 
    
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>proof Archives - Complete, Concrete, Concise</title>
	<atom:link href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com/tag/proof/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://complete-concrete-concise.com/tag/proof/</link>
	<description>Practical Information Without The Bloat</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Mar 2023 12:22:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Proving the Law of Sines</title>
		<link>https://complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-the-law-of-sines/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[richardsplanet]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:30:22 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law of sines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proof]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sine]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://complete-concrete-concise.com/?p=2748</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>If you understand the definition of sine, it is pretty easy to prove the "Law of Sines".</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-the-law-of-sines/">Proving the Law of Sines</a> appeared first on <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com">Complete, Concrete, Concise</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="c1">A tutorial on the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Law of Sines</span> can be found <a href="//complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/understanding-the-law-of-sines">here</a>.<br />
Assumes an understanding of the trigonometric function <code>sine</code>. A basic tutorial can be found <a href="//complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/understanding-sine-cosine-and-tangent">here</a> and a tutorial using the Unit Circle can be found <a href="//complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/understanding-trigonomtric-functions-using-the-unit-circle-advanced">here</a>.</div>
<p>The <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Law of Sines</span> says that <em>&#8220;given any triangle (not just a right angle triangle): if you divide the <code>sine</code> of any angle, by the length of the side opposite that angle, the result is the same regardless of which angle you choose&#8221;</em>.<br />
<img decoding="async" class="centered" src="http://i1.wp.com/complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/understanding-sine-law-1.png?w=586" alt="" border="0" data-recalc-dims="1" /></p>
<div class="c1">The actual value (the result of the calculation) is equal to the diameter of the smallest circle you can draw around the triangle that has all three points of the triangle touching the edge of the circle (a circumscribed circle).<br />
We could state the Law of Sines more formally as: <span class="i1">for any triangle, the ratio of the length of a side to the <code>sine</code> of the angle opposite that side is the same for all three sides and is equal to the diameter of the circle which circumscribes the triangle.</span></div>
<p>To prove the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Law of Sines</span>, we need to consider 3 cases:</p>
<ol>
<li>acute triangles (triangles where all the angles are less than 90°)</li>
<li>obtuse triangles (triangles which have an angle greater than 90°)</li>
<li>right angle triangles (which have a 90° angle)</li>
</ol>
<h1>Acute Triangles</h1>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/proving-law-of-sines-1.png" alt="" border="0" /><br />
With an acute triangle, we draw a line perpendicular from one corner (vertex) to the side opposite the corner:<br />
<img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/proving-law-of-sines-2.png" alt="" border="0" /><br />
This splits the triangle into two right angle triangles because the perpendicular line forms two 90° angles (one in each new triangle).<br />
Considering the triangle on the left (the pink one), and using the fundamental definition of <code>sine</code> we write:</p>
<pre><code>         x
sin(<em>b</em>) = —
         A</code></pre>
<p>Considering the triangle on the right (the green one), and using the fundamental definition of <code>sine</code> we write:</p>
<pre><code>         x
sin(<em>a</em>) = —
         B</code></pre>
<p>Since <code>x</code> is the unknown term, we rearrange the expressions in terms of <code>x</code>:</p>
<pre><code>x = Asin(<em>b</em>)</code></pre>
<p>and</p>
