anonymous
  • anonymous
How would you prove that the sum of the interior angles of a n-gon is 180(n-2) degrees in the case that at least one of the interior angles is greater than 180 degrees?
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.
schrodinger
  • schrodinger
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
Basically how would you prove the case where its a concave polygon? You wouldn't always be able to create a line segment that can connect any two vertices
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
like for example |dw:1436929826981:dw| ?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Yeah, exactly.

Looking for something else?

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

More answers

ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
It will be easy to prove if we consider "signed" angle for sum of exterior angles of a polygon
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
I'm thinking of using the fact that the sum of "signed" exterior angles of any polygon add up to 360
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
count counterclockwise as positive and clockwise as negative |dw:1436930131588:dw|
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
\[\color{blue}{a-b+c-d+e = 360}\]
anonymous
  • anonymous
How can we then extend that to what the interior angles would be? If we had triangle constructed, I know the exterior angle is equal to the sum of the other 2 interior angles. But I don't think we can make a triangle construction, if that would even help.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Well, at least make a triangle construction that would work in any arbitrary case, but Im not positive on that.
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
We may use this : \[\text{interior angle} + \text{exterior angle} = 180\]
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
|dw:1436930692495:dw|
anonymous
  • anonymous
Alrighty, Ill mess with that idea for a minute or two.
anonymous
  • anonymous
And then we would need some angle f at the starting point, right?
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
sry forgot angle \(f\) : |dw:1436931109510:dw|
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
I also don't have the proof yet, still trying..
anonymous
  • anonymous
Ah, okay :)
anonymous
  • anonymous
No worries
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
If we agree that above theorem works, looks we're done!
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
\[\text{interior angle} + \text{exterior angle} = 180\] \[\sum\limits_{1}^{n}\text{interior angle} + \text{exterior angle} = \sum\limits_{1}^n180\] \[\begin{align}\sum\limits_{1}^{n}\text{interior angle} &= \sum\limits_{1}^n180 - \sum\limits_{1}^n\text{exterior angle} \\~\\ &=180n - 360\\~\\ &=180(n-2) \end{align}\]
anonymous
  • anonymous
Well that just dumbed everything down exponentially, haha. Yeah, that's very basic, concise, makes sense :) Awesome, thanks :3
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
XD that signed angles thingy is a bit confusing though, it always trips me and makes me doubt the exterior angle sum thm...
anonymous
  • anonymous
Actually yeah, what exactly did you mean when you said "signed" angles?
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
for convex polygon, it is easy to see that the external angles must add up to 360 for one complete revolution : |dw:1436932101810:dw|
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
for definiteness, lets agree that we always measure angle with respect to that blue extended line, |dw:1436932485018:dw| if the polygon is convex, notice that all the angles will be measured counter clockwise. so we don't have to worry about "sense" here
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
But if we allow the polygons to be concave, some angles will be measured counterclockwise and some clockwise |dw:1436932611913:dw| we need to distinguish between these two
anonymous
  • anonymous
Oh, duh. Signed as in positive or negative with respect to the direction of rotation. I have no idea why I was thinking of signed as in labels or something else. Brain fart, lol.
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Yes haha thats it I guess. For "concave polygons", most of the usual theorems work if we replace "angle" by "signed angle"
anonymous
  • anonymous
Gotcha. This course so far has basically been a bunch of random proofs and then homework that is not aided at all by the proofs done in class or in the textbook, haha. In the end, though, I think being forced to investigate it so much will help me out (gotta find some positive). Thanks again :)
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Are you doing axiomatic geometry ?
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
I remember ikram doing this course sometime ago and it was very interesting
anonymous
  • anonymous
It doesnt really have a specific name. The course itself is called "College Geometry". I guess right now we're just dealing with Euclidean stuff, but I know we will be touching on spherical and hyperbolic geometry at some point as well. I don't believe it ever becomes anything beyond calc 1 integration. Although I think if we get far enough (doubt it), there is a chapter that requires line integrals.

Looking for something else?

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