{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Proofs of Some EPP Equivalences

# Proofs of Some EPP Equivalences - Proofs of Some EPP...

This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

Proofs o f Some EPP Equivalences (in Neutral Geometry) Recall the correct wording of the EPP (Euclidean Parallel Postulate): For every line l and every point P not on line l , there is one and only one line m that contains P and is parallel to l . Note that this wording reminds us that, in proving that the EPP is true under certain assumed conditions, we first define an arbitrary line l and an arbitrary point P not on l . Then, we have two tasks to complete: 1) We must prove that there exists at least one line m that contains P and is parallel to l . [This is accomplished by applying the (NIB) "Common Perpendicular" Theorem and then the "Common Perpendicular makes Parallel Lines" Theorem (Corollary 3.4.2) .] 2) We must prove that there does not exist a second line n that contains P and is parallel to l . [This is accomplished by using proof-by-contradiction: First, assume that there exists a second line n , n m , that contains P and is parallel to l ; then, use logical argument to prove that a contradictory situation exists under that assumption.] This process is illustrated in Part II of the proof of Theorem 3.4.6 directly below. Theorem 3.4.6: The Euclidean Parallel Postulate is equivalent to the Converse of the Alternate Interior Angle Theorem. Proof: [ Part I: Prove: If EPP is true, then the Converse of the A I A Theorem is true. ] Assume that the Euclidean Parallel Postulate is true. Let l and m be two parallel lines and let t be a transversal intersecting l and m at points A and B, respectively. [ We NTS that the alternate interior angles formed by t at points A and B are congruent . ] Let 1 and 2 be two alternate interior angles at A and B, respectively. Let point C on l and point D on m be positioned such that 1 BAC   and 2 ABD   . [We show that 1 2   using proof-by-contradiction.] Suppose, by way of contradiction, that 1 2 and are not congruent. Therefore, m( 1 ) m( 2 ) . By Postulate 12 (The Angle Construction Postulate), there is a unique ray BE  in the half-plane side of transversal t that contains point D such that m( ABE ) = m( 1 ) . Let line n = BE  and note that line m = BD  . Since m( ABD ) m( 1 ) , m( ABD ) m( ABE ) . Therefore, rays BD  and BE  are two distinct rays, and so, m and n are two distinct lines. Now, line t is a transversal of lines n and l which forms alternate interior angles 1 and ABE at A and B, resp. Also, 1 ABE   by definition. Therefore, by the Alternate Interior Angle Theorem (Theorem 3.4.1), lines l and n are parallel . Thus, lines m and n are two distinct lines, both containing B and parallel to line l , which contradicts the EPP (which was assumed to be true). Therefore, 1 2   . Therefore, if the EPP is true, then the Converse of the Alternate Interior Angle Theorem is true. [ End of Part I ] l m B A 2 1 t m l D C m( ABE) = m( 1 ) l m n B A 2 1 t m l E D C

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
2 [ Part II: Prove: If the Converse of the A I A Theorem is true, then the EPP is true. ] Suppose that the statement of the Converse of the Alternate Interior Angle Theorem is true.
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}