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.
One moment, need to screenshot!
two angles are supplementary, iff they add to 180°
iff \(\angle FEA\) is supplementary to \(\angle HGD\) \[\text m\angle FEA+\text m\angle HGD = 180°\]
Wait.. I don't understand...
consider the first option, does it agree?
What is it that you don't understand?
Just the overall question. It's weird. It's not option A or B is what I'm getting so far, right?
(check carefully now) Does: \[\text m\angle FEA+\text m\angle HGD = 180°\] agree with option one?
It.. it's not 180, I think..?
I suppose the first thing you have to realize is that any angle, can only have one supplement so iff ∠FEA is supplementary to ∠HGD then effectively A = C, B= D, E=G, F=H
there are only two angles to consider; the big one : ∠FEB = ∠HGD and the little angle : ∠FEA = ∠HGC
where any pair, of one big and one little angle, will always add to 180°,
So A is not true, which makes it the right answer?
but why is A not true?
Because the angles are too big, right?
yeah, big angle + big angle ≠ 180°
Okay, I kinda get it...
(unless all the angles were exactly 90°, which doesn't fit the diagram )
[if i remember correctly] alternate angles are equal, corresponding angles are equal, vertically opposite angles are equal , & co-interior angles are supplementary.
can you find the angles in the first option on the diagram?
In the first one, they look equal to me.. unless I am not understanding this properly.
if they look equal (congruent), are they alternate angles? corresponding angles? vertically opposite angles ?
Alternate, I think..
u can't see any angles alternate to angle EIA
So it's the first option, yes?
Oh, so they're opposite angles?.. so they are congruent.
what is the difference between line 3, and line 4?
They're adding segments together and asking if they're congruent.
3. AB + BC + CD = CD + DE + EF 4. AB + BC = DE + EF What has happened ?
They're.. substituting I think?
what has been substituted for what?
The concurrency, I think.
3. AB + BC + CD = CD + DE + EF 4. AB + BC = DE + EF how are theses lines different ?
Uh.. I have no legitimate clue.
read line 3. and then read line 4.
It removed two of the segments, I see that much.. :/
@TillLindemann no CD
yeas, CD has been taken away from both sides of the equation
Okay.. so it's asking if they're still congruent without them, no?
So would it not be D?..
The question is , what reason justifies us being able to take away some term that appears on both sides of the equation
So D, yes? I'm so confused.
another word for take-away or minusing, is subtraction
Wait. So.. It's C?
does that makes sense now?
Yes, because they removed one of the segments, it makes it the Subtraction property, right?
Yes, the subtraction property of equality states that: if some expression is equal to some other expression, and both expressions have +some term, you can take away the +some term form both sides and the resulting expressions will still remain equal to one another A + c = c+ B (taking away c) A = B
Not sure, but I think it's linear and angle BED...
Er, not angle.. but.. you get what I'm trying to say.
what is the linear angle theorem?
|dw:1434796331473:dw| This right?
that might be the linear angle theorem, but i don't see how it relates to this question
you got \(\angle AEC \cong \angle BED \) (by the vertical angle theorem) right
the linear angle theorem is not about congruence (equality), it is a about supplementary angles
compare the two lines of this question
Is it vertical?..
And still angle BED, right?
yep they are vertically opposite angles in each case
what do you think
Well, I've had this question multiple times before and I always get it wrong...
i'm not going to tell you what the answer is
I know that, but I haven't a single clue on how to find it..
Which parts of the closed passage do you not understand exactly?
Well, this whole section really.
first line says some lines are parallel, some angles are equal. prove some other angle are supplementry
Yes, I think the first answer to the big question is transitive..
i think that is right, what about the next one
vertical angles are congrunent (not supplementary )
It's not linear, right?.. or is it?
Which do you think ?
I think it's linear but I have no clue.. could be the congruent supplements one though.
the congruent supplements theorem involves three angles you have plenty of clues
So then it is linear, no?
why not, eh?
And I think the last one is substitution, because it's assuming, and substituting numbers into the whole thing.
Yep substitution is right
I think it's the first option...
that doesn't prove the what you are trying to prove
the last line of the proof should say something about what you are trying to prove
The congruent supplement one, yeah.. I think that's the right answer.
In this question you are trying to prove that \(\angle 3\cong \angle 6\), ... you have \(\angle 3\cong \angle 7\), ... you need something\(\cong\angle 6\), ...
Now I feel like it's more option D...
Well I don't understand.
\[\angle 3\cong \cdots\cong\angle6, ...\]
That doesn't help me.
Because there is no option with 3 and 6 in it at the same time.
you have \[\angle 3\cong \angle 7, ...\] you need \[\angle 7\cong\angle6, ...\]
So it'd D.
Um, yes it is.
Thank you. That's all I needed for now. Thanks so much for helping.