A community for students.
Here's the question you clicked on:
 0 viewing
FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
WILL MEDAL AND FAN! HELP BEEN WAITING FOREVVVERRRRR! Find the two errors in this twocolumn proof and correct them.
FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
WILL MEDAL AND FAN! HELP BEEN WAITING FOREVVVERRRRR! Find the two errors in this twocolumn proof and correct them.

This Question is Closed

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0@Vocaloid @Preetha @welshfella

anonymous
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0no angle E and it equals 180 degres

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0mike that's not the answer read the proof theres an e

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0please don't just do that I want an explanation mike.... which is why I tagged vocaloid

Vocaloid
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0ah, not quite sure about this one, I would wait for the others to get here

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0@skullpatrol

anonymous
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0can someone help me?

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0please do not ask for help on other peoples questions.... I have been waiting on this for forever and a half....

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1I cant help sorry. Its such a long time since I did geometry and the postulates were called different things in my time.

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0@uri @pooja195 @ganeshie8 helppp

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0@Miracrown @karatechopper help please!

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0@Abhisar help!!!!

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1 also it was in the UK look like the errors are in the reasons.

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0yes I believe so too, but I really hope someone helps me figure this out....

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0CPCTC 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
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.02nd repost of this question, been waiting 2 hours... wow

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0@paki @kropot72 @Luigi0210 @sleepyjess

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1I've done a google on postulates of equality it looks like 7 should be the transitive postulate of equality

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0well that is half of it... now we just need the other error...

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1check this out: http://mycoggeometric.blogspot.co.uk/2005/11/generalpostulatesduduciveproofs.html what do you think?

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I honestly do not know but it sounds right,

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1maybe also  as there are 2 sides and 1 angle involved line 8 should be SAS?

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0@dan815 @nincompoop @Preetha @ganeshie8 @texaschic101 @Data_LG2 @jagr2713 @acxbox22 @Mimi_x3 @YanaSidlinskiy PLEASE HELPPPPP

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I honestly have no idea... but I hope someone actually comes to help us.....

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1no SAS presumably means 2 sides and the angle in between those 2 sides

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0@perl some assistance please?

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1dw:1435172128577:dw

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1the 2 triangles are congruent by SSS because the line OE is common to both triangles

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1LE is congruent to NE and LO is congruent to NO

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0so which reasons for which steps I am confused because I am tired

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1I would put transitive reason for step 7 and SSS for line 8

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0hmmm.... alright, just food for thought though, what is your take on this perl?

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1The reason for number 6 is wrong

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1You can only use CPCTC after you show the two triangles are congruent, not before. You need a different reason

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1ah  that makes sense

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I see, so what would te reasoning be?

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1I 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
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1What's odd about this proof, you could delete line 6 and the proof would still follow logically. Lines 15 and 7 are sufficient for ASA

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Let me do something different. I have an idea.

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0it says he mae two errors though.... what are they and what should they be corrected to? and okay

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1is transitive equality correct @perl

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1The reason for 7 seems odd as well. Because thats a congruence symbol being used.

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0so how do we correct the two errors for the proof?

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1the reason for 7 could be "all right angles are congruent"

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Do you have a book , i would like to check the theorems and axioms you use.

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0is there a property for that?

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1This is interesting here http://www.ohschools.k12.oh.us/userfiles/225/Classes/6019/4per26day3oct14.pdf

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0yes, 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
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1yes  that looks good

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1I'm thinking this. 6. m<LEO = m <NEO Transitive property of equality 7.<LEO congruent <NEO Definition of congruent angles

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1There is a definition of congruent angles: If two angles have the same equal measure, then they are congruent.

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0yes that works thanks so much both of you!

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0It 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
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Can you see how ASA congruence follows from the previous steps: <OLN ≅ <LNO LE ≅ EN <LEO ≅<NEO

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1also I don't like step 6 for another reason. You may have not learned that the sides opposite congruent base angles are congruent.

FredFredBurgerYes
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0yes, it all makes sense now! 8D

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1iIl really have to get hold of a geometry text book for UK students and see how they teach geometry these days...

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1As a corollary to this proof we have OL ≅ ON by CPCTC

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1yes it would be nice if geometry was standardized, the way algebra is. Different books or countries sometimes use different 'reasons'.

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1The level of rigor that is required in a geometry proof varies.

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1yes 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
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1yes I've seen some books dispense with congruence symbols. It looks like this proof is more detailed :)

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Yes  we we never as rigorous as the US is .

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1The original greek euclidean proofs used congruence, not equality, for the most part.

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1One of the interesting things about geometry is that you can prove a lot of things without actually ever using 'numbers' .

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1You would have to add an axiom that all right angles are congruent, though.

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1for example you can say, the sum of the interior angles makes the same angle as a straight line.

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1but 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
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1There 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
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1yes that's interesting

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Today 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
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1No the Greeks were more or less 'all geometry' Wasn't it the arabs and hindus who invented algebra?

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Yes and then descartes and fermat described geometric shapes using algebraic equation on the coordinate plane

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1The word algebra comes for AL Jabra which means (roughly) 'the working out'.

welshfella
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1The history of mathematics is really interesting.

perl
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1You 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
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1In 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
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Analytic 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
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1oh ! 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!!
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.