<pre><code>x = Bsin(<em>a</em>)</code></pre>
<p>We also write the following true (and seemingly silly) expression:</p>
<pre><code>x = x</code></pre>
<p>We can replace each <code>x</code> with something equivalent to <code>x</code>:</p>
<pre><code>x = x  <strong>→</strong>  Asin(<em>b</em>) = x  <strong>→</strong>  Asin(<em>b</em>) = Bsin(<em>a</em>)</code></pre>
<p>We can rearrange these by cross multiplying to get:</p>
<pre><code>  A        B
—————— = ——————
sin(<em>a</em>)   sin(<em>b</em>)</code></pre>
<p>This looks a lot like the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Law of Sines</span>, but it is not complete, we still need to show that the ratio <code>C / sin(<em>c</em>)</code> is the same as those two.<br />
To do that, we again divide the original triangle into two right angle triangles by drawing a perpendicular line from a different corner to the side opposite that corner:<br />
<img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/proving-law-of-sines-3.png" alt="" border="0" /><br />
Using exactly the same steps as above, we get:</p>
<pre><code>  A        C
—————— = ——————
sin(<em>a</em>)   sin(<em>c</em>)</code></pre>
<div class="c1">If you drew your line from corner <code>a</code>, then you will get B / sin(<em>b</em>) instead of A / sin(<em>a</em>).</div>
<p>We now have two sets of equivalencies, but we know that <code>A / sin(<em>a</em>)</code> must be the same in both equivalencies, therefore we can combine both equivalencies and write:</p>
<pre><code>  A        B        C
—————— = —————— = ——————
sin(<em>a</em>)   sin(<em>b</em>)   sin(<em>c</em>)</code></pre>
<h1>Obtuse Triangles</h1>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/proving-law-of-sines-4.png" alt="" border="0" /><br />
As with the acute triangle, we divide the triangle into two right angle triangles by drawing a perpendicular line from one corner to the side opposite the corner.</p>
<div class="c1">Unlike the acute triangle, there is only one such division you can make. In the case of the image above, it is not possible to draw a perpendicular line from either corner <code>a</code> or corner <code>b</code>.</div>
<p>We solve the problem of the two right angle triangles exactly as we did above and get the same result:<br />
<img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/proving-law-of-sines-5.png" alt="" border="0" /></p>
<pre><code>  A        B
—————— = ——————
sin(<em>a</em>)   sin(<em>b</em>)</code></pre>
<p>Because it is not possible to draw another perpendicular line from another corner, we have to use a different technique.<br />
We draw a perpendicular line from one of the other corners to where the opposite side would be if it had continued:<br />
<img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/proving-law-of-sines-6.png" alt="" border="0" /><br />
This gives us a right angle triangle for which we can write <code>sine</code>, from its fundamental definition, as:</p>
<pre><code>         x
sin(<em>a</em>) = —
         C</code></pre>
<p>We also have another right angle triangle containing the angle <code>c'</code>, a hypotenuse <code>A</code> and an opposite side <code>x</code>, for which we can write <code>sine</code> as:</p>
<pre><code>          x
sin(<em>c'</em>) = —
          A</code></pre>
<p>The only problem is that <code>c'</code> is not <code>c</code>. However, <code>sin(<em>c'</em>) = sin(<em>c</em>)</code>, so we can substitute <code>sin(<em>c</em>)</code> for <code>sin(<em>c'</em>)</code>.</p>
<div class="c1">This looks like one of those &#8220;I pulled this out of thin air&#8221; statements that we often encounter in mathematics. It&#8217;s not really.<br />
Looking at the image, it should be obvious that:</p>
<pre><code>c' + c = 180°</code></pre>
<p>because line segment B and its dashed extension are a straight line &#8211; in other words, 180°<br />
Two angles which add up to 180° are called <span style="text-decoration: underline;">supplementary angles</span>.<br />
If you look at the trigonometric <a href="//complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/understanding-trigonomtric-functions-using-the-unit-circle-advanced">tutorial</a> using the Unit Circle, you will see that angles are measured in a counterclockwise direction from the x-axis. When calculating trigonometric functions for angles greater than 90°, we notice that we can draw an equivalent right angle triangle, but it is flipped (i.e. oriented differently from the &#8220;standard&#8221; right angle triangle).<br />
