I don't have the biggest collection at home, but Michael Serra's Discovering Geometry - no Dressler (several books, from the early 70s to today, mostly cut and past from each other) no Jacobs Geometry (cool book) no Jurgenson Brown Jurgenson (McDougal Littel) traditional, - no Unified mathematics (Houghton Mifflin, 1981, out of use - no Weeks and Adkins 1961 - no World Book Modern School Geometry 1938 - no and two late 19th century American volumes Solid Geometry (Wentworth, 1899) and Bradbury's Elementary Geometry 1872 - no and no.
So yes, I would be curious what American text uses the inclusive definition.
Jonathan Halabi the Bronx
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Eleanor Pupko <email@example.com> wrote:
> Some texts use this definition. > > Eleanor > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 17, 2014, at 8:51 AM, "Jonathan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > With all due respect Meg, I do not believe there is anywhere in the US > where this > "Although this might be a surprise to NYS teachers who have used the > exclusive definition, this is a common definition for trapezoid." > is true. > > It might be a better convention, but in this country, it has never before > been ours. > > I am quite disappointed that AMTNYS transmitted this information, and did > not lead a campaign to challenge it. > > Jonathan Halabi > the Bronx > > > > On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Meg Clemens <email@example.com>wrote: > >> At training in Albany this past week, NYSED released a standards >> clarification document for Geometry that states (among other items) that a >> trapezoid is now defined with the ?inclusion? definition: a trapezoid has >> at least one pair of parallel sides. Although this might be a surprise to >> NYS teachers who have used the exclusive definition, this is a common >> definition for trapezoid. >> >> >> >> Three questions: >> >> >> >> 1. Is this standards clarification memo posted on engageny >> anywhere yet? I couldn?t find it. >> >> >> >> 2. How do we treat conflicting definitions next year when we are >> preparing students for both regents? >> >> >> >> 3. With the new definition, what is an isosceles trapezoid? I >> think we need clarification on this. >> >> >> >> a. If I use trapezoid w/ one pair of opposite sides congruent, >> then a parallelogram is an isosceles trapezoid but its base angles are not >> congruent. >> >> b. If I use trapezoid w/ one pair of opposite sides congruent and >> base angles are congruent, then rectangles and squares are isosceles >> trapezoids, which might be OK. >> >> c. There is an alternative definition that uses one axis of >> symmetry and one w/ no symmetry to yield the usual depiction of an >> isosceles trapezoid. >> >> >> >> >> >> Meg Clemens >> >> Canton Central School >> > >