Show that the proposition P : There exists a pair of straight lines that are at constant distance from each other. is equivalent to the Parallel Postulate Q : If two lines are drawn which intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough.

balafiavatv 2022-08-12 Answered
Show that the proposition P:

There exists a pair of straight lines that are at constant distance from each other.

is equivalent to the Parallel Postulate Q :

If two lines are drawn which intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough.

I tried to prove Q P then ¬ Q ¬ P. But for the second part, I can do nothing because as soon as the postulate is supposed to be untrue, the equivalent relation between angles no more exist, therefore it's hard to get congruent triangles as I used to do.
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (1)

gorilomgl
Answered 2022-08-13 Author has 9 answers
You'd rather try P Q instead, showing that the equidistant line is the only line on a given point which doesn't intersect the original line. Then, prove ¬ Q implies that there are more lines that don't intersect.

We have step-by-step solutions for your answer!

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-07-01
In Introduction to Metamathematics, Kleene introduces a formal system where the first three postulates in the group for propositional calculus are:
1 a . A ( B A ) 1 b . ( A B ) ( ( A ( B C ) ) ( A C ) ) 2. A , A B B
As far as I understand, 1 a and 2 are typical for Hilbert-style deductive systems, but 1 b is not. A more traditional choice, serving pretty much the same purpose (e.g. proving A A to start with) would have been:
( A ( B C ) ) ( ( A B ) ( A C ) )
What is the rationale for the unique choice made for 1 b in Introduction to Metamathematics?
asked 2022-06-14
The way I view Euclid's postulates are as follows:

A line segment can be made between any two points on surface A.

A line segment can be continued in its direction infinitely on surface A.

Any line segment can form the diameter of a circle on surface A.

The result of an isometry upon a figure containing a right angle preserves the right angle as a right angle on surface A.

If a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than 180 degrees in total, the two straight lines will eventually intersect on the side where the sum of the angles is less than l80 degrees.

The way I view the five postulates is simple. Each postulate defines some quality a surface has.

For instance, 2 seems to define whether a surface is infinite/looped or finite/bounded, 3 seems to force a surface to be circular (or a union of circular subsets), and 5 I believe change the constant curvature of a surface (wether it is 0 or nonzero).

I want to determine what "quality" 1 and 4 define in the context of the surface itself. 1 seems to imply discontinuity vs continuity, and I think 4 would imply non-constant curvature. However, I am unsure. Ultimately I would like to assign each of these a quality of a surface that they define such that all surfaces can be "categorized" under some combination of postulates, but that is irrelevant.

I am merely asking:

What two surfaces individually violate the first postulate and violate the fourth postulate?
asked 2022-05-09
Let A, B be two points on opposite sides of a line l. Then the line segment A B intersects l.

My question is:
1. Using only the 4 postulates of Euclid, is there a way to make precise the meaning of ``opposite sides"?
2. Is the intersection guaranteed to exist using only the 4 postulates? If so, why is it true?
asked 2022-06-25
Lorenz, Every single line through a point within an angle will meet at least one side of the angle.
I know I have to Show that the parallel postulate 5 implies lorenz, and then lorenz implies parallel postulate 5.
Assume postulate 5 . So we are given AB and a point C not on AB. Choose B on AB draw CD to construct angle ECD= angle BDC.
I just don't get what Lorenz postulate means. Thats where I am getting stuck.
asked 2022-08-16
Is there a smallest real number a such that there exist a natural number N so that:
n > N p n + 1 a p n ?
I believe it can be proved that n > 7 p n + 1 2 p n .
asked 2022-06-04
Is the proof of Fermat's last theorem solely based on the Peano's postulates + first order logic? Or it contains other axiomatic systems as well? What does it mean from foundations of math perspective to use several axiomatic systems to prove a conjecture? Do we know these axiomatic systems are consistent with one another? I'm not sure if I am asking it the right way, but I think logicians only prove the consistency of the axioms of one system not two different systems.
asked 2022-07-07
I've heard all these terms thrown about in proofs and in geometry, but what are the differences and relationships between them? Examples would be awesome! :)

New questions