There are many supplementary identities, some of which are (for angles less than 90°):</p>
<pre><code>sin(α) =  sin(180° - α)
cos(α) = -cos(180° - α)
tan(α) = -tan(180° - α)</code></pre>
<p>or, if you are using radians:</p>
<pre><code>sin(α) =  sin(π - α)
cos(α) = -cos(π - α)
tan(α) = -tan(π - α) </code></pre>
<p>An identity is simply two mathematical expressions that are the same or equivalent.</p>
</div>
<p>Because of the property of <span style="text-decoration: underline;">supplementary angles</span> we can replace <code>sin(c')</code> with <code>sin(c)</code>, thus giving us:</p>
<pre><code>         x
sin(c) = —
         A</code></pre>
<p>As before, we rearrange the expressions in terms of <code>x</code> and get:</p>
<pre><code>x = Asin(c)</code></pre>
<p>and</p>
<pre><code>x = Csin(a)</code></pre>
<p>Just as we did with the acute triangle bove, we can rearrange and equate the two expressions to get:</p>
<pre><code>  A        C
—————— = ——————
sin(<em>a</em>)   sin(<em>c</em>)</code></pre>
<p>Just as for the acute triangle above we have two sets of equivalencies, but we know that <code>A / sin(<em>a</em>)</code> must be the same in both equivalencies, therefore we can combine both equivalencies and write:</p>
<pre><code>  A        B        C
—————— = —————— = ——————
sin(<em>a</em>)   sin(<em>b</em>)   sin(<em>c</em>)</code></pre>
<h1>Right Angle Triangles</h1>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/proving-law-of-sines-7.png" alt="" border="0" /><br />
In the previous proofs, we managed to create two right angle triangles for comparison and showed that the ratios of the <code>sine</code> to the length of the opposite side were always the same. It is not possible to do this with a right angle triangle, but we can use the definition of <code>sine</code> to solve it.<br />
From the definition of sine we know that:</p>
<pre><code>         length of the side opposite the angle
sin(<em>α</em>) = —————————————————————————————————————
              length of the hypotenuse</code></pre>
<p>For angle <code>a</code> this is:</p>
<pre><code>         A
sin(<em>a</em>) = —
         C</code></pre>
<p>and for angle <code>b</code> this is:</p>
<pre><code>         B
sin(<em>b</em>) = —
         C</code></pre>
<p>As in the earlier proofs, we can rearrange the expressions (in this case, in terms of C):</p>
<pre><code>      A
C = ——————
    sin(<em>a</em>)</code></pre>
<p>and</p>
<pre><code>      B
C = ——————
    sin(<em>b</em>)</code></pre>
<p>As before, we write the obvious:</p>
<pre><code>C = C</code></pre>
<p>As before, we replace each <code>C</code> with an equivalent expression:</p>
<pre><code>   A        B
—————— = ——————
sin(<em>a</em>)   sin(<em>b</em>)</code></pre>
<p>This is the same as we got before.<br />
We know the definition of <code>sine</code> is <code>opposite / hypotenuse</code>, so we can calculate the <code>sine</code> of the right angle (90°):</p>
<pre><code>           opposite    C
sin(<em>c</em>) =  —————————— = —
          hypotenuse   C</code></pre>
<div class="c1">This is perfectly valid, the side opposite the angle is the hypotenuse and the hypotenuse is still the hypotenuse. You can double check that <code>sin(90°) = 1</code>.</div>
<p>Rearranging to express it in terms of <code>C</code> we get:</p>
<pre><code>      C
C = ——————
    sin(<em>c</em>)</code></pre>
<p>Just as for the acute and obtuse triangle, we now have 3 expressions that are equivalent to <code>C</code> (for the previous triangles, it was <code>x</code> &#8211; the letter doesn&#8217;t matter, only the fact they are equal matters):<br />
Since all the relations are equivalent, we write the down together and get the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Law of Sines</span>:</p>
<pre><code>  A        B        C
—————— = —————— = ——————
sin(<em>a</em>)   sin(<em>b</em>)   sin(<em>c</em>)</code></pre>
<p>The post <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-the-law-of-sines/">Proving the Law of Sines</a> appeared first on <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com">Complete, Concrete, Concise</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proving Alternate Interior Angles are Congruent (the same)</title>
