Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Math Topics » geometry.pre-college.independent

Topic: Inclusive and exclusive definitions... again!
Replies: 8   Last Post: Apr 1, 2011 3:04 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Michael de Villiers

Posts: 268
Registered: 12/3/04
Re: Inclusive and exclusive definitions... again!
Posted: Nov 20, 2010 8:54 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Just recently experienced another area with an assignment for some teachers where a hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals is also important. For example, asking them which are necessary & sufficient conditions by which to define certain quadrilaterals.

Many got right answers for some questions, but did so by incorrect reasoning and providing incorrect counter-examples! For example, all of them correctly said that 'equal diagonals' is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a quadrilateral to be rectangle. However, all of them gave as 'counter-example' (to show it is false) a square, but did not realize this was an INVALID counter-example as a square IS a rectangle! They didn't realize they had to produce an example of a quadrilateral that has equal diagonals, but is NOT a rectangle, for example, a general isosceles trapezoid to show that the condition is insufficient.



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.