Let us consider two points C and D, both supposed to be mid-points of line segment AB.
Since \( C \) is the mid-point of \( AB \), it follows that:
\[ AC = BC \]
By adding \( AC \) to both sides of the equation, we get:
\[ AC + AC = BC + AC \tag{1} \]
Here, \( BC + AC \) coincides with \( AB \), which is a fundamental property of a line segment. Therefore:
\[ BC + AC = AB \tag{2} \]
By the transitive property of equality, we know that if two things are equal to the same thing, they are equal to each other. Hence, from equations (1) and (2), we get:
\[ AC + AC = AB \] \[ 2AC = AB \tag{3} \]
Next, let us take \( D \) as another mid-point of \( AB \). By a similar argument, we can write:
\[ 2AD = AB \tag{4} \]
Now, from equations (3) and (4), we can conclude that:
\[ 2AC = 2AD \]
Since things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other, we get:
\[ AC = AD \]
This result implies that \( C \) and \( D \) must represent the same point because they are both equal to the same length from point \( A \). However, this is only possible if point \( C \) and point \( D \) are the same point.
Hence, our assumption that there could be two mid-points for a given line segment is incorrect. Therefore, there can be only one mid-point for any given line segment.
In Fig. 5.10, if AC = BD, then prove that AB = CD.

Consider two ‘postulates’ given below :
(i) Given any two distinct points A and B, there exists a third point C which is in between A and B.
(ii) There exist at least three points that are not on the same line.
Do these postulates contain any undefined terms? Are these postulates consistent?
Do they follow from Euclid’s postulates? Explain.