FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
WILL MEDAL AND FAN! HELP BEEN WAITING FOREVVVERRRRR! Find the two errors in this two-column proof and correct them.
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
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.
jamiebookeater
  • jamiebookeater
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
1 Attachment
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
@Vocaloid @Preetha @welshfella
anonymous
  • anonymous
no angle E and it equals 180 degres

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
mike that's not the answer read the proof theres an e
anonymous
  • anonymous
step 7
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
please don't just do that I want an explanation mike.... which is why I tagged vocaloid
Vocaloid
  • Vocaloid
ah, not quite sure about this one, I would wait for the others to get here
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
@skullpatrol
anonymous
  • anonymous
can someone help me?
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
please do not ask for help on other peoples questions.... I have been waiting on this for forever and a half....
welshfella
  • welshfella
I cant help sorry. Its such a long time since I did geometry and the postulates were called different things in my time.
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
:(
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
@uri @pooja195 @ganeshie8 helppp
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
@Miracrown @karatechopper help please!
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
@Abhisar help!!!!
welshfella
  • welshfella
- also it was in the UK look like the errors are in the reasons.
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
yes I believe so too, but I really hope someone helps me figure this out....
welshfella
  • welshfella
what is CPCTC?
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
CPCTC is an acronym for corresponding parts of congruent triangles are congruent. CPCTC is commonly used at or near the end of a proof which asks the student to show that two angles or two sides are congruent.
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
2nd repost of this question, been waiting 2 hours... wow
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
@paki @kropot72 @Luigi0210 @sleepyjess
welshfella
  • welshfella
I've done a google on postulates of equality it looks like 7 should be the transitive postulate of equality
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
well that is half of it... now we just need the other error...
welshfella
  • welshfella
check this out:- http://mycoggeometric.blogspot.co.uk/2005/11/general-postulates-duducive-proofs.html what do you think?
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
I honestly do not know but it sounds right,
welshfella
  • welshfella
maybe also - as there are 2 sides and 1 angle involved line 8 should be SAS?
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
@dan815 @nincompoop @Preetha @ganeshie8 @texaschic101 @Data_LG2 @jagr2713 @acxbox22 @Mimi_x3 @YanaSidlinskiy PLEASE HELPPPPP
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
I honestly have no idea... but I hope someone actually comes to help us.....
welshfella
  • welshfella
no- SAS presumably means 2 sides and the angle in between those 2 sides
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
@perl some assistance please?
welshfella
  • welshfella
|dw:1435172128577:dw|
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
@perl
welshfella
  • welshfella
the 2 triangles are congruent by SSS because the line OE is common to both triangles
welshfella
  • welshfella
LE is congruent to NE and LO is congruent to NO
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
so which reasons for which steps I am confused because I am tired
welshfella
  • welshfella
I would put transitive reason for step 7 and SSS for line 8
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
hmmm.... alright, just food for thought though, what is your take on this perl?
perl
  • perl
The reason for number 6 is wrong
perl
  • perl
You can only use CPCTC after you show the two triangles are congruent, not before. You need a different reason
welshfella
  • welshfella
ah - that makes sense
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
I see, so what would te reasoning be?
welshfella
  • welshfella
I know what we used to say (lol!). If the 2 base angles of a triangle are equal then the sides opposite them are also equal ( or congruent as is said now)
perl
  • perl
What's odd about this proof, you could delete line 6 and the proof would still follow logically. Lines 1-5 and 7 are sufficient for ASA
perl
  • perl
Let me do something different. I have an idea.
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
it says he mae two errors though.... what are they and what should they be corrected to? and okay
welshfella
  • welshfella
is transitive equality correct @perl
perl
  • perl
The reason for 7 seems odd as well. Because thats a congruence symbol being used.
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
so how do we correct the two errors for the proof?
perl
  • perl
the reason for 7 could be "all right angles are congruent"
perl
  • perl
Do you have a book , i would like to check the theorems and axioms you use.
