Help with a Geometric Proof?
This is the only one I can't get... maybe im just not thinking. Here it is: Given: SY=SW, YT bisects SYW, and WR bisects SWY; Prove: Triangle RXY= Triangle TXW..here's a quick image i made: http://i15.tinypic.com/29wr8dy.jpg -any help is appreciated!
- jcss_003Lv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
ok it's been a while since i've done a triangle proof (over 5 years)
we know the <rxy = < txw cause they are mirrors of one another (forgot the therom)
then as you label has it <1 + <YXW = 90 ((opposite angels theorm)
given that <4 + <yxw = 90
therefore <4 = <1
likewise <xtw + <rxt = 90
<rxt = <yxt
<yxt + <1 = 90
therefor <1 = <XTW
use the same argument for <4 = <YRX
and triangle YRX and triangle WXT are equal by AAA (angel angel angel)
also i'm not sure if since segments sy = sw that that would make R and T the middle points of each line and therefore you could do a different argument that way?!?!?!?
hope it helps
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Here are some hints rather than just giving you the answer.
To prove triangles equal you usually have to prove that two side lengths and one angle are the same in both OR two angles and the side length between them are the same in both. (It's nopt quite that simple but it will do for now.)
Now SY = SW tells you that triangle YSW is what type? What does that tell you about its angles?. The lines bisecting the angles at Y and S also tell you something. From this you can establish that the angles in WXT are the same as those in YRX. You now need to prove a side length the same (because one triangle could be bigger than the other even with the same angles) but I've got to go so good luck.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
<1 = <2 (Definition of bisect)
<3 = <4
<SYW = <SWY (isosceles triangle---congruent base <'s)
<SYW= <1 + <2 (Angle Addition)
<SWY= <3 + <4
Eventually, you find that <1 = <2 = <3 = <4
<RXY = <TXW (Vertical angles are congruent)
XY = XW (<2 = <3 so isosceles triangle)
Triangle RXY = Triangle YXW (ASA)
- hermannsLv 44 years ago
Many pupils conflict a lot with geometric proofs because of the fact they don't seem to be waiting for such activities. Proving geometric theorems demands an in-intensity information of different definitions, postulates, homes of genuine numbers and equations, and theorems. "information" does not mean "memorizing" pupils tend to memorize definitions, postulates, and theorems devoid of particularly information what they're memorizing. MEMORIZATION is the poorest way of reading geometry: as a replace, a pupil could attempt to state each and every definition, postulate, and theorem in his/her own words. If he/she will try this, then a pupil might have gained 0.5 the conflict in proving geometric theorems. No pupil can probable use a definition, postulate, or theorem, in a data if he/she isn't attentive to this way of definition, postulate or theorem and its meaning. finally, a pupil shouldn't anticipate to be sturdy in proving theorems if he/she has in basic terms paintings out a number of the assignments given by their instructors. very few pupils might go out of a thank you to challenge themselves by attempting different issues not in basic terms from their textbook yet from different components to boot. it particularly is the real mark of a pupil serious in learning geometric proving. This activity, even nevertheless, is rather suggested than carried out. It demands an excellent style of persistence, perseverance, and dedication on the area of a pupil. teddy bohy
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
statement 328743093178352902438y92=> QED proof by wtf