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.
@dan815 What do they want me to do?
no not all triangles are isocles
dan!! of course.
but I don't understand the rest of the question.
to show that not all triangles are isocles, pick 3 non equal angles that sum to 180, and prove that a different angle has a different side
a right triangle is a perfect proof, right?
So, If I say: No, not all triangles are isoceles, and give out the proof, I don't have to do the rest of it, right?
@Loser66 this is not trivial question. it has geometrical attempt
This fallacy has been attributed to Lewis Carroll znd explained by maxwell .
if you need any help understanding the proof and the fault in it im always here :P
hey, ikram. What should I do for this question? find out the fallacy?
Since this proof is not on my book, and I am not allowed to use the internet solution, how can I prove it is a fallacy?
yes, just mention their used to be a known proof by Lewis Carroll , which says " every triangle is isosceles ", mention the proof and then say why its wrong.
ok, Thanks a ton. Let me try. :)
in this case its okay if used Internet as reference since this is history and not work like its wrong proof anyway lol
you are welcome @Loser66 :) PS:- saying every triangle is isosceles s not weird at all, even if you see some triangles do not match, one of eclids postulate said "all right triangles are congruent" and have a proof for it even thought for first look it does not seems alright, okay now ?
you also can disprove the main question in addition of mention history about it :D
I figure out the mistake on the proof. Correct me if I am wrong, please at 6, the case to get 2 triangles are equal is ASA, not AAS, right?
It means the side must be between the angles.
nope, the mistake is in step 3
Let these two lines meet at a point O., there is no guaranty that O would be inside the triangle not on circumcircle or out of it.
in general thes line meet in this conditional at point O in circumcircle, there is only one case that it would be inside the triangle which is isosceles and equilateral triangles
oh, I see!! man!!