At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
|dw:1355350960376:dw| Diagram is not to scale. They are supposed to be equal length I believe.
yeah sorry.....i have no memory of how to do one like this
It's okay. I understand. Would you know how to write a paragraph proof? That's the last question I require some help on.
holy cow is this geometry?
whoa no wonder! yeah buddy.....99% of geometry i have NO memory of...sorry about that.
It's okay. Thank you for your help with the first question. :)
@AriPotta Could you help me with this problem please?
|dw:1355352710085:dw| eh. idunno what to do after that
So, basically angles NMP and CMP are congruent to one another by the ASA Postulate?
Line segment CP is congruent to line segment NM. Line segment NP is congruent to line segment OM. Angles NPM is congruent to CMP. Is that correct?
i'm thinking you mean CPM and not CMP. but i just don't know how we conclude that those two angles are congruent
They gave me this information: Given: Line segment NP is congruent to line segment OM, line segment MN is congruent to line segment PO
i know, that's why i made marked them on the picture
Okay...so the information we have posted is not enough to prove it by one of the postulates?
i don't think so :/ but they wouldn't give you an impossible question...
I think it would be due to the SAS Postulate... Just a moment please.
Oh I don't know where I got the C from. It's supposed to be an O.
lol i knew what you meant
Is there something that we are missing?
it's your question. is all the info there?
I know sometimes when I type or say something aloud, then it helps me figure things out. Yes, everything should be stated.
Line segment NP is congruent to line segment OM Reason: Given Line segment MN is congruent to line segment PO Reason: Given So, I guess we need angles next, since all of the possible line segments have been stated.
I think that NMP is congruent to NPM by the SSS postulate possibly. This is due to NP = OM and MN = PO MP is congruent to MP by the reflexive property. What do you think?
you can't use SSS postulate to prove that two angles are congruent lol
oh my. the reflexive property. i totally forgot about that. loolz.
Oh yeah ^^; I think that the SAS Postulate would make more sense.
triangle NMP is congruent to triangle OPM by SSS
Do you think this is enough to prove it? Line segment NP is congruent to line segment OM Reason: Given Line segment MN is congruent to line segment PO Reason: Given MP is congruent to MP by the reflexive property. Triangle NMP is congruent to triangle OPM by SSS.
Okay, thank you! Would you mind helping me with one more problem please? It's the last one I need to do, and I just want you to check my answers real quick.
um. sure, i guess i can do that
Thank you very much. Write a paragraph proof. Given: line segment BC is congruent to line segment EC and line segment AC is congruent to line segment DC Prove: line segment BA is congruent to line segment ED
Angle ABC is congruent to DEC by the vertical angles are congruent Line segment BA is congruent to line segment DE
It is given that line segment BC is congruent to line segment EC and line segment AC is congruent to line segment DC. Angles ACB and ECD are congruent by the vertical angles theorem. By SAS, triangles ABC and DEC are congruent. Therefore, line segment BA is congruent to line segment ED by CPCTC
Okay, thank you for your help. I really appreciate it.