Recent content by Joodez

I've realized that I need to do a complete reboot of proofs. I understand most of the principles and techniques discovered in geometry. However, I cannot successfully illustrate proofs and especially the reasons for which statements are valid. Thank you for your assistance. I would like to...

Sorry for the late reply, just got back from school. Am I allowed to automatically assume that AD // BC because of the two 90° angles lying upon the line. I understand that this is true, but am I allowed to state this like: AD//BC : ABCE is a parallelogram or is there another way in which I...

I'm curious if it looks like I defined the reasons correctly to prove that FBCD is indeed a parallelogram. Specifically, I'm unsure if I'm using #4 "definition of coincident" and #5,6 "reflexive property" correctly in their terminology. I don't have anyone else, or any teacher to ping this...

No worries, it happens to the best of us. Thank you to you, SammyS, and haruspex. You helped me out a lot here, by pointing out the things you did.

Aye, that was my original (now taken back) interpretation of what I was actually considering to be an "equilateral" triangle. Below is what I found to be the finished proof, assuming that the isosceles triangle given means that RS = ST.

This is exactly the issue I see with the way this problem is formatted. I too am unaware as to the reasoning behind "triangle" RST defining RS ≅ ST. This just doesn't add up to me. If I am to assume the original "incorrect" train of thought, what statement could the teacher be making in #5...

Alright, so now that I realize that this: RS ≅ RT is just as possible with the given information as this: RS ≅ ST and this: ST ≅ RT so... how can it be proven at all that this object is a rhombus? Because it is a parallelogram, side RS ≅ UT and ST ≅ RU. This is given, based upon the formula...

Yipes, thanks for pointing this out. Only two sides of an isosceles triangle "must" be equivalent. Alright, I'm going to have to rework this from there on a bit and see what I come out with. Sorry for posting incorrect calculations in the problem above, in fact, let me post the original...

I'm having a problem with the fact that we find this congruence: ST ≅ RU Although the instructor forced that congruence into the statement located directly below. The only reason I have those boxes prefilled is because they were done so by the instructor. Maybe this doesn't break what your...

The transitive property of equality states that: a=b, b=c, therefore; a=c direct link: http://i.imgur.com/3vfoKCn.jpg I uploaded the image to a different provider. Let me know if there are still any issues. I would write down the statements and reasons, but without the rhombus picture...

I believe I could work this problem fine had the instructor not placed statements #3,4, and 6, as well as the reasons # 5 and 7. I can't seem to understand where he's using the transitive property in #5. If these steps weren't here I would assume, I'm only using substitution to prove that "RS"...

I noticed the scan was cut off on the second image at the bottom right, but I came up with x= 31/5 My first test in Calc I begins tomorrow and I want to know that I'm headed in the right direction. I think I understand to some extent how logarithms can be expanded and condensed though I'm...