		<link>https://complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-alternate-interior-angles-are-congruent-the-same/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[richardsplanet]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:43:51 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternate exterior angles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternate interior angles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[angle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[angles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proof]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prove]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://complete-concrete-concise.com/?p=1546</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Alternate Interior Angles Theorem states that If two parallel straight lines are intersected by a third straight line (transversal), then the angles inside (between) the parallel lines, on opposite sides of the transversal are congruent (identical). This is illustrated in the image below: We see two parallel lines and a third line (transversal) intersecting [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-alternate-interior-angles-are-congruent-the-same/">Proving Alternate Interior Angles are Congruent (the same)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com">Complete, Concrete, Concise</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <em>Alternate Interior Angles Theorem</em> states that <u>If two parallel straight lines are intersected by a third straight line (transversal), then the angles inside (between) the parallel lines, on opposite sides of the transversal are congruent (identical)</u>.</p>
<p>This is illustrated in the image below:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-alternate-interior-angles-0.png" alt="" border="0" class="centered" /></p>
<p>We see two parallel lines and a third line (transversal) intersecting (crossing or cutting through) both of them. The green shaded angles are: (1) inside (between) the two parallel lines, (2) congruent (identical or the same), and (3) on opposite sides of the transversal.</p>
<p>This is true for the other two unshaded interior angles. It is also true for the <em>alternate exterior angles</em> (but not proved here).</p>
<h1>Axioms</h1>
<p>Proofs are built on two things: (1) postulates, axioms, or hypotheses &#8211; these are things that are assumed to be true, but can&#8217;t be proved. In general, we try to use the fewest number of axioms we can; (2) other proofs.</p>
<p>This proof depends on two axioms: (1) if you pick any two distinct points on a straight line, the angle between those two points will be 180&deg;; (2) if you take any two intersecting straight lines and shift one of the lines so it it is in a different position, but still parallel to its original position, the angle between the two intersecting lines stays the same.</p>
<h1>Proof</h1>
<p><strong>1)</strong> Consider two intersecting lines:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-alternate-interior-angles-1.png" alt="" border="0" class="centered" /></p>
<p>At the point of intersection, there is an angle (which I call <em>A</em>).</p>
<p><strong>2)</strong> If the line is straight, the angle between any two points on that line must be 180&deg; (axiom #1 from above):</p>
<p><img decoding="async" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-alternate-interior-angles-2.png" alt="" border="0" class="centered" /></p>
<p><strong>3)</strong> If one angle is <em>A</em> degrees, then obviously the other angle must be <em>180&deg; &#8211; A</em>:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-alternate-interior-angles-3.png" alt="" border="0" class="centered" /></p>
<p><strong>4)</strong> This is true for both straight lines:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-alternate-interior-angles-4.png" alt="" border="0" class="centered" /></p>
<p><strong>5)</strong> This means the remaining angle must be 180&deg; &#8211; (<em>180&deg; &#8211; A</em>) = A degrees:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-alternate-interior-angles-5.png" alt="" border="0" class="centered" /></p>
<p>This proves that angles on alternate sides of the transversal (at the point of intersection) are congruent (identical).</p>
<p><strong>6)</strong> If we draw a line parallel to one of the lines (it doesn&#8217;t matter which) and it intersects the other line (that line is now called a <u>transversal</u>), we know that the angles of intersection must be the same (axiom #2 from above).</p>
<p>If the angles of intersection are the same for both lines, then the <em>alternate interior angles</em> must be the same:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-alternate-interior-angles-6.png" alt="" border="0" class="centered" /></p>
<div class="c1">
