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

  • Context:
  • Thread starter Thread starter pholee95
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 3K views
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!