Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: trapezoid clarification
Replies: 55   Last Post: Apr 24, 2017 2:30 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Elaine Zseller Posts: 44 Registered: 4/12/13
RE: trapezoid clarification
Posted: May 27, 2014 10:36 AM

The inclusive definition of trapezoid would classify rectangles and squares as isosceles trapezoids. An Isosceles trapezoid has congruent base angles and at least one pair of parallel sides. Rectangles and squares fit these more restrictive criteria. All parallelograms are trapezoids but all parallelograms do not fit the more restrictive criteria of an isosceles trapezoid.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org [mailto:owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Sauer
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 9:38 PM
To: nyshsmath@mathforum.org
Subject: Re: trapezoid clarification

According to the website below, when using the inclusive definition of a trapezoid, an isosceles trapeziod is still defined as a "strict" trapezoid (exclusive definition) with congruent legs. Therefore squares and rectangles would not be included. Does that agree with the CCSS definition?

http://www.math.washington.edu/~king/coursedir/m444a00/syl/class/trapezoids/Trapezoids.html
*******************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this mailing list, email the message
* "unsubscribe nyshsmath" to majordomo@mathforum.org
*
* http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumID=671
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this mailing list, email the message
* "unsubscribe nyshsmath" to majordomo@mathforum.org
*