.
This problem has an underwater stone, which is usually unseen to many people.
This underwater stone is that the problem is OVER-defined.
Indeed, the condition giving coordinates of TWO tangent points is EXCESSIVE:
one tangent point is just enough and it defines the second tangent point
by an UNIQUE way.
In couple of words, I will explain WHY the problem is over-defined.
Indeed, we know that the center must lie on the bisector of the angle,
concluded by the given lines.
From the other side, the center of the circle must lie on the perpendicular
to one of the given lines at the tangency point - so the center
of the circle is the intersection of the angle bisector and the
perpendicular to one of the tangency line at the tangency point.
What are the consequences from the fact that the problem is over-defined ?
The consequence is that when the center is found as the intersection point
of two perpendiculars to the given lines at the tangency points,
the person, who solves the problem, MUST check that the distance
from the intersection point to the given tangency points IS THE SAME:
It will guarantee that the condition of the problem
is self-consistent and is not self-contradictory.
Without such a check, the solution is formally incomplete;
it is completed ONLY when the check is done.
Fortunately, in our case (it is easy to check) the distance from the intersection
point (1,0) to the given tangency points is the same: it is equal to .
--------------------
Comment from student : It's easier of the author provided a graph.
My response : In Geometry, the plots are never considered as a proof
or a tool to make a proof: the plots work and are used for visualization, ONLY.
Especially, in this problem, where the radius is an irrational number ,
and you can not distinct visually from .
So, your attempt to object or to argue my conception is invalid.