Explore related knowledge and questions →

Question 35699: Triangle Validity from Explicit Conditions

On this page
  1. Original question and givens
  2. Definition and scope
  3. Step-by-step derivation
  4. Reverse checks
  5. Result
  6. This question review and source binding

Return to catalogue page 179

← Question derivation index · Original question batch

R0070-35699 · q-20260925-triangle-explicit-validity-0019

Original question and givens

The three points in order are J, L, N; the prompt explicitly states that they are noncollinear. Using only the distinctness and noncollinearity conditions, do they form a nondegenerate triangle?

  • G001 — The three points in order are J, L, N; the prompt explicitly states that they are noncollinear. Using only the distinctness and noncollinearity conditions, do they form a nondegenerate triangle?

Definition and scope

Use the original question domain, assumptions and cited MKO definitions. This item has second-context mathematical and bilingual review, with the model, answer and every arithmetic step independently recomputed from the original parameters; the source question remains a candidate.

Step-by-step derivation

S001 · implies

Before

source roles = [qf-triangle-explicit-validity, [noncollinear, operation, vertices]]

After

derived = [triangle, validity, null]

Conditions: none

Use THIS bank’s actual fields,operation/domain and types.BASE retains permissible extra metadata.Do not import LDL SAFE/set limits or a different bank’s deduplication rules.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: R70_SOURCE_bank_specific_interface · Uses: G001

S002 · implies

Before

source roles = [[J, L, N], Yes]

After

derived = [[J, L, N], Yes, Yes]

Conditions: none

THIS nondegenerate triangle requires DISTINCT vertices AND GIVEN noncollinearity.Repeated points plus asserted noncollinearity is contradictory.Neither letter names nor a sketch proves noncollinearity.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: Triangle_DISTINCT_labels_AND_GIVEN_noncollinearity · Uses: G001, S001

Reverse checks

  • S002 · premise_and_result_audit — Reverse-audit THIS question’s original operands,roles and necessary premises;reconstruct the next step,without reversing a one-way implication.Numerical/finite-table checking is not formal proof of an arbitrary theorem.Original Q,bilingual sources,MKO,AST,status and history remain preserved.
  • S001 · premise_and_result_audit — Reverse-audit THIS question’s original operands,roles and necessary premises;reconstruct the next step,without reversing a one-way implication.Numerical/finite-table checking is not formal proof of an arbitrary theorem.Original Q,bilingual sources,MKO,AST,status and history remain preserved.

Result

Yes

The full substitutions and premise checks give the original answer; source identity,format and status are unchanged.

This question review and source binding

Review date: 2026-10-26

Original questions, answers, step expressions, numeric ASTs and historical records are retained. Source candidate labels remain historical and are not overwritten as formal proof.

Source hashes and review receipts
  • input commit: 0f7be61e2c22317a4075561dc822c87d881a50db
  • original question SHA-256: df5ba0efcd13d2a02d8ade6dd0fd3dd3526720f931493ae1940d907b333281ec
  • candidate record SHA-256: fdeac32af233ad646141caed6fd99f22ed2a3bad926451da42c4ad5c78ccfe79
  • semantic review receipt SHA-256: 9820ac6529139bd53d516c8bfdfdd41184b0cd52dad69fa433344010db37af80
  • question-first witness SHA-256: c9c939762bbd4d3ea3403084c8e95541dc2c7e56eb82fc74eaba8c80a4517dab
  • Lean: NOT_RUN · human review: NOT_PERFORMED
Same-source full JSON