Question about a proof of the converse of Thales' theorem

  • Thread starter Thread starter murshid_islam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Euclidean geometry
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a specific part of Eddie Woo's proof of Thales' theorem and its converse, particularly the expression (x–u)(x–v) = 0. The user seeks clarification on the reasoning behind considering this expression at that point in the proof. It is implied that understanding this step is crucial for grasping the overall proof. The conversation highlights the importance of each mathematical step in the context of the theorem's proof. Clarifying this aspect can enhance comprehension of Thales' theorem and its converse.
murshid_islam
Messages
468
Reaction score
21
Homework Statement
Proof of the converse of Thales' theorem
Relevant Equations
(x–u)(x–v) = 0
I was watching this series of videos of Eddie Woo proving Thales' theorem and its converse. I didn't understand this part (at 2:15) where he considered (x–u)(x–v) = 0. He later used the result he got from considering that. But why consider it in the first place?

 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
11K