Prompt:
Let $z_1$, $z_2$ and $z_3$ represent vertices of an equilateral triangle in the complex plane. Show $z_1^2 + z_2^2 + z_3^2 = z_1 z_2 + z_2 z_3 + z_3 z_1$.
Question:
I hope the following question isn't too soft. I know a solution to the above question by taking the sides of the triangle and equating them by rotations in the complex plane of $e^{i\pi/3}$.
What, if anything, is the significance of the result other than showing some clever algebraic manipulation? Does it tell us something unique about equilateral triangles defined by vertices in the complex plane?
Is there any intuition to be gained here?
You can make a nice, somewhat abstract argument that connects this; in particular, equilateral triangles have various nice properties - like:
If we make a leap to trying to think about an analogous polynomial $P(z_1,z_2,z_3)$ such that, at any root, $(z_1,z_2,z_3)$ is an equilateral triangle, then the above conditions translate to:
Together, these yield that if such a $P$ existed, $P$ would have to be a sum of the only two symmetric and homogenous polynomials of degree two, meaning, for some $\alpha$ and $\beta$: $$P(z_1,z_2,z_3)=\alpha(z_1^2+z_2^2+z_3^2)+\beta(z_1z_2+z_2z_3+z_3z_1)$$ but, since we desired $P(z,z,z)=0$ to be a solution, we can calculate that clearly $\alpha=-\beta$ and, dividing out by $\alpha$ would give that the only polynomial that could feasibly represent equilateral triangles would be: $$P(z_1,z_2,z_3)=z_1^2+z_2^2+z_3^2-z_1z_2-z_2z_3-z_3z_1.$$ Then, if you showed that if $P(z_1,z_2,z_3)=0$ implied $P(z_1+c,z_2+c,z_3+c)=0$, which could be done algebraically, or perhaps through some clever manipulation, you would have that the roots of this polynomial satisfied all the conditions we wanted of equilateral triangles - and those conditions suffice to uniquely define the set of equilateral triangles, which proves that $P$'s roots are all equilateral triangles.
The point of this answer is, of course, to draw a connection between the symmetries defining the original problem and how the carry over to symmetries in the algebra and, indeed, suffice to show the statement. You could do this the other way round to learn geometric symmetries from the algebraic form of $P$ as well.