Due 12/1 & 5: 3.4 – Proving Parallelity
Nov 28th, 2011 by corricelli
Hello,
DUE 12/1/11:
Prove the following two theorems:
1.) Alternate exterior angles theorem converse
2.) Consecutive interior angles theorem converse
DUE 12/5/11:
Section 3.4: p. 153-156: 11, 17, 21, 23, 31-35 odd
Feel free to post questions/concerns/teamwork.
You can reply to a teammate’s question by pressing the green reply button and typing your response.
Happy homeworking,
Mrs. Corricelli
Hey I was doing my the two proofs for homework and I noticed that both the proofs and the example we did in class all have the same justifications. Is that normal? I had step 1, Given. Step 2, vertical angles theorem. Step 3, transitive property. Step 4, Corresponding Angles Converse. Each step worked for each proof so I am pretty sure I did it correctly, but is it normal to have the same steps for three different proofs?
Hey Alyson, I think it’s normal because proofs are just about being logical, so if you’re proving what you need to and the justifications make sense for what you’re stating then all of your proofs can be using the same justifications
For the hw for the 2 proofs im just confused on how we can prove that O is parallel to H. In class we did example 1 and after looking it over to do the homework im confused. for step 2 we said angle 6 was congruent to angle 7 but i don’t get how we got to that step. for step 3 we said angle 3 was congruent to angle 7 which i understand is the transitive prop. but for step 4 we just went right to O is parallel to H which i dont understand how you can assume that O is parallel to H because of step 3.
if angle 3 is congruent to angle 7 then the lines are parallel because of the corresponding angles postulate. so yeh. thats how you get from step 3 to step 4.
Matt,
NICE teamwork!
I am very confused by this, can anyone provide an example or link of how to do this? I have been looking on the internet for help but i have not found any useful websites.
Eamonn,
Can you be more specific? Video on what? What are you confused by? Which part, specifically, is the source of your confusion?
Thank you,
Mrs. Corricelli
Hi,
I wasn’t here today and I read on the blog that the hw is to prove two theorems….does this mean that in words we have to prove the given theorems in ‘t’ chart form?
Thanks.
Amy,
Yes! Thanks for posting this question! Due to conferences, I missed this one!
Thank you,
Mrs. Corricelli
Can someone help me with question #35 on the second Homework assignment? (Due 12/2/11) I wasn’t here in class today due to the art classes field trip, but how do you prove that lines c and d are parallel if there’s 2 transversals?
Amy, we have to prove the Alt ext angles therom, and the consecutive int angles therom, their are not two transversals.
Fernando,
Nice post and nice teamwork!
If we weren’t in class today because of the short day, do we only need to have the two proofs for tomorrow?
Yeshh my math sister
and quiz corrections if you didn’t get a sticker on it.
Thanks Amalia!
LADIES (Abby and Amalia)…
LOVING the teamwork here!!!
@Abby: Yup!
im not really sure on how to approach proving the two theorems, can someone please help me out?
for the alt ext ang conv thm you need to start with alternate ext angles as being congruent and at the end you need to say that the lines are parallel using the corresponding angles conv post
for the consec int angles conv thm you need to start with the consec int angles being supplementary and conclude that they are parallel at the end using (usually) the transitive property
Kayla,
Nice post! Very helpful!
Thank you,
Mrs. Corricelli
For number 17 on the homework, I’m confused on how to get 45 for the value of x.
Carlos,
I hope you are ok after seeing this in class? In the future, if you could please put more detail in your post… What did you try? What did you notice? The more detail, the more your teammates will be able to help!
Thank you,
Mrs. Corricelli