<p>The proof is exactly the same for <em>alternate exterior angles</em> except we focus on the exterior instead of the interior angles (which is illustrated in the image above).</p>
</div>

<p>The post <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-alternate-interior-angles-are-congruent-the-same/">Proving Alternate Interior Angles are Congruent (the same)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com">Complete, Concrete, Concise</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proving that the Angles in a Triangle Sum up to 180&#176;</title>
		<link>https://complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-that-the-angles-in-a-triangle-sum-up-to-180/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[richardsplanet]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:05:47 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[180]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[angle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[angle sum 180]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[angles sum 180]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proof]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[triangle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[triangles]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://complete-concrete-concise.com/?p=1532</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Proving that the angles inside a triangle &#8211; any triangle &#8211; sum up to 180° is very simple, but leaves most people unsatisfied (or unconvinced) because it depends on the properties of something called Alternate Interior Angles. I&#8217;ll give the proof first and then explain Alternate Interior Angles A demonstration of the angles of a [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-that-the-angles-in-a-triangle-sum-up-to-180/">Proving that the Angles in a Triangle Sum up to 180&#176;</a> appeared first on <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com">Complete, Concrete, Concise</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="c1">
<p>Proving that the angles inside a triangle &#8211; any triangle &#8211; sum up to 180° is very simple, but leaves most people unsatisfied (or unconvinced) because it depends on the properties of something called <em>Alternate Interior Angles</em>.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll give the proof first and then explain <em>Alternate Interior Angles</em></p>
<p>A demonstration of the angles of a triangle summing up to 180° can be found <a href="//complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/demonstrating-that-the-angles-in-a-triangle-sum-up-to-180-degrees">here</a>.</p>
</div>
<h1>Proof</h1>
<p>Given any triangle, how can you prove that the angles inside a triangle sum up to 180°?</p>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-triangles-angles-sum-180.png" alt="" border="0" /></p>
<p><strong>1) Draw</strong> a line parallel to one of the sides of the triangle that passes through the corner opposite to that side:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-triangles-angles-sum-180-2.png" alt="" border="0" /></p>
<div class="c1">
<p>It is easiest to draw the triangle with one edge parallel to the horizontal axis, but you don&#8217;t have to because this proof works regardless of the orientation of the triangle. Rotating a triangle does not change its properties.</p>
</div>
<p><strong>2)</strong> This creates two new angles. We&#8217;ll call them <em>D</em> and <em>E</em>:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-triangles-angles-sum-180-3.png" alt="" border="0" /></p>
<p><strong>3) We know</strong> by <em>Alternate Interior Angles</em> that angle <em>D</em> must be the same as angle <em>A</em> and angle <em>E</em> must be the same as angle <em>C</em>.</p>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-triangles-angles-sum-180-3a.png" alt="" border="0" /></p>
<p><strong>4) Replace</strong> the new angles found in <strong>step 2)</strong> with <em>A</em> and <em>C</em>:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-triangles-angles-sum-180-4.png" alt="" border="0" /></p>
<p><strong>5) We see</strong> that angle <em>A</em> + angle <em>B</em> + angle <em>C</em> add up to give us a straight line or 180°:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-triangles-angles-sum-180-5.png" alt="" border="0" /></p>
<div class="c1">
<p>This proof depends on something called <em>Alternate Interior Angles</em> &#8211; which makes the proof trivial, but unsatisfying for most people because it is not one of those &#8220;facts&#8221; we carry around with us.</p>
