Erik Peterson MTH 341 HW #2 For this paper we are first asked to state a SSA Congruence Conjecture as if it were

considered true. So we will let our conjecture be: If the vertices of any two triangles are in one-to-one correspondence such that any two sides are congruent and an angle opposite one of those sides in one triangle is congruent to the corresponding parts of the second triangle, then the two triangles are congruent. We will show this conjecture to be false using a counterexample to our SSA Congruence Conjecture; this will satisfy all of the requirements of a counterexample because our model will satisfy the negation of our conjecture. The negation of our SSA Congruence Conjecture is, The vertices of any two triangles are in one-to-one correspondence such that any two sides are congruent and an angle opposite one of those sides in one triangle is congruent to the corresponding parts of the second triangle and the two triangles are not congruent. We will use Model 1 to show a counterexample to our original conjecture. In our model we have triangles ABC and ADC, and point B lies on line segment , such that A-B-D. Our model has specific values for the distances between AC, BC, DC, and the measure of

Model 1.

Looking at our Model 1 we can see that

, AB = 8, CB = 5, and DB =5. And by

the Reflexive Property of line segment and angle congruence, m <BAD = m < BAD, and AB = AB. (1) (2)

Since (1), (2), and BC = DC, we have satisfied the conditions of our hypothesis in our original conjecture that two triangles are in one to one correspondence such that both triangles have two congruent sides and an angle opposite one of those sides in one triangle is congruent to the corresponding parts of the second triangle. We can see in Model 1 that m <ACB m<ACD, because of this we have shown the negation of our conjecture to be true. Thus, we have shown using a counterexample that SSA congruence is not a valid theorem for proving congruence. Now we are given a special case to the SSA Congruence, the Hypotenuse-Leg Theorem for Right Triangles, which we will write a formal proof to show does work in neutral geometry. Theorem: If the vertices of any two right triangles are in one-to-one correspondence such that the hypotenuse and either leg of one right triangle are congruent, respectively, to the hypotenuse and either leg of the other right triangle, then the triangles are congruent. Proof: We will assume arbitrary right triangles ABC and XZY. We will also assume (1) (2) (3)

We will show ABC and XZY are congruent.

By the Ruler Postulate, because points D and C on a line can be placed in one to one correspondence with real numbers such that the distance between them is equal to the distance between points X and Y. We can construct so that it is congruent to , such that D, A, and C are collinear. And because any two points have exactly one line between them we can construct .

Since D, A, and C are collinear, and m < BAC is 90, by the supplement postulate, m <BAC + m <BAD = 180 90 + m < BAD = 180 m <BAD = 90.

And because m <ZXY and m <BAD both are equal to 90. We can conclude, (4) By SAS, since (2), (4), and is congruent to , we know ABD = XZY. Since BAD and XZY are congruent, by CPCTC (6) (5)

And by the Transitive Property of line segment congruence, because (1) and (6) we can conclude (7)

And since (7) in DBC , by the Isosceles Triangles Theorem, . And by the Reflexive Property, By SAS, since (7), (8), and (9), we know ABD = ABC. By the Transitive Property of Congruence, because (4) and (6), we know ABC = ZXY. (7) . (9) (8)

Since we have shown ABC = ZXY, we have proven if the vertices of any two triangles are in one-to-one correspondence such that the hypotenuse and either leg of one right triangle are congruent, respectively, to the hypotenuse and either leg of the other right triangle, then the triangles are congruent. QED

For the next part of our assignment we are to state the transitive property of the relation is parallel to on the set of all lines. When we do this we get: For all lines l, m, n, if l is parallel to m and m is parallel to n, then l is parallel to n. We will now prove that the transitive property of the relation is parallel to (TP), is logically equivalent to Playfairs Postulate (PP). Playfairs Postulate states: Given any point P and any line l not on P, there exists exactly one line through P parallel to l. Result: Given any point P and any lines l, m, n such that l is not on P, there exists exactly one line through P parallel to l if and only if l is parallel to m and m is parallel to n, then l is parallel to n. Proof: As this is a bi-conditional statement, there will be two parts to our proof. First we will show that if TP is true, then PP is true, and we will then show the converse is also true. The first part of our proof we will show if TP is true, then PP is true. We will show this to be true using a proof by contradiction. So assume TP is true, and assume PP is false. So lets assume for some point P and some line l, there exist no lines or more than one line through P parallel to l. So we have two cases to consider.

