Main content

## Geometry (all content)

### Course: Geometry (all content) > Unit 2

Lesson 7: Angles between intersecting lines- Angles, parallel lines, & transversals
- Parallel & perpendicular lines
- Missing angles with a transversal
- Angle relationships with parallel lines
- Parallel lines & corresponding angles proof
- Missing angles (CA geometry)
- Proving angles are congruent
- Proofs with transformations
- Line and angle proofs

© 2023 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice

# Parallel lines & corresponding angles proof

Proof by contradiction that corresponding angle equivalence implies parallel lines. Created by Sal Khan.

## Want to join the conversation?

- I don't get how Z= 0 at3:31(15 votes)
- Z is = to zero because when you have

x+180-x+z=180

you can cancel out the +x and -x leaving you with

180+z=180

if you subtract 180 from both sides you get

z=0(44 votes)

- Imho the videos (actually there are more of them but they all resort to the same reasoning) about transversals and the ones about the sum of the angles inside a triangle are not consistent because they are circular reasoning : the "sum of angles in a triangle" starts from alleged proof of "angles in parallel lines and transversals", while these video's don't prove anything (it's taken for granted) in a rogorous manner; the only proof is the proof "ad absurdum" in this video, and this assumes a proven "sum of angles in a triangle". To me this is circular reasoning, and therefore not valid.

Basically, in these two videos both postulates are hanging together in the air, and that's not what math should be.

I say this because most of the things in these videos are obvious to me; the way they are (rigourously) built from the ground up isn't anymore (I'm 53, so that's fourty years in the past) ;)(11 votes)- It's not circular reasoning, but I agree with "walter geo" that something is still missing.

Assumption:

- sum of angles in a triangle is constant, which assumes that**if***l || m*then x = y

To prove:

- if x = y, then*l || m*

Now this video only proved, that if we accept that**if**is true*l || m*then x=y

THEN**if x=y then l || m**can be proven

A proof is still missing. Let's say I don't believe that**if**. Then it's impossible to make the proof from this video. One might say, "hey, that's logical", but why is more logical than what is demonstrated here?*l || m*then x=y(5 votes)

- I did not get Corresponding Angles 2 (exercise). The video has helped slightly but I am still confused. Could someone please explain this?(7 votes)
- If parallel lines are cut by a transversal (a third line not parallel to the others), then they are corresponding angles and they are equal, sketch on the left side above. We know that angle x is corresponding to angle y and that l || m [lines are parallel--they told us], so the measure of angle x must equal the measure of angle y. so if one is 6x + 24 and the other is 2x + 60 we can create an equation: 6x + 24 = 2x + 60. that is the geometry part....now the algebra part: 6x + 24 = 2x + 60 [I am recalling the problem from memory]

using algebra rules i subtract 24 from both sides

6x + 24 - 24 = 2x + 60 - 24 and get 6x = 2x + 36.

NEXT if 6x = 2x + 36 then I subtract 2x from both sides

6x - 2x = 2x - 2x + 36 and get 4x = 36

if 4x = 36 I can then divide both sides by 4 and get x = 9

It might be helpful to think if the geometry sets up the relationship, the angles are congruent so their measures are equal, from the algebra; once we know the angles are equal, we apply rules of algebra to solve. let me know if this helps:(8 votes)

- So why does Z equal to zero? I am still confused. Please help me!

Thank you(7 votes)- Z is = to zero because when you have

x+180-x+z=180

you can cancel out the +x and -x leaving you with

180+z=180

if you subtract 180 from both sides you get

z=0(6 votes)

- so z means zero. wat about x? wat deos it equal?

thnk u(5 votes)- x= whatever the angle might be, sal didn't try and find x he simply proved x=y only when the lines are parallel.(4 votes)

- What does he mean by contradiction in0:56?(1 vote)
- z ended up with 0 degrees.. as sal said we can concluded by two possibilities..

1) they are overlapping each other..

