In article <Ct5D7s.Mw@ssi.edc.org>, Michelle Manes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >In article <199407181507.LAA13581@slc12.INS.CWRU.Edu> Daniel H. >Steinberg, dhs6@po.CWRU.Edu writes: >>I actually just want to know if there is a name for triangles >>(not necessarilly congruent) which have equal area.
>two rectilinear >figures with equal areas are equidecomposable---the first can be cut >up into a finite number of pieces, which can then be rearranged into >the second. ... So maybe >equidecomposable is the word to use if you stick to rectilinear figures
This seems like a poor choice. In three dimensions, of course, there's an interesting theory of equidecomposability for polyhedra, which does not reduce to just computing volumes.
What's wrong with the obvious term "equal-area"? As in "Any two triangles with the same base and height are equal-area triangles." Seems precise and clear; what more would you want?