MHB Proving equivalence to Euclid Parallel Postulate

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving the equivalence between the Euclid Parallel Postulate and Proclus’s Axiom. The Euclid Parallel Postulate asserts that for any line and a point not on it, there exists exactly one parallel line through that point. In contrast, Proclus’s Axiom states that if two lines are parallel, any line intersecting one must also intersect the other. A user demonstrates that the Parallel Postulate implies Proclus’s Axiom by showing that if a line intersects a parallel line, it cannot be parallel to the other. The conversation invites further exploration of the converse relationship.
pholee95
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I'm having a hard time proving that the Euclid Parallel Postulate is equivalent to this theorem. Can anyone please help?

Euclid Parallel Postulate states: For every line l and point P not on l, there exists exactly one line m so that P is on m and m||l.

the theorem states: (Proclus’s Axiom) If l and l' are parallel lines and t is not equal to l is a line such that t intersects
l then t also intersects l'.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
pholee95 said:
I'm having a hard time proving that the Euclid Parallel Postulate is equivalent to this theorem. Can anyone please help?

Euclid Parallel Postulate states: For every line l and point P not on l, there exists exactly one line m so that P is on m and m||l.

the theorem states: (Proclus’s Axiom) If l and l' are parallel lines and t is not equal to l is a line such that t intersects
l then t also intersects l'.
Let's show that the Parallel postulate implies Proclus.

Let $\ell$ and $\ell'$ be parallel lines and $t$ be a line different from $\ell$ which intersects $\ell$. We want to show that $t$ intersects $\ell'$. Say $t$ intersects $\ell$ in a point $p$. If $\ell=\ell'$ then there is nothing to prove. So assume that $\ell\neq \ell'$. So $\ell$ is a line passing through $p$ which is parallel to $\ell'$. By the Parallel Postulate, $\ell$ is the unique such line since $p$ is not on $\ell'$. Thus $t$ cannot be parallel to $\ell'$. Therefore $t$ must intersect $\ell'$ and we are done.

Can you try the converse?
 
Good morning I have been refreshing my memory about Leibniz differentiation of integrals and found some useful videos from digital-university.org on YouTube. Although the audio quality is poor and the speaker proceeds a bit slowly, the explanations and processes are clear. However, it seems that one video in the Leibniz rule series is missing. While the videos are still present on YouTube, the referring website no longer exists but is preserved on the internet archive...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K