A quick introduction to (Ceva’s and) Menelaus’s Theorem

Michael Tang
May 17, 2015

1 Introduction
Menelaus’s Theorem, often partnered with Ceva’s Theorem, is a geometric result that de-
termines when three points related to a given triangle can be collinear. It is also related
to the physics-mathematical technique of mass points; both are used to determine ratios
of side lengths in triangles. Here we will examine the interesting statement and proof of
Menelaus’s Theorem, and give several example problems to illustrate its uses, both in com-
putational and proof-based geometry. Basic knowledge of Ceva’s Theorem is assumed, but
a quick refresher is also given.

2 Menelaus’s Theorem
Before we get to the full statement of Menelaus’s Theorem, we will briefly introduce a con-
vention that helps to generalize geometric proofs and theorems, including Menelaus. This
convention is directed segments: like directed angles, in which angles have signs depend-
ing on their orientations (see [5] for more details on directed angles), but with segments on
a line. When we use directed segments on a certain line `, lengths of segments in ` that
go in opposite directions are given opposite signs, and lengths of segments with the same
direction have the same sign. This generalizes many theorems, most notably, a very basic
and fundamental one: using directed segments, for any three collinear points A, B, C,

AB + BC = AC,

regardless of whether or not B is between A and C. (If B is not between A and C, then AB
and BC have opposite signs, so the left-hand side becomes either BC − AB or AB − BC,
both of which equal AC in the appropriate circumstances.)

A C B

Figure 1: Our length equalities still hold in this case!

As seen, and as noted in [4], the concept of directed segments shares many similarities
with vectors, just only in a single, given dimension.

More relevant to Menelaus’s Theorem, when we multiply or divide lengths on `, the

result is positive if the segments have the same direction, and negative if they have opposite
directions.

1
 Now, the directed-segments statement of Menelaus’s Theorem is as follows:

Theorem 1 (Menelaus, Directed Segments). Direct all segments. In 4ABC, let X, Y, and
Z be points on BC, CA, and AB, possibly extended. Then points X, Y, Z are collinear if
and only if
BX CY AZ
· · = −1.
XC Y A ZB
To derive a non-directed-segments version of this theorem (which is more useful if there
are no configuration issues, or if the problem is computational, not proof-based), notice,
by the properties of directed segments, that BX/XC has a negative sign if and only if X
lies on the extension of segment BC. Therefore, if the equality in Theorem 1 holds, then
exactly one or three of X, Y, Z must lie on the extensions of their respective sides, so that
the left-hand side can be negative. (This makes sense: if exactly two of X, Y, Z are on
extensions or they are all on their sides, it is impossible for X, Y, Z to be collinear.)

This gives us the following non-directed version of Menelaus, whose form is still very
similar. (Essentially, we add a somewhat inconvenient configuration restriction, but then
are allowed to drop the signs on our segments.)

A A
Y
Z
C B
X

C B X Z

Y
Figure 2: The two different configurations of Menelaus.

Theorem 2 (Menelaus, Undirected Segments). In 4ABC, let X, Y, and Z be points on

BC, CA, and AB, possibly extended. Then points X, Y, Z are collinear if and only if exactly
one or three of them lie on the extensions of their respective sides, and
BX CY AZ
· · = 1.
XC Y A ZB
Menelaus’s Theorem can be seen as a sort of counterpart to Ceva’s Theorem, which
deals with the concurrence of three cevians on a triangle:

Theorem 3 (Ceva). Let X, Y, Z be points on the sides BC, CA, AB of 4ABC. Then seg-
ments AX, BY, CZ are concurrent if and only if
BX CY AZ
· · = 1.
XC Y A ZB

2
 Both deal with points on triangles: Ceva tells us when three lines (cevians) are concur-
rent, and Menelaus tells us when three points are collinear. Indeed, the form of the ratios in
both results are exactly the same, which can help in remembering Menelaus if you already
know Ceva, or vice versa.

