11/4/09

Class began with Emma sharing her proof for the Alternate Interior Angles (AIA) theorem. This
theorem states that if the alternate interior angles formed by a transversal and line l and l’ are congruent,
then (l) and (l') are parallel. Emma proved this by contradiction. She started by saying that l and l’ are not
parallel and that they intersect at point c. The assumption is that the alternate interior angle CBA and
BAE are still congruent.

Using c-1, she created the segment BF which is congruent to the segment AC. Next, she used
proposition 3.9 which states that supplements of congruent angles are congruent. Angles FBA and ABC
are supplements, as are angle EAB and BAC. Since angle FBA is congruent to angle BAC, angle ABC is
congruent to angle BAE by prop. Connecting points F and A created the triangle FBA. Triangle FBA is
congruent to triangle CAB by SAS. Segment AC is congruent to segment BF by construction, angles CAB
and ABF are congruent by proposition 3.9, and they share segment BA. However, since triangle FBA is
congruent to triangle CAB, then angle ABC is congruent to angle BAF. By c-4 the ray coming from A
whose angle is congruent to angle ABC is unique. This would give us that F would be on both line AE and
line CB which is a contradiction to our assumption that l and l’ are 2 distinct lines. Therefore, l and l’
must be parallel.
 We had been asked to come up with our own definition of a parallelogram. Ralph began to
share the definition he derived, but it involved the undefined term quadrilateral. This led to a lengthy
discussion on the definition of a quadrilateral. After some effort, Emina decided it would be best if we
tried to nail down our definition of a triangle first. Dave provided a great definition which states that
given the non-collinear points A,B,C, the triangle ABC is the union of the segments AB,AC, and BC. This
definition met the class’s approval. We tried to apply this definition to a quadrilateral, but this resulted
in several problems. If 3 points were collinear, connecting the points wouldn’t create a quadrilateral.
Also, there was a problem with segments that connected on the inside of the quadrilateral. The class
spent several minutes trying to develop an appropriate definition, but it seemed each attempt still had a
problem. In the end, it was left for the class to finalize their definition over the next day or two and post
it by Friday.

Although we didn’t have a precise definition for a quadrilateral, we defined a parallelogram as a

quadrilateral ABCD such that side AB is parallel to CD and side BC is parallel to DA. Alexia brought up an
alternative way to define a parallelogram. If you take any triangle, you can make another triangle by
copying it, flipping it horizontally and vertically, and then matching it up with the diagonals of the
original triangle. Emina approved of this method, but added that this is not the usual way for a
parallelogram to be defined. We then listed everything we knew about parallelograms.

1) Opposite angles of parallelograms are congruent

2) Opposite sides of parallelograms are congruent
3) The area of a parallelogram is found by taking the product of the base and height.
4) The sum of the angles of a parallelogram is 360 degrees.
5) The sum of adjacent angles of a parallelogram is 180 degree.
6) If the sides of a parallelogram are congruent, then it forms a rhombus.
7) The diagonals of a rhombus are perpendicular

We then tried to prove point 4. We drew a quadrilateral and tried to come up with some way of
showing that its angles added up to 360 degrees. Our first attempt failed. So we decided to show that
the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. Tamara showed that we can prove this if we have
Euclid’s Parallel Postulate which gives us that for any line l and any point p not on l there exists a line
through p parallel to l. She created the triangle ABC and drew a line parallel to BC through A. By AIA she
showed that the 3 angles were supplements to each other, or in other words, added up to 180 degrees.
This allows us to also say the sum of the angles of a parallelogram is 360 degrees.
 We then looked at a story problem. A hiker is headed back to her tent after a long day's hike.
What is the shortest path she can take to her tent? The immediate answer was a straight line. This
implies that for a triangle the segment BC < segment BA + segment AC. Of course, this will require a
proof.

Class ended with Emina giving us a question to ponder. On a lab we recently turned in, we were
asked to bisect the angle ABC. Several students did this by creating the congruent segments BD and BE.
After connecting point DE, they found its midpoint F. The conclusion was that the ray BF bisected angle
ABC.

The question was whether this same method would work for trisecting an angle. In other words,
If the segment DE were trisected, would the rays extending from B to these new points trisect ABC?