The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » Professional Associations » nyshsmath

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

Topic: Geometry Proof Question
Replies: 12   Last Post: Sep 13, 2012 5:25 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Bob Thomas

Posts: 1
Registered: 9/12/12
Geometry Proof Question
Posted: Sep 12, 2012 6:54 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

While discussing the new curriculum and planning, we have a new teacher who has some different ways of completing proofs. We are wondering if anyone has seen them or would allow credit for it on the regents.

For example, she writes: (= means congruent)

//-> = <'s
for "parallel lines cut but a transversal form two congruent alternate interior angles"


= P = (triangle symbol) =
for "Corresponding parts of congruent triangles are congruent"

A couple of us are uncomfortable with these type of "reasons" on a proof and are curious, do you know if they would be given full credit and what your thoughts are. Thank you for your time.

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.