<p>In fact, pulling out <em>Alternate Interior Angles</em> makes it look like a lot of mathematics is just made up on the spot.</p>
<p><em>Alternate Interior Angles</em> isn&#8217;t pulled out of thin air and it is a fundamental part of geometry.</p>
</div>
<h1>Alternate Interior Angles</h1>
<div class="c1">
<p>For a proof of <em>Alternate Interior Angles</em>, see this <a href="//complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-alternate-interior-angles-are-congruent-the-same">page</a>.</p>
</div>
<p>When two lines intersect (cross each other), you get four angles: <em>A</em>, <em>B</em>, <em>C</em>, and <em>D</em>:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-triangles-angles-alternate-interior-angles-1.png" alt="" border="0" /></p>
<p>It happens that angles <em>A</em> and <em>C</em> are identical and angles <em>B</em> and <em>D</em> are identical.<br />
<img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-triangles-angles-alternate-interior-angles-2.png" alt="" border="0" /></p>
<p>If we move one of the lines so it remains parallel to its original position (in math-speak, this is called <u>translation</u>), what happens to the angles? Nothing. The angles remain the same. It doesn&#8217;t matter where the two lines intersect (cross). Only the angle of intersection matters.</p>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-triangles-angles-alternate-interior-angles-3.png" alt="" border="0" /></p>
<p>We don&#8217;t have to move the line, we can just draw a line parallel to it &#8211; we can draw as many parallel lines as we like (but that is likely to confuse things). Each intersection (crossing) has the same angles:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-triangles-angles-alternate-interior-angles-4.png" alt="" border="0" /></p>
<p>We saw earlier, that <em>A</em> and <em>C</em> are the same angle (as well, as <em>B</em> and <em>D</em>):</p>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-triangles-angles-alternate-interior-angles-5.png" alt="" border="0" /></p>
<p>We call the angles between the parallel lines <u>interior angles</u> because they are inside (in between) the parallel lines.</p>
<p>We notice that the angles on opposite sides of the transversal (math-speak for the line that intersects (crosses) the parallel lines) are the same. We say the angles on <u>alternate</u> sides of the line are identical.</p>
<p>Put his all together and you get <em>Alternate Interior Angle</em></p>
<p>Knowing all this, when we take another look at the proof that all the angles in a triangle sum to 180° we see the following:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" class="centered" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/proving-triangles-angles-alternate-interior-angles-6.png" alt="" border="0" /></p>
<p><strong>1)</strong> the base of the triangle forms one of the parallel lines and we draw the second.</p>
<p><strong>2)</strong> each of the sides of the triangle acts like a <u>transversal</u> intersecting the parallel lines.</p>
<p>Because angles on alternate sides of the transversal are identical, we are able to sum all three angles and show that they sum up to 180°</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-that-the-angles-in-a-triangle-sum-up-to-180/">Proving that the Angles in a Triangle Sum up to 180&#176;</a> appeared first on <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com">Complete, Concrete, Concise</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proving the Pythagorean Theorem</title>
		<link>https://complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-the-pythagorean-theorem/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[richardsplanet]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 May 2011 23:31:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proof]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pythagoream theorem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pythagorean theorem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right angle triangle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similar triangles]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-the-pythagorean-theorem</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>We learned the Pythagorean Theorem in grade school: The square of the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Often written as A2 + B2= C2. The Pythagorean Theorem is much more than just a mathematical curiosity, it is a basic and useful mathematical property [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-the-pythagorean-theorem/">Proving the Pythagorean Theorem</a> appeared first on <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com">Complete, Concrete, Concise</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="c1">
