Added: 4 years ago
From: denisxx61
Views: 73,985
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (48)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Quod erat demonstrandum.

  • Buuuuuh

  • Weird. Pythagoras shouldn't work when the triangle is not right-corded.

  • this is awful.

    im looking for an explanation but this is only proof

  • @jasonjslam this explains it. just learn not to be retarded please.

  • Delightful! There's a rumor going round that right triangles are giving birth to an infinite set of Pythagorean Triplets! I don't mean to be a hypotenuisance, but I think its a fact. The Formula Freaks and Theorem Patrol send their greetings to all!

  • This video is kind of bad... It only prooves it to be true for the 3 by 4 by 5 triangle, you can prove it really easy mathimaticly

  • What are cubits?

  • A cubit is an ancient measurement of length equal to about the length of the forearm. There are several Biblical references to cubits. I seem to recall that Noah's Ark was quoted in cubits.

  • Let each small square be any value, and this will still be true. 9(x)+16(x)=25(x). One merely need calculate that for any line length called "y" that if it is squared and the square is divided by 9, 16, or 25 respectively, that it will always be so divisible. Some numbers are amazingly resistent to an accurate division by these numbers, however, so a more rigorous method must be found!!! :P

  • QED?

  • @supergreatsuper it is short for quod erat demonstrandum and in english it means that which was to be demonstrated

  • cool 5/5 thanks you helped me on my assigment! :)

    thanks again

    5/5

  • Many thanks for your kind comment. This is the very reason why I posted the video. It has helped many school students understand the theorem. I assignment goes well.

  • Waouh...?

  • educational now for little kiddies.n1

  • @ denisxx61

    Nice little vid that indeed will help some kids.

    However, your being preoccupied with the annoying "pedantics" that are not enthusiastic is not helping anybody.

    Though this way of explaining wil help the dim kids, the bright ones will leave the room bewildered.

    Call this a demo.

    Add the bright explanation with the four triangles and the little square (a-b)(a-b), and you will cater for the bright kids as well. Yes, one can avoid some of the math in this.

    THEN say he was right.

  • Does it really matter that this isn't a proof if the idea is to demonstrate the theorem for kids? Lots of times drawing an example of a general case is more enlightening than a formal proof (of course they can be misleading as well).

  • I meant specific case

  • Many thanks for your comments. As you mentioned I built the model to demonstrate to children just what the Pythagoras theorem meant.

    The Proof/demonstration pedantics are rather annoying. As the hypotenuse simply connects the base to the height and that both the base and height can have infinite lengths it is totally impossible to use the theorem to prove every possible right angle triangle.

  • These pedantics would also say that you can't prove that the total of the angles of a square don't necessarily total 360 degrees because no model covers all possible squares. Same for the area of a circle Etc. Etc. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

    So, thanks again your understanding is much appreciated.

  • what's "QED"?

  • Q.E.D is a Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which literally means "which was to be demonstrated".

  • The visual helped me to see the theorem in a different way, cool. Thank you.

  • Many thanks for your comment. This is exactly the reason I constructed and posted the video of the model. I use it in the school system to help the students understand just what the Pythagoras theorem is all about.

  • This isn't a proof. You just showed it works for the 3-4-5 case.

  • he never said it was. it's jsut a very nice visualization

  • When he "checks to make sure Pythagoras is right" he's misleading his students. Showing that the theorem works for one case isn't showing that it's true for all cases. Also, mathematicians use QED to stand for "that which has been demonstrated" at the end of a proof, and this is not a proof..

  • Now he has to construct an infinite amount of such triangles to prove the theory works for every right triangle, haha! But a cool video anyway.

  • it is in fact a proof. The reason why he did it in a 3-4-5 case was because the squares he had fit for such an example. For a different sized triangle he would've needed different sized squares to demonstrate with, which i doubt were accessible

  • no dude, it's not a proof. in order to PROVE it he needs to do it for EVERY right triangle. not to mention this method of "proof" doesn't work for the 4-5-sqrt(41) case, or any other case that doesn't involve whole numbers. like you said, this is an EXAMPLE. not a PROOF.

  • I don't see how that got a -1, it is correct. +1 to you good sire.

  • what are you talking about?

  • Dude, you could have just used a calculator, it would have saved you the trouble of setting up this apparatus and us 56 seconds of our lives.

  • ....and let me guess...Pythagoras himself had a toss up daily between his casio, sharp or just using the calc on his nokia?

    Also you may fail to understand the differentiation in learning styles. Visual learners will find this video fantastic.

    Perhaps think before you comment in the future 'Dude'

  • Clever!

  • thank you for helping me now its a bit easier..thanks again!

  • Many thanks for your comment. This is the very reason I created the video - to help others understand the theorem. I work with students up to Grade 8 (age 13) and this demonstration really helps them understand the workings of the theorem.

    Again thanks - your comment makes a refreshing change from all the pedantic comments I have received.

    Ed

  • I hate it when people prove Pythagoras' theorem by a single case. My favorite proof is the one of a tilted square inside a square which shows the area of the larger square to equal the area of the smaller square plus the areas of the 4 right angled triangles between them. Simplification yields c^2 = a^2 + b^2.

    Also, as I can see some do not know of any proofs, wiki it up. There are hundreds of proofs for Pythagoras' theorem.

  • I do spend my time doing important things. This model and video is used in my school projects to teach children just what the Pythagoras Theorem means and how it works. In my opinion education is important. also I know how to spell theorem.

  • As you know spelling is not inportint in math . How many 6th graders are on you tube, who knows, I was looking for something more in depth but have fun teaching

  • This is a demonstration of one case, not a proof in general. But there certainly are general proofs. Some were known to the Greeks. The poster above who said this is impossible is wrong. The whole point of mathematics is to prove things like this, not look at cases, though that can provide motivation. The geometry course one takes in ninth or tenth grade should include genuine proofs, of this and many other theorems. Indeed, that's the point of high school geometry.

    Robert H. Lewis

    Fordham

  • If it would be impossible to to prove all right-angled triangles, what is the guarantee that it will work for all of them?

  • The fact is that it has NEVER been demonstrated to be false, and I'd bet all my money and even my life that it will never be demonstrated to be false.

    I think there is a proof of it, maybe you can find it somewhere.

  • Plato was Greek

  • umm... I am always right

  • oh ok

  • Thanks for responding. Pleased you see my point, but I see your good point too. Well worth remembering. Works both ways I guess. Have a great Easter. Best regards.

  • qed means end of proof this is not a proof its a demonstration it doesnt prove it works for all right-angled triangles

  • True; this only proves that the theorem works for a 3-4-5 triangle but seeing that there is an infinite number of different right angle triangles it would be impossible to prove all of them.

  • that is why it is called therom instead of law

  • Besides Q.E.D is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" (literally translated "that which was to be demonstrated"). The Q.E.D abbreviation can be used at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument. This signifies that the last statement deduced was the one to be demonstrated, so the proof is complete.

    I Think the demonstration model fulfills these criteria.

  • aww that was so cute! :P

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more