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 » Math Topics » geometry.pre-college

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

Topic: Kites: Are rhombuses kites?
Replies: 26   Last Post: Aug 29, 2002 11:49 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Michael Keyton

Posts: 138
Registered: 12/3/04
Re: Kites: Are rhombuses kites?
Posted: Nov 12, 1997 5:58 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Surely, you do not want a paraelogram to be a special case of an isosceles
trapezoid, of a trapezoid yes, but not isosceles. Otherwise, there would
be nothing to an isosceles trapezoid except a rectangle. You surely want
two fo teh sides to be parallel and the other pair antiparallel with
repect to those two.

Michael Keyton

On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Guy F. Brandenburg wrote:

> David Rome wrote:
> >
> > I am having a spirited discussion with a colleage as to whether or not
> > the definition of a kite allows it to be considered to be a rhombus.
> > The general definition of a kite is a quadrilateral with two sets of
> > consecutive congruent disjoint sides. The question is: what is meant
> > by disjoint? Different length, or just separatable at the vertices?
> > My colleague maintains that a rhombus cannot be a kite, since all its
> > sides are congruent, thus, non-disjoint. Some material I have seen,
> > including venn diagrams of parallelograms, includes kites as rhombuses
> > when both sets of sides are congruent. What do you think?

> I would have kites be rhombuses if both pairs of congruent adjacent
> sides are congruent. But I would also have parallelograms be special
> cases of isosceles trapezoids where there are 2 pairs of congruent
> parallel sides. But most textbooks have trapezoids be quadrilaterals
> with exactly one pair of parallel sides, so I'm in the minority on that
> one, too.

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.