Our server costs ~\$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 6, 2020, 9:14 am

Thread Rating:
• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
 Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem FlatAssembler Member Religious Views: Atheist Posts: 508 Threads: 51 Joined: July 26, 2017 Reputation: 4 Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem November 22, 2018 at 3:14 am So, what do you think, is the Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem valid? I've made a SVG animation presenting it here: http://flatassembler.000webhostapp.com/p...ences.html At first, it seems to make perfect sense. However, as I was making that animation, it appeared to me that it's actually a form of circular reasoning. Namely, how is it possible to prove that the angles of the c*c square are actually right angles, without appealing to the Pythagorean Theorem itself and the formula for the area of a parallelogram (P=a*b*sin(alpha))? It appears to me that it isn't. Tiberius Question Everything. Religious Views: Shell B Posts: 14927 Threads: 684 Joined: August 25, 2008 Reputation: 143 RE: Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem November 22, 2018 at 9:30 am What other angles could they be? The hypotenuses are all the same length, we don’t need to prove that as it’s part of the design of the initial setup. The triangles are all the same, that’s likewise by design. They are all transformed on the plane in the same way. The only possible shape they can make is a square when all that is taken into account. Brian37 RationalPoet Religious Views: JGH 1933-2017 RIP MOM Posts: 25662 Threads: 1718 Joined: May 24, 2012 Reputation: 70 RE: Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem November 22, 2018 at 10:00 am I had a hypotenuse once, but I went to the doctor, got a shot for it, and it cleared up.(Note to readers: Nothing to see here, just being silly) We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread already in progress. Jörmungandr The Great Serpent Religious Views: Religiously Unaffiliated Posts: 18910 Threads: 85 Joined: February 22, 2011 Reputation: 156 RE: Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem November 22, 2018 at 10:56 am "Hypot en use. Hardhat required." Grandizer Senior Member Religious Views: Faith is not knowledge. Posts: 5862 Threads: 65 Joined: May 31, 2014 Reputation: 55 RE: Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem November 22, 2018 at 11:07 am (November 22, 2018 at 3:14 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: So, what do you think, is the Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem valid? I've made a SVG animation presenting it here: http://flatassembler.000webhostapp.com/p...ences.html At first, it seems to make perfect sense. However, as I was making that animation, it appeared to me that it's actually a form of circular reasoning. Namely, how is it possible to prove that the angles of the c*c square are actually right angles, without appealing to the Pythagorean Theorem itself and the formula for the area of a parallelogram (P=a*b*sin(alpha))? It appears to me that it isn't. You just need to take a "look" to see it makes sense, right? Not sure where the necessity to appeal to that formula for the area of a parallelogram comes from. polymath257 Member Religious Views: Atheist Posts: 1334 Threads: 4 Joined: January 3, 2018 Reputation: 20 RE: Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem November 22, 2018 at 11:29 am (November 22, 2018 at 3:14 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: So, what do you think, is the Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem valid? I've made a SVG animation presenting it here: http://flatassembler.000webhostapp.com/p...ences.html At first, it seems to make perfect sense. However, as I was making that animation, it appeared to me that it's actually a form of circular reasoning. Namely, how is it possible to prove that the angles of the c*c square are actually right angles, without appealing to the Pythagorean Theorem itself and the formula for the area of a parallelogram (P=a*b*sin(alpha))? It appears to me that it isn't. You need to know the angles of a triangle add up to two right angles. That is enough to show that the central figure is a square. To show the angles of a triangle add up to two right angles requires results on opposite interior and opposite exterior angles for parallel lines. Those results require the parallel postulate. FlatAssembler Member Religious Views: Atheist Posts: 508 Threads: 51 Joined: July 26, 2017 Reputation: 4 RE: Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem November 22, 2018 at 11:30 am (This post was last modified: November 22, 2018 at 11:34 am by FlatAssembler.) Quote: What other angles could they be? The hypotenuses are all the same length, we don’t need to prove that as it’s part of the design of the initial setup. The triangles are all the same, that’s likewise by design. They are all transformed on the plane in the same way.The only possible shape they can make is a square when all that is taken into account. But the sides being the same length doesn't mean the angles are the same. That's true only for triangles, not for the polygons with four (or more) angles. As for the other replies, this is not a trolling question, so please don't answer as if it were. Edit: Sorry, Polymath, I haven't seen your response, which actually makes some sense. Grandizer Senior Member Religious Views: Faith is not knowledge. Posts: 5862 Threads: 65 Joined: May 31, 2014 Reputation: 55 RE: Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem November 22, 2018 at 11:35 am I was being serious, FTR. Like Tibs said, the triangles are exactly the same and rearranged in the same way. That could only result in a square, not just any rhombus. Polymath's answer is more rigorous, fair enough. polymath257 Member Religious Views: Atheist Posts: 1334 Threads: 4 Joined: January 3, 2018 Reputation: 20 RE: Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem November 22, 2018 at 11:54 am (November 22, 2018 at 11:35 am)Grandizer Wrote: I was being serious, FTR. Like Tibs said, the triangles are exactly the same and rearranged in the same way. That could only result in a square, not just any rhombus. Polymath's answer is more rigorous, fair enough. Something is required since the result fails for non-Euclidean geometry. And, in fact the point that fails is the angles are not right angles. The lines around the (a+b) squares are no longer straight. polymath257 Member Religious Views: Atheist Posts: 1334 Threads: 4 Joined: January 3, 2018 Reputation: 20 RE: Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem November 22, 2018 at 6:44 pm (This post was last modified: November 22, 2018 at 6:49 pm by polymath257.) I'd also point out there are other implicit assumptions here. For example, how is the square of side length a+b constructed? Well, we can take a line segment of length a+b, say AB. Do perpendiculars from both ends, giving sides AC and BD, each of length a+b. iI is an *assumption* that the line CD is perpendicular to both AC and BD and is of length a+b. In non-Euclidean geometry, this line is NOT perpendicular to either AC or BD (the angle is *less* than a right angle) and its length is *more* than a+b. There *are* no squares in Lobachevskian geometry with four equal sides and right angles. They simply don't exist. So even the original figures have hidden assumptions. To be perfectly rigorous, all these details would need to be addressed. « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post The Mathematical Proof Thread Kernel Sohcahtoa 67 8597 July 6, 2018 at 8:37 pm Last Post: Fireball Fundemental theorem of Calculus intuition A Handmaid 19 1995 August 28, 2016 at 12:52 pm Last Post: Jehanne Million Dollar Prize for Math proof of NP problems emilynghiem 6 2570 February 22, 2015 at 12:47 am Last Post: vorlon13 "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God Belac Enrobso 41 12845 February 9, 2015 at 3:22 am Last Post: Alex K Godels theorem is invalide for 5 reasons shakuntala 8 2863 December 21, 2014 at 1:04 pm Last Post: agnesi Mathematical proof.. lifesagift 20 5035 September 26, 2014 at 5:01 pm Last Post: lifesagift My proof for de morgans law LogicMaster 17 4120 May 29, 2014 at 7:55 pm Last Post: Cyberman Mathematician Claims Proof of Connection between Prime Numbers KichigaiNeko 10 5904 September 26, 2012 at 3:18 am Last Post: Categories+Sheaves Need a proof (real analysis) CliveStaples 8 4936 August 2, 2012 at 10:11 pm Last Post: CliveStaples Mathematical proof of the existence of God JudgeDracoAmunRa 20 10959 March 30, 2012 at 11:43 am Last Post: JudgeDracoAmunRa

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)