Main content

### Course: High school geometry > Unit 3

Lesson 1: Transformations & congruence# Angle congruence equivalent to having same measure

Two angles are congruent if and only if they have the same measure.

## Want to join the conversation?

*Hello, is there a difference between*?**Congruent**and**Equivalent**(32 votes)*Congruent*is a term specific to geometry. Two figures are congruent when you can map one perfectly onto the other by reflection, rotating, and translating it without distortion.*Equivalent*is a more general term. In general, it means 'the same as, in all relevant ways.' In the context of the video title 'Angle congruence equivalent to having same measure', it means that the sentence "These angles are congruent" is true exactly when "These angles have the same measure" is true.

That is, if these angles are congruent, then they have the same measure. And if they are not congruent, then they have different measures.(30 votes)

- At3:25, what's "prime"? When would we see that? And how would we write that?(5 votes)
- This is a second meaning of prime in math, like in the transformers movies (Optimus Prime). It is an indication of a point that has been moved by one of the transformation (translation, rotation, reflection, or dilation) and is represented as A' B' or C'. So the original point A is moved to A', the original point B is moved to B', and the original point C is moved to C'.

You could even do two transformations on a point and end up with A double prime A".(17 votes)

- so does congruent (≅) mean both equal (=) and similar (~)(4 votes)
- congruent is things that are equal length, size etc. Two shapes that have the same proprtions (angles, sides etc) but are not necesarily the same size ( basically one is a scaled up version of the other)are similar. So an angle wih the sides 3, 4, and 5 will be similar to one with the sides of 6,, and 10, but not congruent.(1 vote)

- What's the difference between similar and congruent?(1 vote)
- For congruent shapes, they must be exactly the same shape.

For similar shapes, another shape can be obtained by enlarging or reducing the size of the shape.

For example, all circles are similar, since you can enlarge or reduce the size of the circle to obtain another circle.

Note that for shapes that are congruent, they are also similar.(3 votes)

- How would I solve this word problem: The perimeter of a square is 4 units greater than the combined perimeter of two congruent equilateral triangles. If the side length of the square is 10 units, what is the side length of the triangles?(1 vote)
- First, you would have to find the perimeter of a square. Since each side length is 10, the perimeter is 10+10+10+10, or 40.

It says that the perimeter of the square is 4 units greater than the combined perimeter of the congruent equilateral triangles.

So, 40-4, or 36, is the total perimeter of both of the congruent equilateral triangles. Divide this by six to get each side of the triangle, since there are 6 equal sides in 2 congruent equilateral triangles.

36/6 is 6, so the side length of each side of the triangles is 6 units.

Does this make sense?(2 votes)

- What is the formula for a triangle(0 votes)
- Are ∠ABC and ∠DEF congruent even if the lengths of AB and DE are not equal, if they have the same measure?

Or is it ambiguous and depends on the problem?(0 votes)- The lengths do not have to be equal. You can extend or shorten the lengths of the sides without affecting the angle measure at all. Just draw an angle on a piece of paper and measure the angle with a protractor. Now extend the angle. No matter how much you extend it, the angle will be exactly the same.(3 votes)

- At2:25he says that an angle is defined by two rays, can’t an angle be defined by a line/line segment as well?(1 vote)
- What is the => thing that he drew?(0 votes)
- I don't really think that's an actual math symbol (Or at least in this context), but rather just an indicator saying that the left side of the arrow concludes right side of the arrow.(1 vote)

- According to Wikipedia, "In mathematics, a rigid transformation (also called Euclidean transformation or Euclidean isometry) is a geometric transformation of a Euclidean space that preserves the Euclidean distance between every pair of points.[1][self-published source][2][3]

The rigid transformations include rotations, translations, reflections, or any sequence of these. Reflections are sometimes excluded from the definition of a rigid transformation by requiring that the transformation also preserve the handedness of objects in the Euclidean space. (A reflection would not preserve handedness; for instance, it would transform a left hand into a right hand.) To avoid ambiguity, a transformation that preserves handedness is known as a proper rigid transformation, or rototranslation.[citation needed] Any proper rigid transformation can be decomposed into a rotation followed by a translation, while any improper rigid transformation can be decomposed into an improper rotation followed by a translation, or into a sequence of reflections.

