Let's do this question, which one of the following is not?
A criterion for congruency of two triangles.
We have seen that just now, what are the four valid criteria?
We have Essence's S.
S Esy and oddities.
And remember, is it also has A.
S, which is one and the same right now.
What is the correct answer?
You have option B, that is S.
S E is not a valid criteria and we have seen why that is so right.
We can construct two triangles that that.
Two sites and an angle, which is not the included angle, are equal to the two sites and an angle of
a given triangle, right.
Therefore, SASE is not a valid criteria to establish congruency of two triangles.
All right.
Let's do one more question.
By which of the following criterion two triangles cannot be proved to be congruent?
Now, again, which one of these is wrong and says this definitely is a valid criteria it says is a
valid criteria and ESEA is a valid criteria.
Now, imagine two equilateral triangles, right?
You can see that this one is a smaller one.
This one is a bigger one.
But all the angles are equal.
So I can say that these two angles are equal.
I can say that these two angles are equal and I can say that these two angles are equal.
But we know that these two triangles are not congruent because if you superimpose this on top of this,
it will not cover it.
Exactly.
Therefore, it is not a valid criteria to check congruency of two triangles.