If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content

Parallel lines & corresponding angles proof

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

Want to join the conversation?

  • duskpin ultimate style avatar for user Nura T
    I don't get how Z= 0 at
    (16 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user walter geo
    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)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • piceratops ultimate style avatar for user Peter Robert
      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 l || m then x=y is true
      THEN
      if x=y then l || m can be proven

      A proof is still missing. Let's say I don't believe that if l || m then x=y. 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?
      (5 votes)
  • aqualine sapling style avatar for user Emyyy
    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)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • blobby green style avatar for user Geo OBrien
      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)
  • male robot donald style avatar for user Luke Kurian
    So why does Z equal to zero? I am still confused. Please help me!
    Thank you
    (7 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • piceratops sapling style avatar for user Jennah
    so z means zero. wat about x? wat deos it equal?
    thnk u
    (5 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • leafers tree style avatar for user Christopher Lee
    What does he mean by contradiction in ?
    (1 vote)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • winston default style avatar for user Rish Sinha
    in -
    what does he mean by zero length
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • leaf red style avatar for user agxxvi
      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)
  • duskpin ultimate style avatar for user Hermione Granger
    So, how do you prove lines parallel? Like the whole t-chart way.
    (3 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • aqualine ultimate style avatar for user Vinhee Cho
    At , what is contradiction?
    (3 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user BPAmericanGirl
    if lines are not parallel they are not nessasarily intersecting. they could be skew
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user

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.