If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content

Proving triangle medians intersect at a point

Prove that for any triangle, the medians intersect at a point 2/3 of the way from each vertex to the midpoint of the opposite side.

Want to join the conversation?

  • blobby green style avatar for user jamesclarks
    This proof begins with the assumption that the ratio between vertex to triangle midpoint and vertex to opposite angle midpoint is 2:3.

    How can you prove this without knowing the 2:3 ratio from the offset?
    (29 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby blue style avatar for user NOTcandy
    Nothing makes sense about the multiplying part ._.
    (13 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • aqualine ultimate style avatar for user ゼクモルドラゴンハート
      I assume you're talking about the (2/3*((a+b)/2) + 1/3*(0), 2/3*(c/2) + 1/3*(0)), which is at of the video. Also the ones at and .

      Before we dive in as to why they were multiplied that way, let's first talk about the difference between a "normal average" and a "weighted average."

      ---------------------------------------------------
      What is the normal average? That's your typical way of doing the average, which is also used for finding the midpoint of a line segment.
      For example, you have two numbers 7 and 5, and you want to find their average. What do you do? Of course you do the sum of those two and divide them by two, in other words, (7+5)/2 = 6.
      Here the normal average is 6.

      However, what if, for some reason, the number 7 weighs three times than 5? In other words, what if the ratio between them is 3:4 where 7 weighs more? This is where weighted average comes in.

      ---------------------------------------------------
      What is the weighted average? It's still your average but taking into account that now your number 7 is more important than your number 5. (Remember that we're weighing 7 three times more than 5)
      Now what's your "weighted average" going to be? It's going to be (7+7+7+5)/4 or (3*7 + 5*1)/4 which equal to 6.5.

      Notice that we divided by four and not two because remember we said that 7 is three times more than 5, and there's only one 5, hence, three plus one is four, which is why we divided them by 4.

      Also, notice that our weighted average is now 6.5, which is 0.5 more than our normal average. Why? That's because we made it so that the number 7 is more important than our number 5 hence the weighted average is closer to 7.

      ---------------------------------------------------
      How does this apply to the video?
      Let's go back at on the video and let's try to breakdown (2/3*((a+b)/2) + 1/3(0), 2/3*(c/2) + 1/3*(0)).
      And remember that Sal said that the intersection point of the medians have the ratio of 2:3.

      What does that mean? As you can see from the video, the intersection point is near to the point ((a+b)/2, c/2). That would mean that that point weighs 2 times than point (0, 0).

      Let's focus on the x-coordinate first. Since we know that (a+b)/2 weighs two more than 0 then the weighted average of the x-coordinate would be:
      ((a+b)/2 + (a+b)/2 + 0) / 3
      Combine like, or same, terms (imagine that (a+b)/2 is a term then our expression would now be):
      (2*((a+b)/2) + 0) / 3
      Let's distribute the 3:
      2/3*((a+b)/2) + 0/3
      Notice that we can 0/3 is the same thing as 1/3*(0) so now our expression would be:
      2/3*((a+b)/2) + 1/3*(0)

      You might be thinking why we divided by 3 and that's because (a+b)/2 weighs two times than 0. In other words, we have two of (a+b)/2 and one of zero. This also explains why we can say 0/3 = 1/3*(0) because we have one zero.

      And there we have it, we derived the expression that Sal made himself. How about the y-coordinate? Same drill.
      (c/2 + c/2 + 0) / 3
      Notice we have two of c/2 and one of 0 so we can rewrite the expression to:
      (2*(c/2) + 1*(0)) / 3
      Distribute the 3 and we have:
      2/3*(c/2) + 1/3*(0)

      And there we have it, we've derived the expressions that Sal did.
      Thank you for reading this far, I hope I somehow enlightened you.
      (22 votes)
  • male robot hal style avatar for user TK
    isn't that i use 2/3 time the a+b/2 enough to find out the x coordinate of centrod, what add teh 1/3 time the x coordinate of the origin ?

    confused .
    (8 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • piceratops ultimate style avatar for user Genius71752
      I believe you are asking why Sal is adding 1/3 times the x-coordinate of the origin when he is already adding 2/3 times a+b/2.

      Let me start with an example. When you have to find the midpoint of two points (a,b) and (x,y) to find the midpoint you must do (a+x)/2 and (b+y)/2. That is exactly the same as doing (1/2a + 1/2x) and (1/2b+1/2y) if you distribute the terms. This is why you have to do 2/3 times a+b/2 and 1/3 times the x-coordinate of the origin to find the x-coordinate of the centroid; its just like finding the midpoint but with 1/3 and 2/3. If you are familiar with expected value/weighted average, it is exactly like calculating that.

      If it still does not make sense, then I'll explain it this way. I think we can agree that the centroid is twice as close to a+b/2 as it is to 0 (the x-coordinate of the origin) because the centroid is 2/3 the way from origin, so it is closer to the point with the x-coordinate of a+b/2 (-). However, since the ratio is 2:1, a+b/2 is 2 OUT OF THREE PARTS, because if the distance from one point of a median to the other is 3, then a+b/2 is 2 (2/3 of 3) and the x-coordinate of the origin is 1. Essentially what Sal is doing is that he is setting up a comparison. By multiplying a+b/2 x 2/3 and the x-coordinate of the origin by 1/3, he is setting up a comparison/ratio of the distance that the centroid is 2/3 of the distance to a+b/2 as it is from the origin.

