MHB Square metric not satisfying the SAS postulate

  • Thread starter Thread starter pholee95
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Square
AI Thread Summary
The square metric distance in R^2 is defined as D((x1, y1), (x2, y2))= max{|x2 − x1|, |y2 − y1|}. An example is provided using two triangles: the first triangle with vertices (0,0), (1,0), and (0,1) has all sides of metric length 1. When this triangle is rotated by 45 degrees to form a second triangle with vertices (0,0), (1,1), and (1,-1), the side lengths change, resulting in lengths of 1, 1, and 2. This demonstrates that the square metric does not satisfy the SAS postulate, as congruency requires all sides to be equal. Thus, the square metric fails to uphold the SAS postulate in this context.
pholee95
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I'm not sure on how to do this problem. Can someone please help and explain? Thank you!

Recall (Exercise 3.2.8) that the square metric distance between two points (x1, y1) and
(x2, y2) in R^2 is given by D((x1, y1), (x2, y2))= max{|x2 − x1|, |y2 − y1|}. Show by
example that R^2 with the square metric and the usual angle measurement function does
not satisfy the SAS Postulate.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
pholee95 said:
I'm not sure on how to do this problem. Can someone please help and explain? Thank you!

Recall (Exercise 3.2.8) that the square metric distance between two points (x1, y1) and
(x2, y2) in R^2 is given by D((x1, y1), (x2, y2))= max{|x2 − x1|, |y2 − y1|}. Show by
example that R^2 with the square metric and the usual angle measurement function does
not satisfy the SAS Postulate.

Hi pholee95! Welcome to MHB! ;)

Let's pick a simple triangle, like a rectangular one with points (0,0), (1,0), (0,1).
Now let's rotate it by 45 degrees, keeping the angles the same, and keeping the lengths of the side according to the metric the same.
Then we'll get the triangle with points (0,0), (1,1), (1,-1).
According to the SAS postulate it should then be congruent.
But congruency requires that the lengths of all sides are the same. Is the (metric) length of the 3rd side the same?
 
I like Serena said:
Hi pholee95! Welcome to MHB! ;)

Let's pick a simple triangle, like a rectangular one with points (0,0), (1,0), (0,1).
Now let's rotate it by 45 degrees, keeping the angles the same, and keeping the lengths of the side according to the metric the same.
Then we'll get the triangle with points (0,0), (1,1), (1,-1).
According to the SAS postulate it should then be congruent.
But congruency requires that the lengths of all sides are the same. Is the (metric) length of the 3rd side the same?

No it won't be the same. Right?
 
pholee95 said:
No it won't be the same. Right?

Correct. All sides of the first triangle have metric length 1.
But the second triangle has metric lengths 1, 1, and 2.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top