Intercept Theorem: Counter-Example & Proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter lwymarie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the converse of the intercept theorem holds, specifically if three lines making equal intercepts on two transversals must be parallel. A counter-example is presented where three lines intersect two transversals and create equal intercepts without being parallel. The proof involves establishing that the ratios of the intercepts lead to equal lengths, implying parallelism. Ultimately, the conclusion drawn is that the converse to the intercept theorem does hold, confirming the necessity of parallel lines when equal intercepts are present. This reinforces the validity of the intercept theorem in geometric contexts.
lwymarie
Messages
89
Reaction score
1
intercept theorem--urgent

does the converse to the intercept theorem hold? i.e. if three lines make equal intercepts on each of two transversals PQ and RS as shown, is it true that the three lines must be parallel? can you produce a counter-example? (a drawing indicated with length measurements in necessary)

I can draw the diagram of a counter-example but i don't know how to write the steps of proving it:(
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lwymarie said:
does the converse to the intercept theorem hold? i.e. if three lines make equal intercepts on each of two transversals PQ and RS as shown, is it true that the three lines must be parallel? can you produce a counter-example? (a drawing indicated with length measurements in necessary)

I can draw the diagram of a counter-example but i don't know how to write the steps of proving it:(
Perhaps you could attach the drawing. The description of the problem is not clear.

AM
 


Yes, the converse to the intercept theorem does hold. This can be proven using a counter-example.

Counter-example: Let's consider three lines, AB, CD, and EF, intersecting two transversals PQ and RS as shown in the diagram below.

<img src="" width="200">

We can see that AB, CD, and EF all make equal intercepts on both transversals PQ and RS. However, these three lines are not parallel.

Proof: To prove that the converse to the intercept theorem holds, we need to show that if three lines make equal intercepts on each of two transversals, then they must be parallel.

Let's label the points where the lines intersect the transversals as A, B, C, D, E, and F as shown in the diagram.

<img src="" width="200">

Since the intercept theorem states that the ratio of the intercepts is equal to the ratio of the intercepted segments, we can write the following equations:

AB/CD = PQ/RS
CD/EF = RS/PQ
EF/AB = PQ/RS

From these equations, we can see that AB/CD = EF/AB, which means that AB^2 = CD x EF.

Similarly, we can also see that CD/EF = AB/CD, which means that CD^2 = EF x AB.

Therefore, AB^2 = CD^2, which implies that AB = CD.

Similarly, we can also show that CD = EF and AB = EF.

This means that all three lines are equal in length, which is only possible if they are parallel.

Hence, we have proven that if three lines make equal intercepts on each of two transversals, they must be parallel, which is the converse to the intercept theorem.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top