      In this case, it does not matter if Sal multiplied by 1/3 or not, as the origin's x-value is 0. I think he did that to be thorough. If the origin were some other point that has non-zero x and y-values, multiplying by 1/3 would matter.

      Hope this helps.
      (17 votes)
  • blobby green style avatar for user alicebir28
    why does the mid points have 2/3 and co-mid points have 1/3?
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • aqualine ultimate style avatar for user ゼクモルドラゴンハート
      I'd love to answer your question. It's mesmerizing because it seems like magic that they looked like they appeared out of nowhere.

      To fully understand how they got there, let's first talk about the difference between a "normal average" and a "weighted average."

      ---------------------------------------------------
      What is the normal average? That's your typical way of doing the average, which is also used for finding the midpoint of a line segment.
      For example, you have two numbers 7 and 5, and you want to find their average. What do you do? Of course you do the sum of those two and divide them by two, in other words, (7+5)/2 = 6.
      Here the normal average is 6.

      However, what if, for some reason, the number 7 weighs three times than 5? In other words, what if the ratio between them is 3:4 where 7 weighs more? This is where weighted average comes in.

      ---------------------------------------------------
      What is the weighted average? It's still your average but taking into account that now your number 7 is more important than your number 5. (Remember that we're weighing 7 three times more than 5)
      Now what's your "weighted average" going to be? It's going to be (7+7+7+5)/4 or (3*7 + 5*1)/4 which equal to 6.5.

      Notice that we divided by four and not two because remember we said that 7 is three times more than 5, and there's only one 5, hence, three plus one is four, which is why we divided them by 4.

      Also, notice that our weighted average is now 6.5, which is 0.5 more than our normal average. Why? That's because we made it so that the number 7 is more important than our number 5 hence the weighted average is closer to 7.

      ---------------------------------------------------
      How does this apply to the video?
      Let's go back at on the video and let's try to breakdown (2/3*((a+b)/2) + 1/3(0), 2/3*(c/2) + 1/3*(0)).
      And remember that Sal said that the intersection point of the medians have the ratio of 2:3.

      What does that mean? As you can see from the video, the intersection point is near to the point ((a+b)/2, c/2). That would mean that that point weighs 2 times than point (0, 0).

      Let's focus on the x-coordinate first. Since we know that (a+b)/2 weighs two more than 0 then the weighted average of the x-coordinate would be:
      ((a+b)/2 + (a+b)/2 + 0) / 3
      Combine like, or same, terms (imagine that (a+b)/2 is a term then our expression would now be):
      (2*((a+b)/2) + 0) / 3
      Let's distribute the 3:
      2/3*((a+b)/2) + 0/3
      Notice that we can 0/3 is the same thing as 1/3*(0) so now our expression would be:
      2/3*((a+b)/2) + 1/3*(0)

      You might be thinking why we divided by 3 and that's because (a+b)/2 weighs two times than 0. In other words, we have two of (a+b)/2 and one of zero. This also explains why we can say 0/3 = 1/3*(0) because we have one zero.

      And there we have it, we derived the expression that Sal made himself. How about the y-coordinate? Same drill.
      (c/2 + c/2 + 0) / 3
      Notice we have two of c/2 and one of 0 so we can rewrite the expression to:
      (2*(c/2) + 1*(0)) / 3
      Distribute the 3 and we have:
      2/3*(c/2) + 1/3*(0)

      And there we have it, we've derived the expressions that Sal did.

      I know that this took a long time to read but thank you for reading thus far.
      (17 votes)
  • starky tree style avatar for user King_Kiwi57
    How do you know that the centroid 2/3 of the way from each vertex?
    (6 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • piceratops ultimate style avatar for user Genius71752
    How does Sal know which coordinates of a median to multiply by 2/3 and 1/3? If there a two coordinates for each median, then how do we know which coordinate's x and y values need to be multiplied by 2/3 and which ones needs to be multiplied by 1/3? An answer would be greatly appreciated.
    (8 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • boggle blue style avatar for user Mr. Mulderrig
    How did we prove that the point where the medians intersect divides each median into a 1/3 : 2/3 split? Sal declares it to be true at about , but it's not derived, it's just a given of the example. I turns out to be true because the equations for finding the coordinates of the intersecting point wouldn't work if we didn't have a valid ratio, but where did the ratio come from?
    (5 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user Toa Tamatea
    this lesson would've been better if we were made aware of the 2:3 ratio before it got thrown at us like we should already know lol
    (3 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • piceratops tree style avatar for user Ian Lee
    How are we supposed to know the 2:3 ratio?
    (4 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user BrandonS
    I know that this is the best proof for now, but what about a geometric proof, I mean, without analytic geometry?
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user

