2N-Wing Butterfly Theorem

Observe a 2N-wing butterfly cradle. Let M denote the nexus. Assume the spikes are crossed by
the circles in points A
N
, ..., A
1
, (M), B
1
, ..., B
N
and C
N
, ..., C
1
, (M), D
1
, ..., D
N
, respectively.
Let p be any permutation of the index set {1, ..., N}. Finally, for i = 1, ..., N, let X
i
and
Y
i
denote the points where A
i
D
p(i)
and, respectively, C
i
B
p(i)
cross the classifier. Then
(1)
1/MX
1
+ ... + 1/MX
N
= 1/MY
1
+ ... + 1/MY
N
.
Note that for N = 1 the theorem reduces to (A). The proof depends on two lemmas.
Lemma 1
Let in RST, RU be a cevian through vertex R. Introduce angles a = SRU and b = URT. Then
(2) sin(a + b)/RU = sin(a)/RT + sin(b)/RS.
The proof is a two-liner that follows from the identity
Area( RST) = Area( RSU) + Area( RUT).
Lemma 2 is a curious result in its own right.
Lemma 2

Assume three rays C, B, and Y emanate from point M with Y between C and B. Assume
also that, for N > 1, points C
1
, ..., C
N
have been marked on C, while points B
1
, ...,
B
N
have been marked on B. Let p be any permutation of indices 1, ..., N. Denote the
intersection of C
i
B
p(i)
with Y as Y
i
. Then the sum of the
reciprocals 1/MY
1
+ ... + 1/MY
N
does not depend on p.
The proof builds on Lemma 1 which is applied to each of the triangles MC
i
B
p(i)
:
(3)
sin(b + g)/MY
i
= sin(g)/B
p(i)
+ sin(b)/MC
i
,
g and b are the angles CMY and YMB, respectively. Add up all the identities (3). After
rearranging the terms, we'll get
(4)
sin(b + g)(1/MY
1
+ ... + 1/MY
N
) = sin(g)(1/B
1
+ ... + 1/B
N
) + sin(b)(1/MC
1
+ ... +
1/MC
N
),
in which the right hand side does not depend on the permutation p. The same
therefore is true for the left hand side.
Proof of Theorem
The proof easily follows from Lemma 2 by pidgin, or is it pigeon, induction (if a statement
holds forN = 1, it holds for any N.) Apply the Butterfly theorem (A) to the i
th
circle, i.e the
triangles MA
i
D
i
and MC
i
B
i
, i = 1, ..., N. If the points of intersection of A
i
D
i
and C
i
B
i
with the
classifier are denoted as, say, S
i
and T
i
, (A) assures us that MS
i
= MT
i
, and
therefore 1/MS
i
= 1/MT
i
. Adding up we get

1/MS
1
+ ... + 1/MS
N
= 1/MT
1
+ ... + 1/MT
N
.
But due to Lemma 2,

1/MS
1
+ ... + 1/MS
N
= 1/MX
1
+ ... + 1/MX
N
, while
1/MT
1
+ ... + 1/MT
N
= 1/MY
1
+ ... + 1/MY
N
,
and the result follows.
Remark
The theorem raises further questions. Each permutation can be represented as a product of
irreducible cycles. It must be obvious that every such cycle is responsible for forming a
unique butterfly. If the permutation is cyclic, the theorem yields a lone insect. However, in
general, the N pairs of wings are split between a number of butterflies, one per an irreducible
cycle that compose the permutation. This is an open question whether the butterflies are just
stuck on top of each other and could be in principle separated, or whether their wings are so
entangled that no separation is possible.
L. Bankoff was amazed with a fantastic variety of solutions to the Butterfly problem -- "some
by Desargues' theorem on involution, some by the use of cross ratios, others stemming from
Menelaus, analytic geometry, trigonometry, advanced Euclidean geometry, and various other
modalities ..." May the braids theory hold the answer to the problem of separation of the
entangled butterflies.