This Blog exists for the collective benefit of all geometry students. All questions are welcome. The more specific your question (including your own attempts to answer it) the better.
EVEN MORE WELCOME ARE ANSWERS FROM FELLOW STUDENTS. BLOG ON!
Hey Chris... You're trying to prove angles congruent, right. SO if they are supplementary to congruent angles, that should work, right?
The fact that the angles lie in different planes (angle-FEB in the vertical plane and angle-DBC in the horizontal plane) shouldn't make any difference... congruent angles have the same measure in degrees, they don't have to be in the same plane, right?
This is YOUR blog folks... can someone besides me provide some explanation??? I shouldn't have to "bribe" with class participation points, but I will anyway :) C'mon, let's participate, folks.
(from Chris)... don't get #25 how it is related to the given info on the diagram.
ReplyDeleteHey Chris... You're trying to prove angles congruent, right. SO if they are supplementary to congruent angles, that should work, right?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the angles lie in different planes (angle-FEB in the vertical plane and angle-DBC in the horizontal plane) shouldn't make any difference... congruent angles have the same measure in degrees, they don't have to be in the same plane, right?
Did this help? Let me know.
Mr. C.
I do not understand problems 19 through 25.. those 2 colum proofs make no sense.
ReplyDelete#18- what is given and what needs to be proved in theorem 2-8?
ReplyDeleteFor #18, Theorem 2-8 is clearly stated on page 61. The proof is very similar (not the same) to the proof of Thm 2-7.
ReplyDeleteFor #19,
ReplyDeleteGiven angl-2 congruent to angl-3
doesn't vertical angles & substitution and-or transitive get us to the proof??
This is YOUR blog folks... can someone besides me provide some explanation??? I shouldn't have to "bribe" with class participation points, but I will anyway :) C'mon, let's participate, folks.
ReplyDeleteZach, Fredrik - was any of this helpful?