|
|
Re: Kites: Are rhombuses kites?
Posted:
Nov 12, 1997 5:58 PM
|
|
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.
>
|
|
