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

  • Thread starter Thread starter pholee95
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the failure of a specific geometric model to satisfy part (c) of the Protractor Postulate, which requires the existence of a unique ray for each angle r between 0 and 180 degrees. Participants clarify that in the context of rational points in the Euclidean plane, there are no rational coordinates on the ray forming a 30-degree angle with the x-axis, except for the origin (0,0). This absence of additional rational points means the axiom cannot be fulfilled, as it requires at least one point E on the ray. The conversation concludes with a participant expressing understanding of the concept after receiving clarification. This highlights the limitations of the model in satisfying the Protractor Postulate under the specified conditions.
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!
 
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.
Back
Top