<p>We learned the Pythagorean Theorem in grade school: <em>The square of the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.</em> Often written as </p>
<p><span class="i2">A<sup>2</sup> + B<sup>2</sup>= C<sup>2</sup></span>.</p>
<p>The Pythagorean Theorem is much more than just a mathematical curiosity, it is a basic and useful mathematical property that shows up as the solution to many mathematical problems or in their proofs (the other two big ones are the right angle triangle and the trigonometric functions &#8211; but they are all related).</p>
<p>There are over 300 different proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem, I like this one best. It is simple and only requires some basic knowledge about triangles and some elementary algebra.</p>
</div>
<p>1a) Begin with a right angle triangle:</p>
<p><img decoding="async" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/proving-the-pythagorean-theorem-1.png" alt="" border="0" class="centered"/></p>
<p>1b) Since this is a right angle triangle, we know one of the angles is 90 degrees (coloured in blue)</p>
<p>1c) For the second angle, we can choose any angle we want. We will call it &alpha; (coloured in green)</p>
<p>1d) Because this is a triangle, we know all the angles must add up to 180 degrees. We can use this to find the third angle (coloured in red):</p>
<ul>
<li>90 + &alpha; + unknown = 180</li>
<li>unknown = 180 &#8211; 90 &#8211; &alpha; (grouping the known terms and unknown terms together)</li>
<li>unknown = <span class="i3">90 &#8211; &alpha;</span> (simplifying)</li>
</ul>
<div class="c2">
<p>We could have called the third angle &beta; (or some other symbol), but calling it <span class="i3">90 &#8211; &alpha;</span> is a better choice (as we will see).</p>
</div>
<p>2) Rotate the triangle so the hypotenuse is horizontal (lying flat). This step isn&#8217;t necessary, but makes it easier to see what is happening.</p>
<p><img decoding="async" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/proving-the-pythagorean-theorem-2.png" alt="" border="0" class="centered"/></p>
<div class="c2">
<p>Rotating a triangle does not change its properties.</p>
</div>
<p>3a) Draw a perpendicular line from the hypotenuse through the corner opposite it. With the triangle rotated, it is simply a matter of dropping a vertical line from the peak to the hypotenuse.</p>
<p><img decoding="async" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/proving-the-pythagorean-theorem-3.png" alt="" border="0" class="centered" /></p>
<p>3b) This perpendicular line (which I call <strong>p</strong>) divides the original triangle into two smaller triangles. Side <strong>p</strong> becomes one of the sides of both smaller triangles.</p>
<p>3c) The whole of side A went to the triangle on the left hand side.</p>
<p>3d) The whole of side B went to the triangle on the right hand side.</p>
<p>3e) Side C was divided in two. We&#8217;ll call the part that went to the left hand side triangle <strong>x</strong> and the part that went to the right hand side triangle <strong>y</strong>. Remember that the length of side <strong>x</strong> plus the length of side <strong>y</strong> is equal to the length of side C. Mathematically we would write:</p>
<p><span class="i2">x + y = C</span></p>
<h3>The left hand side (<strong>LHS</strong>) triangle:</h3>
<p>4a) We know that one of the angles is 90 degrees. Because line <strong>p</strong> is perpendicular to the hypotenuse, the angle must be 90 degrees (coloured blue).</p>
<p>4b) When we divided the original triangle, the angle &alpha; remained in the LHS triangle, so we know this angle is &alpha; (coloured green).</p>
<p>4c) Since the angles in a triangle must add up to 180 degrees, we know that the remaining angle must be <span class="i3">90 &#8211; &alpha;</span> degrees (coloured red).</p>
<p>4d) Since both the original triangle and the LHS triangle have the same angles, both triangles are <strong>similar </strong>triangles.</p>
<div class="c2">
<p>Similar triangles are triangles that have the same angles. The triangles may be different sizes, but the angles are the same.</p>
</div>
<h3>The right hand side (RHS) triangle:</h3>
