{{ item.displayTitle }}

No history yet!

equalizer

rate_review

{{ r.avatar.letter }}

{{ u.avatar.letter }}

+

{{ item.displayTitle }}

{{ item.subject.displayTitle }}

{{ searchError }}

{{ courseTrack.displayTitle }} {{ statistics.percent }}% Sign in to view progress

{{ printedBook.courseTrack.name }} {{ printedBook.name }} According to the definition of congruence, two figures are congruent if there is a rigid motion that maps one onto the other. In comparison, for polygons, there is another method that makes it possible to determine congruence without involving rigid motions. That method will be developed and understood in this lesson.
### Catch-Up and Review

**Here are a few recommended readings before getting started with this lesson.**

By applying rigid motions, investigate whether the given pair of triangles are congruent or not.

- The left-hand side triangle can be translated by dragging it.
- The left-hand side triangle can be rotated about the movable point $P$ by clicking and dragging any of its vertices.
- The left-hand side triangle can be reflected across the line shown, which can be set by moving its points.

When the triangles are

When a rigid motion is applied to a polygon, the resulting image can be seen as the polygon formed by the image of each part of the original polygon under the same rigid motion.
### Concept

## Corresponding Parts

There is a correspondence between the parts of the preimage and the parts of the image. This relationship leads to the following definition, which will simplify future discussions.

Consider two figures. One figure is the image of the other under a transformation. The pairs formed by a part of the preimage — a side, angle, or vertex — and the image of that part are called corresponding parts. For example, in the following applet, $A$ and $P$ are corresponding vertices.

By clicking on each part of $ABCD,$ the corresponding part on $PQRS$ will be highlighted. Note that the figures and their corresponding parts can either be congruent or similar.

When two triangles are congruent, it seems natural to think that the corresponding parts are congruent as well. What about the same concept when the statement is reversed? That is to say, if the corresponding parts of two triangles are congruent, are the triangles congruent? The following claim answers this question.

Two triangles are congruent if and only if their corresponding sides and angles are congruent.

Using the triangles shown, this claim can be written algebraically as follows.

$△ABC≅△DEF⇕AB≅DEBC≅EFAC≅DF and∠A≅∠D∠B≅∠E∠C≅∠F $

This proof will be developed based on the given diagram, but it is valid for any pair of triangles. The proof of this biconditional statement consists of two parts, one for each direction.

- If $△ABC$ and $△DEF$ are congruent, then their corresponding sides and angles are congruent.
- If the corresponding sides and angles of $△ABC$ and $△DEF$ are congruent, then the triangles are congruent.

Because rigid motions preserve side lengths, $AB$ and its image have the same length, that is, $AB=DE.$ Therefore, $AB≅DE.$ Similarly for the other two side lengths.
$BC≅EFandAC≅DF $
Furthermore, rigid motions preserve angle measures. Then, $∠A$ and its image have the same measure, that is, $m∠A=m∠D.$ Therefore, $∠A≅∠D.$ Similarly for the remaining angles.
$∠B≅∠Eand∠C≅∠F $
That way, it has been shown that if two triangles are congruent, then their corresponding sides and angles are congruent.

To begin, mark the congruent parts on the given diagram.

The primary purpose is finding a rigid motion or sequence of rigid motions that maps one triangle onto the other. This can be done in several ways, here it is shown one of them.

Translate $△ABC$ so that one pair of corresponding vertices match

As seen, $△A_{′}B_{′}C_{′}$ did not match $△DEF.$ Therefore, a second rigid motion is needed.

Rotate $△DB_{′}C_{′}$ so that one pair of corresponding sides match

As before, the image did not match $△DEF.$ Thus, a third rigid motion is required.

Reflect $△DEC_{′′}$ so that the corresponding sides match

This time the image matched $△DEF.$

Consequently, through applying different rigid motions, $△ABC$ was mapped onto $△DEF.$ This implies that $△ABC$ and $△DEF$ are congruent. Then, the proof is complete.

The local chess team in Jordan's town has designed a fancy new logo.
What is the sum of the perimeters of both triangles? ### Hint

### Solution

Jordan thinks the logo is made of two congruent triangles. Is she correct?

{"type":"choice","form":{"alts":["Yes","No"],"noSort":false},"formTextBefore":"","formTextAfter":"","answer":0}

{"type":"text","form":{"type":"math","options":{"comparison":"1","nofractofloat":false,"keypad":{"simple":true,"useShortLog":false,"variables":[],"constants":[]}},"text":"<span class=\"katex\"><span class=\"katex-html\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/span><\/span>"},"formTextBefore":null,"formTextAfter":null,"answer":{"text":["15.8"]}}

Use the measuring tool to find the side lengths and angle measures of each triangle. Then, compare them. Are all corresponding parts congruent? If the triangles are congruent, they have equal perimeters.

To determine whether the logo is made of two congruent triangles, the measures of both triangles need to be found. For simplicity, start by separating the two triangles involved.

Then, find and label the side lengths and angle measures of each triangle.

As seen, both triangles have the same side lengths and angle measures. That is, all their corresponding sides and angles are congruent. Therefore, the two triangles are congruent. Jordan was correct!

The new logo is made of two congruent triangles.

