How can I improve my proofs in geometry?

AI Thread Summary
Improving geometry proofs requires a deeper understanding of the relationships between angles and sides in shapes, particularly in polygons and triangles. Visualizing geometric figures as dynamic, with movable parts, can enhance comprehension and insight into the proof process. It is important to recognize that geometry relies heavily on proofs, which may not be as intuitive as algebra. Students may need to invest more time over an extended period to grasp geometric concepts effectively. Understanding the interrelation between geometry and algebra can facilitate learning in both areas.
Mentallic
Homework Helper
Messages
3,802
Reaction score
95
Geometry is arguably my weakest link in mathematics. The answers just don't "hit me" in geometry like some other sections of math do.

When trying to prove something in a polygon, such as congruence of triangles made by segments etc. I find it difficult since the equal sides/angles aren't obvious to find.

Is there any advice you can give on what needs to be looked for in certain situations? or is this question simply too absurb since the answers depend on each geometric figure?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I think if you can imagine it somehow, see what you're looking for and then see what's available to find it. Dont know really, perhaps someone else can offer better advise than I can.
 
I don't know if this will be of general benefit, but I think sometimes it's useful to have a mental image of the pieces in free movement, rather that fixed.

To put a simple example, suppose you have a triangle, and the length of 2 sides is given (plus probably some other condition). It's often useful to imagine two fixed-length rods and a moving joint in the angle, and mentally play with it, see how other conditions are affected when the angle goes <90 or >90, or too small, or close to 180. I often find this "moving parts" approach more insightful that just making a drawing and staring at it. Of course, then there are cases and cases.
 
mentallic, you are right; the relationships often do not fly out at you, which is why Geometry (Euclidean, Plane) relies on proofs. Algebra works like language, but Geometry does not work so much like that. If the course is so tough for you to study, you need two, maybe three times longer to learn it. But do not expect to learn more effectively by merely doubling or tripling the hours per week - that would be a good start, but maybe not enough for everyone. You may need to spend LONGER in terms of weeks as well.

Some people do well or enjoy Algebra 1/2 but not Geometry; some people enjoy or do well in Geometry but find Algebra 1/2 more difficult. Then, also, some people do well and enjoy the two levels of Algebra and the Geometry.
 
symbolipoint said:
Some people do well or enjoy Algebra 1/2 but not Geometry;
I mainly focus my mathematics studies on algebra, because I do enjoy it and always want to learn more about it. Possibly because I'm not good at geometry could be the reason why I barely study it.
I think I need to push myself in this field of study, to expand on the proofs I know and apply them to these incognito shapes that hold proofs.
 
Geometry and algebra are inter related. Once you figure that out, both fields become relatively easier.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...

Similar threads

Back
Top