0
I have to prove if two lines intersect then they intersect in no more than one point I have to assume that lines intersect in MORE than one point i have to prove tht they intersect MORE than 1 wrong?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
wrong!
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Prove that A intersect with B is the subset of A?
Let x be in A intersect B. Then x is in A and x is in B. Then x is in A.
How do you prove a statement by contradiction?
To prove by contradiction, you assume that an opposite assumption is true, then disprove the opposite statement.
Which term best describes a proof in which you assume the opposite of what you want to prove?
The term that best describes a proof in which you assume the opposite of what you want to prove is 'indirect proof'.
To begin an indirect proof you assume the converse of what you intend to prove is true?
false
To begin an indirect proof you assume the opposite of what you intend to prove is true?
false
How do you prove the diagonal lines in a parallelogram is not a rhombus?
Because the diagonals of a rhombus intersect each other at 90 degrees whereas in a parallelogram they don't
A and B do not intersect what information is needed to prove that they are parallel?
Pretty much the only thing you need to know to determine if two lines are parallel is the gradient of those lines. Simply put, are the lines on the same plane?
If a transversal intersect two lines such that the bisectors of a pair of corresponding angles are parallel then prove that lines are parallel?
now you can see that two parallel lines are intersected by another two ll lines therefore we can prove congurent in two traingle by constructing a line in quadiletral formed therefore their angle are equal nd are prallel
Prove that A intersect with B is the subset of A?
Let x be in A intersect B. Then x is in A and x is in B. Then x is in A.
How can you prove that a constructed line is parallel to a given line Assume that the transversal line is not perpendicular to the other lines?
If the lines have the same slope but with different y intercepts then they are parallel
Are railway lines parallel or perpendicular?
Railway lines are parallel. 2 lines are said to be parallel when they are contained in the same plane and do not intersect. This is the definition. That parallel lines exist is an assumption (postulate) of Euclidean geometry:Parallel lines are like the rails of a train track, and you might think of defining them this way, as lines that are the same distance apart everywhere. The problem with this kind of definition is it assumes both tracks are straight. Though this seems an obvious possibility, when you go into the vast universe it is not that obvious. Parallel lines puzzled the best mathematicians for centuries until it was realized that we must assume they exist (you can't prove they exist from simpler postulates). The problem with parallel lines lies in the notion that the lines have infinite extent.Euclid used a somewhat different parallel postulate in trying to avoid the notion of the infinite. He observed that when two parallel lines are intersected by a third line, called a transversal, then if you measure two angles formed by these three lines, on the same side of the transversal and between the parallels, they will add to (that is, they will be supplementary). Such angles are called same-side interior angles.Another important concept is perpendicular. By definition, two lines are perpendicular if they intersect at right angles. That is, two perpendicular lines form 4 right angles. Segments and rays can also be perpendicular. This means they intersect in at least one point, and the two lines containing them are perpendicular.We use perpendicular segments to measure the distance from a point to a line, a point to a plane, or the distance between two parallel lines or planes. The ties of a railroad track are perpendicular to the rails and of the same length. This common length is the distance between the rails. (If parallel lines exist, then railroad tracks in space can go on forever.)There are three theorems about perpendicular lines that you should know. We will not attempt to prove them here, but if you think about them they should be rather obvious.We can use this fact to define the distance from a point to a line: That distance is the length of a segment perpendicular to the line with the given point as one of its endpoints and the other endpoint on the line. In fact, a similar notion holds in 3 dimensions. If we have a plane and a point not on that plane, then there is only one line through the point perpendicular to the plane, and the length of the segment determined by that point and the intersection of the perpendicular line with the plane is defined as the distance from the point to.
Parallel lines are equidistant and will never meet?
I understand your question to be, "Is it true that parallel lines are everywhere equidistant and never intersect?" In what follows, I assume we're talking about a two-dimensional plane. By definition, two lines that are parallel (in the same plane) never intersect. In Euclidean (AKA Parabolic or simply E) Geometry, and also in Hyperbolic (AKA simply L) Geometry, parallel lines exist. In Elliptical (AKA R) Geometry, all lines eventually intersect so parallel lines do not exist. Now, are two parallel lines (in the same plane) everywhere equidistant? If so, that means that it is possible, at any point on one of the lines, to construct a perpendicular that will meet the other line in a perpendicular, and that the length of the segments constructed will be always the same. In Euclidean Geometry, two parallel lines (in a plane) are indeed everywhere equidistant. To prove it requires the converse of the Alternate Interior Angles theorem (AIA), which says that if two parallel lines are cut by a transversal, the alternate interior angles will be congruent. Note that this is the CONVERSE of AIA, not AIA. Some people get this mixed up. In Hyperbolic Geometry, two lines can be parallel, but be further apart some places than others. I know that sounds rather odd, if you're not used to it. Here's an image that might help: imagine that your plane is a thin sheet of rubber, and for some reason is being stretched. The further you go from your starting point, the more it stretches, and it's always stretching away from you. This means that your parallel lines will keep getting further and further apart.
Which term best describes a proof in which you assume the the opposite of what you want to prove?
The term that best describes a proof in which you assume the opposite of what you want to prove is 'indirect proof'.
How can you prove that a constructed line is parallel to a given line Assume that the transversal line is not perpendicular to the other lines.?
By using a protractor which will show that corresponding angles are equal and alternate angles are equal .
How do you prove a statement by contradiction?
To prove by contradiction, you assume that an opposite assumption is true, then disprove the opposite statement.
Which term best describes a proof in which you assume the opposite of what you want to prove?
The term that best describes a proof in which you assume the opposite of what you want to prove is 'indirect proof'.
Which is the largest island. Prove it in 4 to 5 lines?
Greenland I know but prove it pls