OR

2) they do not intersect at all..

hence, its a contradiction..(11 votes)

- in2:00-2:10

what does he mean by zero length(2 votes)- He basically means: look at how he drew the picture. The length of that purple line is obviously not zero. But then he gets a contradiction. For x and y to be equal AND the lines to intersect the angle ACB must be zero. For such conditions to be true, lines m and l are coincident (aka the same line), and the purple line is connecting two points of the same line, NOT LIKE THE DRAWING. This is the contradiction; in the drawing, angle ACB is NOT zero. But for x and y to be equal, angle ACB MUST be zero, and lines m and l MUST be the same line.(8 votes)

- So, how do you prove lines parallel? Like the whole t-chart way.(3 votes)
- At4:35, what is contradiction?(3 votes)
- "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another."(1 vote)

- Hi,

I am watching this to help with a question that I am stuck on.. What is the relationship between corresponding angles and parallel lines?

thanks for the help....(2 votes)- If two parallel lines are cut by a transversal, the corresponding angles are congruent. If two lines are cut by a transversal and the corresponding angles are congruent, the lines are parallel. Hope this helps :D(2 votes)

## Video transcript

We know that if we have two
lines that are parallel-- so let me draw those two
parallel lines, l and m. So that's line l and line m. We know that if
they are parallel, then if we were to draw a
transversal that intersects both of them, that the
corresponding angles are equal. So this is x, and
this is y So we know that if l is parallel
to m, then x is equal to y. What I want to do in
this video is prove it the other way around. I want to prove-- So
this is what we know. We know this. What I want to do is prove
if x is equal to y, then l is parallel to m. So that we can go either way. If they're parallel, then the
corresponding angles are equal. And I want to show if the
corresponding angles are equal, then the lines are
definitely parallel. And what I'm going to do is
prove it by contradiction. So let's put this
aside right here. This is our goal. I'm going to assume
that this isn't true. I'm going to assume
that it's not true. So I'm going to assume
that x is equal to y and l is not parallel to m. So let's think about what type
of a reality that would create. So if l and m are not parallel,
and they're different lines, then they're going to
intersect at some point. So let me draw l like this. This is line l. Let me draw m like this. They're going to intersect. By definition, if two
lines are not parallel, they're going to
intersect each other. And that is going to be m. And then this thing
that was a transversal, I'll just draw it over here. So I'll just draw it over here. And then this is x. This is y. And we're assuming
that y is equal to x. So we could also call the
measure of this angle x. So given all of this
reality, and we're assuming in either case
that this is some distance, that this line is
not of 0 length. And so this line right over here
is not going to be of 0 length. Or this line segment
between points A and B. I guess we could say that AB,
the length of that line segment is greater than 0. I think that's a fair
assumption in either case. AB is going to be
greater than 0. So when we assume that these
two things are not parallel, we form ourselves a
nice little triangle here, where AB is
one of the sides, and the other two
sides are-- I guess we could label this point of
intersection C. The other two sides are line segment
BC and line segment AC. And we know a lot about finding
the angles of triangles. So let's just see what
happens when we just apply what we already know. Well first of all, if
this angle up here is x, we know that it is supplementary
to this angle right over here. So this angle over here is going
to have measure 180 minus x. And then we know that
this angle, this angle and this last angle--
let's call it angle z-- we know that the sum
of those interior angles of a triangle are going to
be equal to 180 degrees. So we know that x plus 180
minus x plus 180 minus x plus z is going to be equal
to 180 degrees. Now these x's cancel out. We can subtract 180
degrees from both sides. And we are left with
z is equal to 0. So if we assume
that x is equal to y but that l is not parallel to
m, we get this weird situation where we formed this
triangle, and the angle at the intersection
of those two lines that are definitely not
parallel all of a sudden becomes 0 degrees. But that's completely
nonsensical. If this was 0
degrees, that means that this triangle
wouldn't open up at all, which means
that the length of AB would have to be 0. Essentially, you
could call it maybe like a degenerate triangle. It wouldn't even be a triangle. It would be a line. These two lines would
have to be the same line. They wouldn't even
form a triangle. And so this leads us
to a contradiction. The contradiction is
that this line segment AB would have to be equal to 0. It kind of wouldn't be there. Or another contradiction
that you could come up with would be that these
two lines would have to be the same
line because there's no kind of opening between them. So either way, this
leads to a contradiction. And since it leads to
that contradiction, since if you assume x equals
y and l is not equal to m, you get to something that
makes absolutely no sense. You contradict your
initial assumptions. Then it essentially proves
that if x is equal to y, then l is parallel to m. Because we've shown
that if x is equal to y, there's no way for l and m
to be two different lines and for them not to be parallel. And so we have
proven our statement. So now we go in both ways. If lines are parallel,
corresponding angles are equal. If corresponding
angles are equal, then the lines are parallel.