Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum


Math Forum
 Ask Dr. Math
 Discussions
 Internet Newsletter
 MathTools
 Problems of the Week
 Teacher2Teacher
 Teacher Exchange
 Workshops

Search All of the Math Forum:
Browse our Internet Mathematics Library

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


Math Forum » Discussions » Professional Associations » nyshsmath

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

Advanced Search
Reply to this Topic Reply to this Topic

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"

or

= 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]

© Drexel University 1994-2013. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.