<p>4e) We know one of the angles is 90 degrees because line <strong>p</strong> is perpendicular to the hypotenuse (coloured blue).</p>
<p>4f) When we divided the triangle, the angle <span class="i3">90 &#8211; &alpha; </span>remained in the RHS triangle, so we know this angle is 90 &#8211; &alpha; degrees (coloured red).</p>
<p>4g) Since the angles in a triangle must add up to 180 degrees, we know that the remaining angle must be &alpha; degrees (coloured green).</p>
<p>4h) Since both the original triangle and the RHS triangles have the same angles, they must be <strong>similar </strong>triangles.</p>
<p>5) In dividing the original triangle, we have created two smaller <strong>similar</strong> triangles (the original triangle has been rotated and flipped, the LHS triangle has been rotated &#8211; I left the text as is):</p>
<p><img decoding="async" src="//complete-concrete-concise.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/proving-the-pythagorean-theorem-4.png" alt="" border="0" class="centered"/></p>
<div class="c2">
<p>Rotating or flipping triangles does not change their properties.</p>
</div>
<p>6) Another property of <strong>similar </strong>triangles is that the ratio of the lengths of the same sides is the same:</p>
<ul>
<li>the ratio of A to B must be the same as</li>
<li>the ratio of x to p which must be the same as</li>
<li>the ratio of p to y</li>
</ul>
<p>Mathematically: </p>
<p><span class="i2">A/B = x/p = p/y</span></p>
<p>7) We know that the ratio A/C (of the original triangle) = x/A (of the LHS triangle): <span class="i2">A/C = x/A</span>. </p>
<p>By cross multiplying, we get: <span class="i2">A<sup>2</sup> = Cx</span></p>
<p>8) We know that the ratio B/C (of the original triangle) = y/B (of the RHS triangle): <span class="i2">B/C = y/B</span></p>
<p>By cross multiplying, we get <span class="i2">B<sup>2</sup> = Cy</span></p>
<h2>Where the magic happens</h2>
<p>Fundamental to basic algebra is the ability to manipulate an equation any way we like &#8211; as long as we do the same thing on both sides.</p>
<p>For example, consider <span class="i2">4 = 4</span>:</p>
<p>We can add 8 to both sides and the relationship remains the same: <span class="i2">4 + 8 = 4 + 8</span>.</p>
<p><p>We can do the same with our equation from step (7): <span class="i2">A<sup>2</sup> = Cx</span></p>
<p>If we add 33 to both sides we get: <span class="i2">A<sup>2</sup> + 33 = Cx + 33</span>, but we don&#8217;t want to do that because it doesn&#8217;t bring us any closer to proving the Pythagorean Theorem</p>
<p>What we want to do, is somehow bring B into the equation (we already have A and C).</p>
<p>We can try <span class="i2">A<sup>2</sup> + B<sup>2</sup> = Cx + B<sup>2</sup></span>, but that doesn&#8217;t help much (the B<sup>2</sup> cancels out).</p>
<p>We need to employ an algebraic trick &#8211; we don&#8217;t want to add the same thing to both sides of the equation, we want to add <strong><u>equivalent </u></strong>things.</p>
<p>For example, consider <span class="i2">4 = 4</span>. If we add 8 to both sides we would typically do it this way: <span class="i2">4 + 8 = 4 + 8</span>. However, it is also perfectly valid to do: <span class="i2">4 + 8 = 4 + 1 + 2 + 5</span> (this is one of those non-intuitive mathematical tricks &#8211; but it is very useful).</p>
<p>Let us add B<sup>2</sup> to the equation from step (7), but this time, we will add the equivalent of B<sup>2</sup> to the right hand side. From step (8) we know that B<sup>2</sup> = Cy</p>
<p>Using the trick of adding equivalent values to both sides of the equation we get:</p>
<p><span class="i2">A<sup>2</sup> + B<sup>2</sup> = Cx + Cy</span></p>
<p>This is very good. We can simplify the right hand side by extracting a common factor:</p>
<p><span class="i2">A<sup>2</sup> + B<sup>2</sup> = C(x + y)</span></p>
<p>When we divided the original triangle in step (3a), we divided line C into two parts: <strong>x</strong> and <strong>y</strong>. From (3e) we know that <span class="i2">x + y = C</span>, so we can replace x + y in the equation above by C:</p>
<p><span class="i2">A<sup>2</sup> + B<sup>2</sup> = C(C)</sup></span></p>
<p>When simplified gives us: </p>
<p><span class="i2">A<sup>2</sup> + B<sup>2</sup> = C<sup>2</sup></span></p>
<p>which is the Pythagorean Theorem.</p>

<p>The post <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com/mathematics/proving-the-pythagorean-theorem/">Proving the Pythagorean Theorem</a> appeared first on <a href="https://complete-concrete-concise.com">Complete, Concrete, Concise</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
