Understanding Part (c) of the Protractor Postulate: Explaining r=30

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pholee95
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the limitations of the Protractor Postulate in a model of geometry where points are defined as rational points in the Euclidean plane. Specifically, it addresses part (c) of the Protractor Postulate, which asserts the existence of a unique ray AE for each real number r between 0 and 180 degrees. The participants conclude that there are no rational points on the ray forming a 30-degree angle with the Ox axis, except for the origin (0,0), thus violating the axiom's requirement for at least one point E to exist on the ray.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Protractor Postulate and its components
  • Familiarity with rational points in the Euclidean plane
  • Basic knowledge of trigonometry, specifically angle measurements
  • Concept of rays and their geometric properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of the Ruler Postulate in non-standard geometric models
  • Investigate the properties of rational points in Euclidean geometry
  • Study the relationship between angles and coordinates in trigonometry
  • Examine other geometric postulates and their limitations in various models
USEFUL FOR

Students of geometry, mathematicians exploring non-standard models, and educators teaching the foundations of Euclidean geometry.

pholee95
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I'm stuck on this problem. Can anyone please help me understand?

Consider the model of geometry where point means rational point in the Euclidean plane and all of our other terms have their normal interpretation. This model doesn't satisfy the Ruler Postulate because there isn't a one-to-one correspondence with R. It also doesn't satisfy part (c) of the Protractor Postulate. Explain why it doesn't satisfy this part of the postulate by considering the line through (0,0) and (1,0), the upper half-plane, and the number r = 30. (Hint: Use a little piece of trig and think about the point E in this case.)

*I know that part (c) of the protractor postulate states this: For each real number r, 0 < r < 180, and for each half-plane H bounded by AB there exists a unique ray AE such that E is in H and μ(angleBAE) = r◦.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
pholee95 said:
Consider the model of geometry where point means rational point in the Euclidean plane
I assume this means point with rational coordinates.

pholee95 said:
part (c) of the protractor postulate states this: For each real number r, 0 < r < 180, and for each half-plane H bounded by AB there exists a unique ray AE such that E is in H and μ(angleBAE) = r◦.
A ray is, first of all, a set of points. Are there any points with rational coordinates on the ray that forms $30^\circ$ with the $Ox$ axis?
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
I assume this means point with rational coordinates.

A ray is, first of all, a set of points. Are there any points with rational coordinates on the ray that forms $30^\circ$ with the $Ox$ axis?

There are none right?
 
pholee95 said:
There are none right?
Right, except $(0,0)$. The axiom requires that at least one point $E$ lies on the ray, which is not the case here. But you have to prove that there are no rational points on the ray.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Right, except $(0,0)$. The axiom requires that at least one point $E$ lies on the ray, which is not the case here. But you have to prove that there are no rational points on the ray.

Ah. I understand it now. Thank you so much for your help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
586
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
10K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K