In math class, I was told we need to take SAS as an axiom, otherwise we could not prove any congruences besides a triangle and itself. Is that really true? Is there a model of Hilbert's Euclidean geometry axioms (minus SAS and other congruence axioms), where the only way for triangles to be congruent is for them to be the same triangle?
2026-02-23 22:31:40.1771885900
Can one prove non-trivial congruences of triangles without SAS or other congruence axioms?
170 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in GEOMETRY
- Point in, on or out of a circle
- Find all the triangles $ABC$ for which the perpendicular line to AB halves a line segment
- How to see line bundle on $\mathbb P^1$ intuitively?
- An underdetermined system derived for rotated coordinate system
- Asymptotes of hyperbola
- Finding the range of product of two distances.
- Constrain coordinates of a point into a circle
- Position of point with respect to hyperbola
- Length of Shadow from a lamp?
- Show that the asymptotes of an hyperbola are its tangents at infinity points
Related Questions in AXIOMS
- Should axioms be seen as "building blocks of definitions"?
- Non-standard axioms + ZF and rest of math
- Does $\mathbb{R}$ have any axioms?
- Finite axiomatizability of theories in infinitary logic?
- Continuity axioms and completness axioms for real numbers are the same things?
- Why don't we have many non euclidean geometries out there?
- Why do we need the axiom of choice?
- What axioms Gödel is using, if any?
- Determine if U a subspace of $P_3$?
- Why such stark contrast between the approach to the continuum hypothesis in set theory and the approach to the parallel postulate in geometry?
Related Questions in AXIOMATIC-GEOMETRY
- Is there a finite axiomatization of Tarski's geometry axioms?
- Playfair's Axiom for parallel planes instead of lines
- It is possible to prove that there are infinitely many points in space in Hilber'ts axiomatization of geometry?
- Hilbert axioms (groups I and II) and first theorem
- Does the Archimedean axiom guarantee a monotone and additive metric?
- Independency of Hilbert system's axioms
- A confusion about the second connection axiom of Euclidean Geometry
- How can affine plane extended of projective plane?
- Showing a Projective Plane has 7 Points and 6 Lines
- What's the need for Hilbert's 7th axiom of incidence?
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
Without the SAS axiom, there is very little that constrains the congruence relation on angles; it just has to be an equivalence relation that satisfies the "copying an angle" axiom (given any angle, there is a unique congruent angle on a given side of any ray). So, you could start with the usual model $\mathbb{R}^2$ of Hilbert's axioms (or $\mathbb{R}^3$ if you are doing the 3-dimensional version), and then redefine its angle congruence relation in some nasty way that still satisfies the copying axiom. For instance, suppose that for each $P\in\mathbb{R}^2$ you specify a bijection $A_P:(0,\pi)\to(0,\pi)$. Then you could define an angle $\alpha$ at a point $P$ to be congruent to an angle $\beta$ at a point $Q$ iff $A_P(a)=A_Q(b)$, where $a$ and $b$ are the usual radian angle measures of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, respectively.
In particular, by choosing all these bijections $A_P$ one element at a time by a transfinite recursion of length $\mathfrak{c}$, you can arrange that there are no non-equal triangles that are congruent. At each step where you need to define a new value of some $A_P$, there are fewer than $\mathfrak{c}$ different triangles whose angles you have already specified, and so you can pick a value that avoids repeating any of those angles. Similarly, at each step where you need to define a new value of some $A_P^{-1}$ (to make sure each $A_P$ is surjective), you can choose it to avoid being equal to the angle measure in any triangle with $P$ as a vertex such that you have already chosen the other two angles.