Video transcript

- [Instructor] So the goal of this video is to prove that the three medians of a triangle always intersect at one point, which is pretty interesting, because you would expect two different lines with different slopes to intersect in one point, but three lines intersecting in one point is pretty neat. And this is true for all triangles. And so to setup this proof, I put an arbitrary triangle here, but I put one vertex at the origin. That'll simplify the math. And then I put another vertex on the x-axis. And I've given them coordinates. So this one right over here is at zero, zero. This one over here, we're just saying that the x-coordinate is a, and so it's a comma zero. And then this one up here has some x and some y-coordinate. We're just calling them b and c. This is some arbitrary triangle. And if you had some other triangle that had the same dimensions as this one, and this one can have any dimensions 'cause we haven't defined a, b, and c. You could go from this triangle to any of those other ones using rigid transformations. So if we can prove that the median of this triangle, this general triangle, always intersect at one point, this will be true for all triangles. So let's do a little bit more. Let's draw the medians. So what we're going to do is draw lines from each of the vertex to the midpoint of the opposite side. So if we do that, we've drawn all the medians. And it for sure looks like they intersect in one point. But to prove that, let's think about what the coordinates are of the midpoints of each of these sides. So what is the coordinate right over here? Pause this video and think about that. Well this is going to be the midpoint of this top point and this bottom right point. So this length is equal to that length. And for the midpoint, you can really just think about it as you're taking the average of each of the coordinates. So the x-coordinate here's going to be the average of b and a. So you could just write that as a plus b over two, and then the y-coordinate is going to be the average of c and zero. That would be c plus zero over two, or just c over two. And we could do that for each of these points. So this point right over here, its x-coordinate is going to be the average of zero and a. So that's just a over two. And its y-coordinate is going to be the average of zero and zero. You can see that it sits on the x-axis, so its y-coordinate is zero. And then last but not least, what's the coordinate of this point? Pause the video and try to figure that out. All right, well it's going be x-coordinate who's going to be the average of b and zero, which is just going to be b over two. And then the y-coordinate is going to be the average of c and zero, which is just going to be c over two. So way that I'm gonna prove that all three of these medians intersect at a unique point, is by showing you a coordinate that sits on all three lines. If it sits on all three lines, that must be the point of intersection. And that interesting point is 2/3 along the way of any one of the medians. So one way to think about it is the distance between the vertex and that point is 2/3 of the length of the median. So if we just look at this blue median, the coordinate of this point that is twice as far away from the vertex as it is from the opposite side, it will be based on a weighted average of the x and y-coordinates. When we did a midpoint and things were equally far away, you equally weighted the coordinates. So you just took their average. But when you're, if you are closer to this side, you will take a weighted average accordingly. So it's going to be 2/3 times a plus b over two, plus 1/3 times zero, and then the y-coordinate is going to be 2/3 times c over two, plus 1/3 times the y-coordinate here, which is just going to be zero. Now once again, why do we have this 2/3 and this 1/3 weighting? Because we are twice as close to this point as we are to that point. Now if we wanted to simplify it, what would we get? So this two would cancel with that two. So and this is zero, so we would get a plus b over three for the x-coordinate. And for the y-coordinate, this is zero. That two cancels with that two, and we get c over three. So we just found a point that for sure sits on this blue median. Now let's do a similar exercise with this pink colored median. So that pink colored median, what is the coordinate of the point that sits on that median, that is twice as far from the vertex as it is from the opposite side? Well it would be the exact same exercise. We would doubly weight these coordinates. So the x-coordinate would be 2/3 times b over two plus 1/3 times a, 1/3 times a. And then the y-coordinate would be 2/3 times c over two. 2/3 times c over two plus 1/3 times zero. 1/3 times zero. And what does that get us? Well let's see. This two cancels out with that two and we are left with b over three plus a over three. So that's the same thing as a plus b over three and over here, that's zero, that cancels out, that is c over three. So notice, this exact coordinate sits on both the blue median and this pink median. So that must be the place that they intersect. Let's see if that's also true for this orange median. So in the orange median, same exact exercise. And I encourage you to pause this video and try to calculate the value of this point on your own. What's the coordinate of that point on the orange line, where this distance is twice as large as this distance? Well, same idea. We would doubly weight these points right over here. So the x-coordinate would be 2/3 times a over two, plus 1/3 times b. The y-coordinate would be 2/3 times zero. 2/3 times zero plus 1/3 times c. 1/3 times c, and what does that get us? Let's see, that cancels with that. So we have a over three plus b over three. Well that's the same thing as a plus b over three. And then over here, that's just zero. And we're left with c over three. So notice, we have just shown that this exact coordinate sits on all three medians. And so therefore, all three medians must intersect at that point because that point exists on all the lines. We've just shown that. And that's true for this arbitrary triangle. You could make this triangle have arbitrary dimensions by changing your value for a, b, or c. And if you see a triangle that has the same dimensions but just, it's shifted or it's in a different orientation, you can do a rigid transformation, which doesn't change any of the dimensions. And you can show that that would be true for that triangle as well.