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.
Here is what an indirect proof means http://regentsprep.org/Regents/math/geometry/GP3b/indirectlesson.htm
ok.. so i would first start with A rectangle doesn't have congruent diagonals
yes. That is as far as I got so far.
lol! what happens next ? ;s
draw a picture of a rectangle, label the sides , show the right angles. draw in a diagonal
show the angles are all 90º
the first thing that comes to mind is using pythagoras to find the length of a diagonal that leads to a direct proof. maybe we can tweak it to make in indirect.
does that make sense (so far ?)
we could do the same thing for the other diagonal |dw:1396377220075:dw|
if the diagonals are not equal to each other, that means a^2+b^2 ≠ a^2 + b^2 and that would only happen if we were not allowed to use the pythagorean theorem. But we have a right triangle (with 90º angle) so we are allowed. therefore our assumption that the diagonals are different must be wrong. that sure sounds convoluted, but it's the best I can come up with.
the equal sign thing means does not equal ?
yes, ≠ means does not equal
ok so i tried doing it in my own words... im going to put it and then delete it
I would change that means that a^2 + b^2 does not equal a^2 + b^2 if we are not allowed to that means that a^2 + b^2 does not equal a^2 + b^2 SO we are not allowed