Because the triangles are congruent, they have the same perimeter. Then, it is enough to find the perimeter of only one of them and then multiply it by $2.$ Remember, the perimeter is the sum of the side lengths. $P_{1}P_{1} =1.5+3+3.4=7.9 $ Finally, the sum of the perimeters of both triangles is twice $P_{1}.$ That can be expressed as $2⋅P_{1}=2⋅7.9=15.8.$

To show that two triangles are **not** congruent, it is enough to find only one side or angle of one of the triangles that is not congruent to any side or angle of the second triangle.

Mark, Magdalena, and Kevin each bought a notebook with a triangle design on the cover.

Are there any pairs of congruent triangles? If so, which ones are congruent?

No, there are no pairs of congruent triangles.

To conclude that two triangles are congruent, check that all corresponding sides and angles are congruent.

Beginning with Mark's notebook, notice that the triangle has a $50_{∘}$ angle, while neither of the other two triangles have a $50_{∘}$ angle. That is, there is a part in Mark's triangle that is not congruent to any part of the other two triangles.

The triangle in Mark's notebook is **not** congruent to any of the other triangles.

Now, moving on to Madaelena's notebeook. Notice that the triangle has the same angle measures as the triangle in Kevin's notebook.

Before concluding that these two triangles are congruent, remember, *all* the corresponding parts have to be congruent. Therefore, the sides opposite to the $80_{∘}$ angle of each triangle should be congruent. Well, that is not the case.

It was a close call, but the triangle in Magdalena's notebook is not congruent to the triangle in Kevin's notebook. As a result, none of the triangles are congruent to the others.

The following figure is made of $5$ triangles.

How many pairs of congruent triangles are there?{"type":"text","form":{"type":"math","options":{"comparison":"1","nofractofloat":false,"keypad":{"simple":true,"useShortLog":false,"variables":[],"constants":[]}},"text":"<span class=\"katex\"><span class=\"katex-html\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/span><\/span>"},"formTextBefore":null,"formTextAfter":null,"answer":{"text":["4"]}}

There are four pairs of congruent triangles in the given figure. $△ABF△AFG△AFG△DEF ≅△DFB≅△DEF≅△BDC≅△BDC $

Notice that $BF$ is a common side for $△ABF$ and $△DFB.$ Remember, if two sides or angles have the same number of marks, they are congruent.

To determine which pairs of triangles are congruent, pick one of them and compare its parts to the parts of the rest of the triangles. Start by comparing $△AFG$ to $△ABF.$ These two triangles have $AF$ as a common side.

By applying the concept of reading the marks to check for congruency, it can be said that $BF$ is not congruent to any side of $△AFG.$ Consequently, $△AFG$ is not congruent to $△ABF.$ By the same reasoning, $△AFG$ is not congruent to $△BFD$ either. $△AFG≆△ABF△AFG≆△BFD $ Next, compare $△AFG$ to $△DEF.$

Since $∠G$ and $∠DFE$ have both a measure of $50_{∘},$ they are congruent angles. Furthermore, the rest of the corresponding parts of these two triangles are congruent. $AF≅DEFG≅EFAG≅DF and ∠GAF≅∠FDE∠AFG≅∠DEF∠FGA≅∠EFD $ Consequently, $△AFG$ and $△DEF$ are congruent. Similarly, it can be checked that $△AFG$ is also congruent to $△BDC.$ By the Transitive Property of Congruence, a third pair of congruent triangles can be obtained.

Next, compare $△ABF$ to $△DFB.$ Since $∠AFB$ and $∠DBF$ have the same measure, they are congruent. Additionally, $BF$ is a common side for both triangles and, by the Reflexive Property of Congruence, $BF≅BF.$ $BF≅BFand∠AFB≅∠DBF $ In addition, the rest of corresponding parts of these two triangles are congruent. $AB≅DFBF≅FBAF≅DB and ∠FAB≅∠BDF∠ABF≅∠DFB∠BFA≅∠FBD $ Consequently, $△ABF$ and $△DFB$ are congruent. So far, there are four pairs of congruent triangles. $△ABF△AFG△AFG△DEF ≅△DFB≅△DEF≅△BDC≅△BDC $ Taking into account the Transitive Property of Congruence, and the fact that $△ABF$ is not congruent to $△AFG,$ it can be said that there are no more pairs of congruent triangles.

As with polygons, when it comes to writing a triangle congruence statement, the order in which the vertices are written is critical. Naming them in an incorrect order leads to erroneous conclusions. Consider, for example, the following congruent triangles.

Although the triangles are congruent, the congruence statement $△ABC≅△MQT$ is incorrect. Why? Because it would lead to the following conclusions about the sides and angles.
Consequently, always be sure to list the corresponding vertices in the correct order. Furthermore, another important concept to consider is that the claim which helps to determine whether two triangles are congruent is also valid for polygons. In fact, the claim is identical, except that

Two polygons are congruent if and only if their corresponding sides and angles are congruent. |

{{ 'mldesktop-placeholder-grade' | message }} {{ article.displayTitle }}!

{{ exercise.headTitle }}

{{ 'ml-heading-exercise' | message }} {{ focusmode.exercise.exerciseName }}