Following [1], Menelaus and Ceva can be seen as a sort of duality: if points X, Y, Z sat-
isfying the ratio condition are all on the sides of 4ABC, then Ceva holds, and AX, BY, CZ
concur. But if X, Y, Z satisfying the same ratio condition are not all on the sides - specifi-
cally, one or three of them are on extensions of the sides - then Menelaus holds, and X, Y, Z
are collinear. It is indeed a beautiful result that the same ratio equality gives rise to both
concurrence and collinearity, depending on the configuration at hand.

3 Proof of Menelaus’s Theorem

Here we prove the directed version of Menelaus’s Theorem (and per our explanation from
earlier, this will also imply the non-directed version). The standard proof of Menelaus’s
Theorem (as given in [4]) is, somewhat strangely, to drop perpendiculars. That seems
unexpected, but it creates helpful similar triangles, allowing us to get at our ratios.

First, we prove that collinearity implies the ratio condition. Suppose that X, Y, Z are
collinear, all lying on line `. Then, drop altitudes from A, B, C to `, and call their lengths
ha , hb , hc respectively. To deal with different configurations, we can give signs to ha , hb , hc
as well: they are positive if they lie on one side of `, and negative otherwise.

A A

ha
ha
Y C B
X
hc Z
hb
hb hc Z
C B X

Figure 3: Dropping perpendiculars: the two possible configurations.

Then, we have similar right triangles, giving (note the sign!)

BX hb CY hc AZ ha
=− , =− , =− .
XC hc YA ha ZB hb

(You can check that the signs work out in both configurations, given above.) Then multi-
plying, we have
BX CY AZ hb hc ha
· · =− ·− ·− = −1,
XC Y A ZB hc ha hb
as we wanted.

3
 For the reverse direction, ratio condition implying collinearity, a simple application of
phantom points is enough. Suppose that the ratio condition holds, and let line XY intersect
AB at Z 0 . Then, by Menelaus’s Theorem with the points X, Y, Z 0 ,

BX CY AZ 0
· · = −1.
XC Y A Z 0 B
But, because the ratio condition holds with X, Y, Z, we also have
BX CY AZ
· · = −1.
XC Y A ZB
Comparing the ratio conditions gives AZ 0 /Z 0 B = AZ/ZB, which is enough to imply that
Z 0 = Z: write AZ 0 = AB − Z 0 B and AZ = AB − ZB, remembering that these both
hold in directed segments, no matter the configuration. Then we have (AB − Z 0 B)/Z 0 B =
(AB − ZB)/ZB, and adding one to both sides gives AB/Z 0 B = AB/ZB, so Z 0 B = ZB.
By similarly writing Z 0 B and ZB and manipulating, we can get AZ 0 = AZ. These two
conditions mean that Z 0 = Z, regardless of whether Z 0 , Z are on the side or an extension.

4 An example application
Most basic applications of Ceva and Menelaus are just that: applying the two results when
you want to prove collinearity/concurrence, or find ratios given collinearity/concurrence.
“Regular” geometric reasoning usually takes over from there. So, with that in mind, let’s
look at an example problem.

Example 1. (David Altizio) Triangle ABC has AB = 2007 and AC = 2015. The
incircle ω of the triangle is tangent to AC and AB at E and F respectively, and P is the
intersection point of EF and BC. Suppose B is the midpoint of CP . Compute the length
BC.

Solution. This configuration is exactly that of Menelaus: P, F, E are the three collinear
points, we are given essentially the ratio CP/P B, and we can use some basic properties of
the incircle to find some other ratios.

A
E
F

P B C

Let a, b, c be the side lengths BC, CA, AB and s = (a + b + c)/2 be the semiperimeter,
as usual. (We are given c = 2007, b = 2015, and we want to find a.) Then, it is a well known
fact that AF = AE = s − a, F B = s − b, and EC = s − c. (See the first part of [2] for a
proof of this.) Therefore, by Menelaus’s Theorem,

CP BF AE s−b s−a
· · = 1 =⇒ 2 · · = 1.
P B F A EC s−a s−c

4
This simplifies to 2(s − b) = s − c. Then 2s − 2b = s − c, so s = 2b − c. Hence (a + b + c)/2 =
2b − c, and solving for a, we get a = 3b − 3c. With c = 2007 and b = 2015, we find that
a = 3(2015 − 2007) = 24.

