answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

It is not an axiom, but a theorem.

User Avatar

Wiki User

7y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: If there sides of a triangle are respectively equal to the three sides of another triangle the two triangles are we call this as axiom?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about Other Math

Is there any number that 1 times itself does not equal itself?

No, because 1 times any number is an axiom, or law, of math; The identity axiom of multiplication, that states any number that is a real number multiplied by 1 equals itself. ex. a x 1 = a, a = 5 5 x 1 = 5 Results will be the same for any real number.


Is it true that the sum of three angles of any triangle is 180 in non euclidean geometry?

No. Non-Euclidean geometries usually start with the axiom that Euclid's parallel postulate is not true. This postulate can be shown to be equivalent to the statement that the internal angles of a traingle sum to 180 degrees. Thus, non-Euclidean geometries are based on the proposition that is equivalent to saying that the angles do not add up to 180 degrees.


What is infinity is divided by infinity?

1To touch on this whatever you take and divide by the same number will always give you one.2Infinity divided by infinity is not equal to 1, But it is undefined, not another infinity. This would help you:First, I am going to define this axiom (assumption) that infinity divided by infinity is equal to one:∞-∞= 1Since ∞ = ∞ + ∞, then we are going to substitute the first infinity in our axiom:∞ + ∞---∞= 1The next step is to split this fraction into two fractions:∞-∞+ ∞-∞= 1Next, substitute the axiom twice into the equation, we get:1 + 1 = 1Finally, this can be rewritten as:2 = 1Therefore, infinity divided by infinity is NOT equal to one. Instead we can get any real number to equal to one when we assume infinity divided by infinity is equal to one, so infinity divided by infinity is undefined.


Is the continuum hypothesis true?

Continuum hypothesis was proven, with an proving method called "forcing", to be undecidable under commonly accepted axioms of the set theory. This means that neither continuum hypothesis nor it's negation follows from this axioms just like one axiom (or it's negation) in some consistent axiomatic system does not follow from other axioms. Therefore, continuum hypothesis or it's negation could be added as an additional axiom to existing commonly accepted axioms of the set theory.


What is alternate interior angles?

Let be a set of lines in the plane. A line k is transversal of if # , and # for all . Let be transversal to m and n at points A and B, respectively. We say that each of the angles of intersection of and m and of and n has a transversal side in and a non-transversal side not contained in . Definition:An angle of intersection of m and k and one of n and k are alternate interior angles if their transversal sides are opposite directed and intersecting, and if their non-transversal sides lie on opposite sides of . Two of these angles are corresponding angles if their transversal sides have like directions and their non-transversal sides lie on the same side of . Definition: If k and are lines so that , we shall call these lines non-intersecting. We want to reserve the word parallel for later. Theorem 9.1:[Alternate Interior Angle Theorem] If two lines cut by a transversal have a pair of congruent alternate interior angles, then the two lines are non-intersecting.Figure 10.1: Alternate interior anglesProof: Let m and n be two lines cut by the transversal . Let the points of intersection be B and B', respectively. Choose a point A on m on one side of , and choose on the same side of as A. Likewise, choose on the opposite side of from A. Choose on the same side of as C. Hence, it is on the opposite side of from A', by the Plane Separation Axiom. We are given that . Assume that the lines m and n are not non-intersecting; i.e., they have a nonempty intersection. Let us denote this point of intersection by D. D is on one side of , so by changing the labeling, if necessary, we may assume that D lies on the same side of as C and C'. By Congruence Axiom 1 there is a unique point so that . Since, (by Axiom C-2), we may apply the SAS Axiom to prove thatFrom the definition of congruent triangles, it follows that . Now, the supplement of is congruent to the supplement of , by Proposition 8.5. The supplement of is and . Therefore, is congruent to the supplement of . Since the angles share a side, they are themselves supplementary. Thus, and we have shown that or that is more that one point, contradicting Proposition 6.1. Thus, mand n must be non-intersecting. Corollary 1: If m and n are distinct lines both perpendicular to the line , then m and n are non-intersecting. Proof: is the transversal to m and n. The alternate interior angles are right angles. By Proposition 8.14 all right angles are congruent, so the Alternate Interior Angle Theorem applies. m and n are non-intersecting. Corollary 2: If P is a point not on , then the perpendicular dropped from P to is unique. Proof: Assume that m is a perpendicular to through P, intersecting at Q. If n is another perpendicular to through P intersecting at R, then m and n are two distinct lines perpendicular to . By the above corollary, they are non-intersecting, but each contains P. Thus, the second line cannot be distinct, and the perpendicular is unique. The point at which this perpendicular intersects the line , is called the foot of the perpendicular