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
is there a property for that?
perl
  • perl
This is interesting here http://www.ohschools.k12.oh.us/userfiles/225/Classes/6019/4per2-6day3oct14.pdf
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
yes, but this may be asking for a property of something as the answer I am unsure.. We use properties of this and that plus definition of such and such
welshfella
  • welshfella
yes - that looks good
perl
  • perl
I'm thinking this. 6. m
perl
  • perl
There is a definition of congruent angles: If two angles have the same equal measure, then they are congruent.
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
yes that works thanks so much both of you!
welshfella
  • welshfella
yw
perl
  • perl
Fred it is correct?
perl
  • perl
|dw:1435184442325:dw|
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
It is a practice worksheet that I hand into my teacher, I have to solve problems based upon what we just found which I can now do.. I will let you know later if it was correct and thanks sooooo much!
perl
  • perl
Can you see how ASA congruence follows from the previous steps:
perl
  • perl
also I don't like step 6 for another reason. You may have not learned that the sides opposite congruent base angles are congruent.
FredFredBurgerYes
  • FredFredBurgerYes
yes, it all makes sense now! 8D
welshfella
  • welshfella
iIl really have to get hold of a geometry text book for UK students and see how they teach geometry these days...
perl
  • perl
As a corollary to this proof we have OL ≅ ON by CPCTC
perl
  • perl
yes it would be nice if geometry was standardized, the way algebra is. Different books or countries sometimes use different 'reasons'.
perl
  • perl
The level of rigor that is required in a geometry proof varies.
welshfella
  • welshfella
yes I dont know what its like now but we never used the congruency symbol for angles . Just '='. Only triangles or other polygons were congruent.
perl
  • perl
yes I've seen some books dispense with congruence symbols. It looks like this proof is more detailed :)
welshfella
  • welshfella
Yes - we we never as rigorous as the US is .
perl
  • perl
The original greek euclidean proofs used congruence, not equality, for the most part.
perl
  • perl
One of the interesting things about geometry is that you can prove a lot of things without actually ever using 'numbers' .
perl
  • perl
or measures
welshfella
  • welshfella
Did they ?
perl
  • perl
You would have to add an axiom that all right angles are congruent, though.
welshfella
  • welshfella
yes
perl
  • perl
for example you can say, the sum of the interior angles makes the same angle as a straight line.
welshfella
  • welshfella
yes
perl
  • perl
but i might be wrong about that. I would have to ask a math historian. This is a good discussion on congruence versus equality http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/68400.html
perl
  • perl
There were also limitations on the use of numbers in ancient greece. They knew that there was no way to describe the diagonal of a square using ratios because it is irrational. They did not have a well developed number system like we have today.
welshfella
  • welshfella
yes that's interesting
perl
  • perl
Today we can prove all of euclid's theorem using real numbers and the coordinate plane. So called analytic geometry proofs. I don't know why we don't just do that.
welshfella
  • welshfella
No the Greeks were more or less 'all geometry' Wasn't it the arabs and hindus who invented algebra?
perl
  • perl
Yes and then descartes and fermat described geometric shapes using algebraic equation on the coordinate plane
welshfella
  • welshfella
The word algebra comes for AL Jabra which means (roughly) 'the working out'.
welshfella
  • welshfella
The history of mathematics is really interesting.
perl
  • perl
You can prove that a line intersects a circle in at most two points using analytic geometry for instance. Some proofs are easier if you use vector algebra.
perl
  • perl
In high school i was confused by the teaching of algebra 1 followed by geometry followed by algebra 2. Nobody told me the history behind these subjects.
perl
  • perl
Analytic geometry gets a boost when you include the infinitesimal world. For instance using calculus you can prove easily such things as the formula for the volume of a sphere in terms of its radius. Using synthetic geometry or euclidean methods would be difficult to prove this. Archimedes has a proof I believe.
welshfella
  • welshfella
oh ! I dont want to be rude but I've got to go . It's been an interesting conversation. My daughters calling me to take her shopping!!
perl
  • perl
Take care :)
welshfella
  • welshfella
ty bye

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.