Math Forum

Re: Inclusive and exclusive definitions... again!

I agree Kirby, upfront definitions are appreciated by all - teachers, students AND curriculum writers. But there's an awful lot of confusion possible

On Mar 28, 2010, at 3:37 PM, GS Chandy wrote:

> Allan Turton posted Mar 27, 2010 12:34

Kirby Urner's fascinating post of Mar 29, 2010 12:34 AM:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Jonathan Groves
>

Allan Turton posted Mar 27, 2010 12:34 PM:

> I wouldn't mind (well, not too much) if a government
> or

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Jonathan Groves wrote:
> Allan and others,
>
>

I hope this may be useful.

When we think about various ways we can define words like rectangle and trapazoid, we in logic and math sometimes

Al wrote:
> ... imagine if we showed
> kids pictures of Saint Bernards exclusively with the
> label "dog" for

I wouldn't mind (well, not too much) if a government or non-government body proposed a hierarchy and definitions that were different to the ones that

On Mar 24, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Allan Turton wrote:

> I suspect not much will change unless some authority sets out

My son's texbook mostly uses inclusion -
that seems "natural" to me and always has,
its the way I was taught. One exception
is "kite" versus