is anyone here from flvs. im stuck in geometry and its really difficult to understand the lessons. does anyone have different methods of studing flvs ?
you taking geometry I or II ?
1
ohkay, is there any specific module which flvs doesnt teach well ?
basic geometry is very hard to learn just by reading a book/online material im sure
well it really isnt that im not a very consistent reader. and i prefer a teacher teaching, instead of reading online material
would you have any suggestions ?
Yes, Mr. Joey: please post one of your homework problems here, and then we can dive in and discuss its solution.
well i wouldnt just want the answer i need to know how it was done ill shoot one to you
Are you 10, 16 or 1 in that picture? :)
Of course we'll discuss how the problem is solved!
1
there are 2 questions i got wrong in the last exam
Mr. J: Regarding question #2: Would you mind explaining why you chose (b) to be your answer?
oh question to was just a random answer i was really confused with that lesson
the first question about Stephanie is a bit odd
the lesson is on indirect proofs
if you are given three premises and a conclusion, and you want to prove by contradiction
mrjoey, can you post the material right before the question on stephanie. theres some context i am missing
no @perl that was everything
hmm
// if you are given three premises and a conclusion, and you want to prove by contradiction :- proving \(atleast\) one premise is false is sufficient to prove the original conclusion.
so, the more correct answer wud be option C : One, two or three. which is bit weird way to provide the options
i thought a proof by contradiction is to show there is a contradiction
ok so that the wrong answer would be in one of the 3
like two premises that are negations
proving any one of given premise is false, is same as showing there is a contradiction
oh proving one of the given premises is false *after* assuming the conclusion is false (or assuming the negation of the conclusion)
yahh
i was going to say, if one of the premises are false , the statement is true vacuously
the wording is a bit unclear
"base on her assumption to contradict the assumption and prove the original conclusion"
what assumption are we talking about here?
yes, they're confusing 'original statement' wid 'assumed to be true statement'
3 statements 1 conclusion to prove the conclusion, step 1 : she assumes opposite of the given conclusion to be true, step 2 : and looks for contradiction in atleast one of the given 3 statements. step 3 : when she finds atleast one contradicting, then she concludes saying that the original conclusion is true
thats the basic setup for any indirect proof. see if that makes more or less sense @_mr_joey_
yes it did
thanks @ganeshie8
np :) wat about second problem ?
well now that i look at it a second time it is either c or d
im inclining toward A
i think its d) the progression of the statements is not logical
lets see
i would go with A, since B doesnt make sense to me
how would you find the answer @ganeshie8
but why did you choose a though ?
answer should be A the conclusion is MP is not a median. the conclusion was not usde to contradict the assumption,
To prove : MP is not a median Indirect proof : we start by assuming the opposite of wat we need to prove; step 1 : so lets assume MP is indeed a median
@ganeshie8 what do they mean by 'the assumption"
"the conclusion was not used to contradict the assumption"
@perl , step1 is the assumption
ok
ok
so step 1 is assume the statement is false
yess.. so the given proof looks fine till step1. next verify step2 : how they arrived at contradiction
ok
you cant use the conclusion to contradict the assumption, since that would be circular
yess we cannot use a^2 = b^2+c^2 to prove pythagorean theorem
you want to show how the assumption leads to a contradiction independently of the conclusion. after you find such a contradiction, it follows that your assumption was indeed false (so the conclusion is true)
ok, sorry the english is confusing me here. this is not so well written ;)
well i understand that if we have to proove its not a median we had to first assume that it was the median, but then what ?
then look for a contradiction
To prove : MP is not a median Indirect proof : we start by assuming the opposite of wat we need to prove; step 1 : so lets assume MP is indeed a median step 2 : for MP to be a median, P requires to be the midpoint of LN, which makes NP=LP. however this contradicts the given statement that NP > LP.
ok
np is longer then lp
our step2 looks exactly same as the contradiction argument in given proof. so step2 also looks fine in the given proof.
ok so then it is a
step3 is just a customary step, so im okays wid the logical-order in the given proof. so i go wid A today :)
ok thanks very much
I presume you're completing your geometry course as you're doing indirect proofs. good luck wid ur final exam !!
np... u wlc :)
ok
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!