Any object will keep the same shape and size after a proper rigid transformation.

All rigid transformations are examples of affine transformations. The set of all (proper and improper) rigid transformations is a mathematical group called the Euclidean group, denoted E(n) for n-dimensional Euclidean spaces. The set of proper rigid transformations is called special Euclidean group, denoted SE(n).

In kinematics, proper rigid transformations in a 3-dimensional Euclidean space, denoted SE(3), are used to represent the linear and angular displacement of rigid bodies. According to Chasles' theorem, every rigid transformation can be expressed as a screw displacement."(0 votes)

## Video transcript

- [Instructor] What we're
going to do in this video is demonstrate that angles
are congruent if and only if they have the same measure, and for our definition of congruence, we will use the rigid
transformation definition, which tells us two figures
are congruent if and only if there exists a series
of rigid transformations which will map one figure onto the other. And then, what are rigid transformations? Those are transformations
that preserve distance between points and angle measures. So, let's get to it. So, let's start with two
angles that are congruent, and I'm going to show that
they have the same measure. I'm going to demonstrate
that, so they start congruent, so these two angles are
congruent to each other. Now, this means by the
rigid transformation definition of congruence,
there is a series of rigid transformations, transformations that map angle ABC onto angle, I'll do it here, onto angle DEF. By definition, by definition
of rigid transformations, they preserve angle measure,
preserve angle measure. So, if you're able to map the left angle onto the right angle, and
in doing so, you did it with transformations that
preserved angle measure, they must now have the same angle measure. We now know that the measure
of angle ABC is equal to the measure of angle DEF. So, we've demonstrated this
green statement the first way, that if things are congruent, they will have the same measure. Now, let's prove it the other way around. So now, let's start with the
idea that measure of angle ABC is equal to the measure of angle DEF, and to demonstrate that these
are going to be congruent, we just have to show that
there's always a series of rigid transformations
that will map angle ABC onto angle DEF, and to help us there, let's just visualize these angles, so, draw this really fast, angle ABC, and angle is defined by two
rays that start at a point. That point is the vertex, so that's ABC, and then let me draw angle DEF. So, that might look
something like this, DEF, and what we will now do is let's do our first rigid transformation. Let's translate, translate angle ABC so that B mapped to point E, and if we did that, so we're
gonna translate it like that, then ABC is going to look something like, ABC is gonna look something like this. It's going to look something like this. B is now mapped onto E. This would be where A would get mapped to. This would where C would get mapped to. Sometimes you might see a
notation A prime, C prime, and this is where B would get mapped to, and then the next thing I would do is I would rotate angle
ABC about its vertex, about B, so that ray BC, ray BC, coincides, coincides with ray EF. Now, you're just gonna rotate
the whole angle that way so that now, ray BC coincides with ray EF. Well, you might be saying,
"Hey, C doesn't necessarily have "to sit on F 'cause they
might be different distances "from their vertices,"
but that's all right. The ray can be defined by any
point that sits on that ray, so now, if you do this
rotation, and ray BC coincides with ray EF, now those two
rays would be equivalent because measure of angle
ABC is equal to the measure of angle DEF. That will also tell us that
ray BA, ray BA now coincides, coincides with ray ED, and just like that, I've given you a series
of rigid transformations that will always work. If you translate so that
the vertices are mapped onto each other and then you rotate it so that the bottom ray
of one angle coincides with the bottom ray of the other angle, then you could say the
top ray of the two angles will now coincide because the
angles have the same measure, and because of that, the
angles now completely coincide, and so we know that angle ABC
is congruent to angle DEF, and we're now done. We've proven both sides of this statement. If they're congruent, they
have the same measure. If they have the same measure,
then they are congruent.