and please dont waist my time :))

If a triangle has two congruent angles, then the sides opposite those angles are congruent. In other words, iso-angular triangles are iso-lateral (isosceles). This is the converse of the isosceles triangle theorem.

Step-by-step explanation:

Let's use

△DUK

to explore the parts:

Like any triangle,

△DUK

has three interior angles:

∠D

,

∠U

, and

∠K

All three interior angles are acute

Like any triangle,

△DUK

has three sides:

DU

,

UK

, and

DK

∠DU ≅ ∠DK

, so we refer to those twins as legs

The third side is called the base (even when the triangle is not sitting on that side)

The two angles formed between base and legs,

∠DUK

and

∠DKU

, or

∠D

and

∠K

for short, are called base angles:

Add a median (line in the very middle) to create two equal triangles  

We just showed that the three sides of

△DUC

are congruent to

△DCK

, which means you have the Side Side Side Postulate, which gives congruence. So if the two triangles are congruent, then corresponding parts of congruent triangles are congruent (CPCTC), which means …

No, this is not congruent.

Step-by-step explanation:

This is because, If we were to try to prove that these are congruent, we would end up with an improper answer or an answer that is completely off topic.

Thus, these are not congruent.

question is incomplete.

true? is that what you're asking or do you mean something else?