whats the difference between coordinate geometry proof and a proof method that does not require coordinate geo?

Probably not too much. Proofs are *usually* done within the constructs of the math in which the proof is to be done, but this is only loosely held.

Look at the fundamental thrm of calculus. Some of that involves the implementation of algebra, but as long as the proof is valid that is sufficient, however mathematicians usually strive for the most general proofs because those usually remove ambiguities that can arise in less rigorous proofs I just alluded to. General proofs remove specific ties to arguments which can lead to the questioning of the validity and application.

Math and physics proofs are sort of opposite to those of law. Legalese is usually phrased in a way that seems to include ambiguities, making it possible to be interpreted in various ways, and often they are put together by corporate entities where the ambiguities are in favor of the entity for which they are designed.

See the difference?

o.ok. i will provide you "some" help, yet you're able to do the artwork your self. a million. you have a quadrilateral with specific vertices. you prefer to coach it quite is an isosceles trapazoid. What do you comprehend approximately an isosceles trapazoid??? nicely, you comprehend that: a million. the bases are parallel 2. the facets are equivalent 3. the "base" is longer than the "dazzling" What do you may desire to artwork with?? purely the co-ordinate factors. nicely, it 'pears to ME so you might use the gap formula to locate the dimensions of the facets and teach that they are equivalent. you may then locate the slope of the backside and dazzling to coach they are parallel. then you definately'll locate the dimensions of the backside and dazzling to coach they are UNEQUAL and as a result you haven't any longer have been given a parallelogram. concern #2. What are the features of a sq.. nicely, if I remember properly, it quite is 4 facets equivalent and one suited perspective. as a result, you need to use the gap formula to coach all of the facets are equivalent. THEN, you need to use the gap formula to coach one diagonal is the sum of the squares of two facets, as a result proving the risk-free perspective is a suited perspective. do no longer make those products harder than it quite is. continually, tony