A community for students.
Here's the question you clicked on:
 0 viewing
anonymous
 4 years ago
Let P a point outside the line XY, PO a perpendicular from P to XY, and PZ any line drawn from P to XY. Prove that PZ is not perpendicular to XY
anonymous
 4 years ago
Let P a point outside the line XY, PO a perpendicular from P to XY, and PZ any line drawn from P to XY. Prove that PZ is not perpendicular to XY

This Question is Closed

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0dw:1333151007374:dw

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0dw:1333151163362:dw

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0A triangle can not have more than one right angle.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Well I know that, but that sounds like a theorem and then I would have to prove it too. So double work =/

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0 Extend PO to P', so OP' = OP  Drawn P'Z  POP' is a line.  Then PZP' is not a line  then angle P'ZP does not have colinear sides.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0On the other side  OP = OP'  OZ = OZ  triangle OPZ = triange OZP'  then angle OZP = angle OZP'  and angle OZP = (1/2)*angle P'ZP

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0you can try: PZO is a right triangle. and since POZ is a right triangle, OZP cannot be another right angle because then the sum of the two angles will be 180. and that leaves 0 degrees for the third angle.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0That is a good Idea dpalnc but I haven't proof yet that the sum of the angles on an right triangle is 360º. Then I can't use it.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0hmm... can you prove by contradiction?

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Well I don't know how to prove by contradiction yet. I'm a newbie on the proving world =P

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I don't think I should prove that kind of things, but the goal(of the book i'm studying with) is to develop the geometry from just a bunch of postulates.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0proof by contradiction is kinda like what I first suggested. you take something that is obviously false and assume it to be true. and by the end of the proof you end up with concluding something ridiculous. so the assumption must be false.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0anyway, that's cool that you develop geometry from scratch.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0do you have the parallel postulate then?

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0mmm I don't think so what is that postulate?

TuringTest
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.2you meant the sum of the angles in a triangle is \(180^{\circ}\) you want a proof for that? because if you accept that we can prove your thingy by contradiction easily

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I don't want a proof of that @TuringTest. The thing is that on the book I'm reading proves this in the way I wrote down. The problem is that I don't understand the proof. =(

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0In other words I don't get why it concludes that is true after that series of propositions that I know are true.

TuringTest
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.2ok, so can we accept that a triangle must have 3 angles that add to 180 ?

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Yes if I accept that the proof is very easy. But my goal by now, is not to prove it but understand the proof I just copy.

TuringTest
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.2let us assume that PZ is perpendicular to XY then PZ and OP can never intersect this contradicts the assumption that we drew PZ by connecting XY to P hence PZ is not perpendicular to XY

TuringTest
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.2proof 2: let us call the triangle formed by the three line segments OPZ we know that <OPZ is a right angle let us assume that <OZP is also a right angle that leaves the third angle of the triangle as zero, hence it is not a triangle: a contradiction therefor <OZP is not a right angle, and PZ is not perpendicular to XY

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0That's impressive @TurinTest!

TuringTest
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.2thanks, but they are both two very basic proofs by contradiction a little practice is all that's required
Ask your own question
Sign UpFind more explanations on OpenStudy
Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.
spraguer
(Moderator)
5
→ View Detailed Profile
is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...
23
 Teamwork 19 Teammate
 Problem Solving 19 Hero
 Engagement 19 Mad Hatter
 You have blocked this person.
 ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...
Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.