies may have any number of intersections, and may be unclosed and infinite. The proof to the contrary on p. 31 does not apply when the geometry is confined to a surface.

For many years candidates (and teachers) involved in A-level work have quoted Newton’s experimental law of restitution as one of the principles enabling collision problems to be solved. It had always seemed to me that it is fortunate that such a simple law holds and also that it is a great pity that there is no simple relationship between the initial and final kinetic energies. Recently, however, I realised that, viewed in terms of invariance, the law is not at all surprising and also that there is a very simple way of dealing with the loss of kinetic energy.