Case 1: There is more than one line through P parallel to l. So we will assume for some point P and some line l, there exists more than one line, m and n, through P parallel to l.

By the definition of parallel, two parallel lines cannot intersect at any point. And because m is parallel to l, and n is parallel to l, and both m and n contain P we have obtained a contradiction. Case 2: There is less than one line through P parallel to l. So we will assume for some point P and some line l, there exists no lines through P parallel to l.

Since P is a point not on l we can erect a perpendicular line m, through P using the Crossbar theorem. And by the First Corollary to the AIAIT we can know that m is parallel to l.

Thus, by constructing a line on point P parallel to l we have obtained a contradiction. In both cases we have obtained a contradiction in our negation. Thus, we have shown that if TP is true, then PP is true.

For the second part of our proof we will show that if TP is true, then PP is true. We will show this to be true by using a proof by contradiction. That is we will assume if TP is true and PP is not true. We will show a contradiction. So lets assume arbitrary lines l, m, and n, such that l is parallel to m, m is parallel to n, and l is not parallel to n. So let l and n intersect at some point P.

Since we have two lines, l and n, through some point P both parallel to m we have obtained a contradiction. Thus, we have proven that if TP is true, then PP is true. Since we have proven both parts of our bi-conditional statement to be true, we have proven that TP PP. QED Earlier on in the semester we had proven Playfairs Postulate to be Logically equivalent to Euclids Fifth Postulate in neutral geometry. And by the Transitive Property of relations, since we just proved that the Transitive Property of the relation is parallel to is logically equivalent to Playfairs Postulate, we can conclude that the Transitive Property of the relation is parallel to is logically equivalent to Euclids Fifth Postulate in neutral geometry, which is neither true or false in neutral geometry. Neutral Geometry: Because we established that Euclids Fifth Postulate has no truth value in neutral geometry, because logically equivalent statements have the same truth values we can conclude that both Playfairs Postulate and the Transitive Property of the relation is parallel to both are neither true or false in neutral geometry.

Euclidean Geometry: Since we know that Euclids fifth postulate is true in Euclidean geometry, we know that because Euclids fifth is logically equivalent to Playfairs Postulate and the Transitive Property of the relation is parallel to also is true in Euclidean geometry. Hyperbolic Geometry: We know that the negation of Euclids fifth postulate is true in Hyperbolic geometry, and because the contrapositive is logically equivalent to a normal if-then statement we can conclude that if the negation of Euclids fifth postulate is true in Hyperbolic geometry, then the negation of the Transitive Property of the relation is parallel to is also true. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EUCLIDS FIFTH AND TP IN NEUTRAL GEOMETRY CAIAT: Earlier in the semester we showed that the Converse of the Alternate Interior Angle Theorem (or CAIAT) is logically equivalent to Euclids Fifth Postulate. By the Transitive property of relations, since TP is logically equivalent to Euclids Fifth Postulate, we can conclude that TP is also logically equivalent to CAIAT. And because the negation of Euclids Fifth Postulate is true in hyperbolic geometry, and truth values of logically equivalent statements are the same, we know that the negation of both CAIAT and TP are true in hyperbolic geometry.

For this assignment I collaborated with Jesse and Jacob. In the first problem I looked at our theorem sheet and changed the wording for the SAS congruence to come up with a new SSA conjecture. For the second part of problem 1 I used geogebra to make a counterexample, and used that to measure the angles. In the third part of problem 1 I talked with Jacob and Jesse and together we worked together to come up with the way to prove that the Hypotenuse-Leg Theorem for Right Triangles worked. In problem 2 I looked at our definition sheet in MTH 310 and changed the variables so that it would work with lines. Part 2 I worked with both Jesse and Jacob to prove both parts of the bi-conditional statement. And for part 3 we looked through our notes to see that Euclids fifth was logically equivalent to Playfairs, and also logically equivalent to CAIAT. And after getting the homework back from you and doing corrections, with your feedback I was able to change my proofs around so that they were more clear and worked better.