Of course, not all problems involving Menelaus will be as straightforward as this one,
as you can see in the practice problems below!

5 Practice Problems
Here are a few practice problems, both computational and proof-based. They are given in
(very) rough order of increasing difficulty - rough being because computational and proof-
based problems can be somewhat unorderable in terms of difficulty. No guarantees that all
problems involve Menelaus directly, but they are all very interesting!
1. In 4ABC, let E and F lie on sides AC and AB, respectively, so that lines EF and
BC intersect at K, where B is between C and K. Let BE and CF intersect at P, and
BD BK
line AP intersect BC at D. Prove that = . (AoPS forums)
CD CK
2. Given noncollinear points A, B, C, segment AB is trisected by points D and E, and F
is the midpoint of segment AC. DF and BF intersect CE at G and H, respectively.
If [DEG] = 18, compute [F GH]. (ARML, 2012)

F
H
G

B D E A

3. The diagram below shows equilateral 4ABC with side length 2. Point D lies on ray
−−→
BC so that CD = 4. Points E and F lie on AB and AC, respectively, so that E, F,
and D are collinear, and the area of 4AEF is half of the area of 4ABC. Compute
AE
AF . (Purple Comet, 2014)

E F

B C D

4. (From [4]) In scalene 4ABC, show that the points at which the external bisectors of
∠A, ∠B, ∠C meet BC, CA, AB, respectively, are collinear. (The external bisector of
∠XY Z is the line perpendicular to its internal bisector.)

5
 5. (From [3]) Let 4ABC have AC = 6 and BC = 3. Point E is such that CE = 1 and
AE = 5. Construct point F on segment BC such that ∠AEB = ∠AF B. EF and
[AEF ] m
AB are extended to meet at D. If [CF D] = n where m and n are positive integers,
find m + n (note: [ABC] denotes the area of 4ABC).

6. (From [6]) The diagonals AC and BD of convex quadrilateral ABCD meet at point
M in such a way that AM = M C and DM = 2M B. Suppose that X and Y are
points on M C and BC respectively such that
AC BY
= = 3.
MX YC
Show that the points D, X, and Y are collinear.

7. (Blanchet’s Theorem) In acute triangle 4ABC, F is the foot of the perpendicular

from C to AB, and P is a point on CF . Let lines AP and BP meet BC and AC at
D and E, respectively. Show that ∠EF C = ∠DF C.

6 On the Horizon
This article was meant to be a quick introduction to Menelaus’s Theorem (and Ceva’s
Theorem), set in a mostly computational context. But Menelaus and Ceva fit into a larger
model, that of projective geometry. In fact, techniques from projective geometry can be
used to quickly prove Ceva and Menelaus at the same time! Further research into that field
is definitely recommended, both for exploration or beauty’s sake, and for occasional use on
olympiads.

Thanks very much to David Altizio for proofreading this article and giving some sug-
gestions, as well as contributing an example problem!

References
[1] Alexander Bogmolny The Menelaus Theorem (1999), available at cut-the-knot.org/
4travelers/CevaAndMenelaus.shtml

[2] Alexander Bogmolny, Incircles and Excircles in a Triangle, available at http://www.

cut-the-knot.org/triangle/InExCircles.shtml

[3] Altheman Mock AIME 1 2006-2007 (2007), available at aops.com/wiki/index.php/

Mock_AIME_1_2006-2007_Problems/Problem_7

[4] Coxeter and Greitzer Geometry Revisited 1967: The Mathematical Association of Amer-
ica, Inc., Washington, D.C.

[5] Evan Chen How to Use Directed Angles (2015), available at mit.edu/~evanchen/
handouts/Directed-Angles/Directed-Angles.pdf

[6] Hang Kim Hoo, Koh Khee Meng em On Menelaus’ Theorem (1996), available
at http://sms.math.nus.edu.sg/smsmedley/Vol-23-2/On%20Menelaus%27%
20Theorem%20(Hang%20Kim%20Hoo%20and%20Koh%20KM).pdf