A Diamond Is Forever Unclear, as A Term -- and How to Teach from ThatDate: 12/17/2010 at 05:28:29 From: lily Subject: Is the term 'diamond' appropriate in a mathematical context Many people use the term "diamond" to describe certain mathematical shapes. I have researched but cannot find an authoritative definition. How is this word appropriate or not appropriate in a mathematical context? I have always thought that a diamond was a "shape," but it does not appear to be used in primary school mathematics. Not sure what to tell students if it is appropriate to call it a diamond or not? Date: 12/17/2010 at 09:55:04 From: Doctor Ian Subject: Re: Is the term 'diamond' appropriate in a mathematical context Hi Lily, I guess how you would approach this depends on what it is you're trying to teach. If the goal is for students to be able to go out and identify a diamond when they see one, or know what is meant by that word when they read or hear it, then it seems like a good idea to teach kids what a "diamond" is. But note that "diamond" is an informal term, without a precise mathematical definition. For example, the "diamonds" on playing cards sometimes have slightly curved sides, and so aren't even polygons. But if the goal is to help the students get a feel for what it's like to "do mathematics," then the relevant concept here is "subsets." Children deal with subsets outside of mathematics; for example, every Cocker Spaniel is a dog, but not every dog is a Cocker Spaniel; every dog is a mammal, but not every mammal is a dog.... So with this plane geometry vocabulary, all you're really doing is showing that the same kind of relationship sometimes holds among mathematical objects. For example, Every rectangle is a parallelogram, but not every parallelogram is a rectangle. Every square is a rectangle (which means every square is also a parallelogram), but not every rectangle is a square. Every square is a rhombus, but not every rhombus is a square. ... and so on. And there are reasons why subset classifications like this are interesting. For example, if you know something is true of any parallelogram, then to show that it's also true of a rhombus, all you need to do is note that a rhombus IS a parallelogram, and you're done. This can save a lot of work! "Diamond," like "oval," doesn't really fit into this context, because those terms don't have precise definitions. (If someone says that something is "oval," they might mean sort of egg-shaped, or they might mean elliptical, or they might mean it's a rectangle with semi-circles on the end, or just that it's kind of curvy and longer in one dimension than the other. You can't really know for sure.) These words are part of everyday language, and rely on a certain amount of "you-know-what-I-mean" to be useful in communication. Whereas in math, we're interested in eliminating as much "you-know-what-I-mean" as possible, so we can be sure that if we're talking about something, we both understand it in exactly the same way. One interesting point of discussion, though, is that many people will think that a square rotated 45 degrees "becomes" a rhombus (or a "diamond"), as though shape somehow depends on orientation. Having students discuss whether this is reasonable can provide a nice introduction to ideas about symmetry. Does this help? - Doctor Ian, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ Date: 12/17/2010 at 15:54:26 From: Doctor Rick Subject: Re: Is the term 'diamond' appropriate in a mathematical context Hi, Lily. I'd like to add to what Dr. Ian has said. He mentioned that sometimes people take a square, rotate it 45 degrees, and call it a diamond. That reminded me of the following exchange that I had a few years ago: Question: Teacher wants Kindergarten students to differentiate between a rhombus and a diamond. (It's part of the Kindergarten learning assessment in February to distinguish between the two!) Some Internet sites indicate they are the same, so I'm wondering how to tell the difference. They look the same to both daughter and Mom. And at the Kindergarten level, I couldn't see a shape summary that showed both rhombus and diamond. Most basic websites on shapes do not include a rhombus; the few that do are written beyond the reading level of a 5 year-old. Answer: This does seem strange. For a mathematical viewpoint, see the following well respected site: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Diamond.html It identifies several ways in which the word "diamond" is used. The first is synonymous with rhombus. The second is a square rotated so its sides are at 45 degrees to the vertical; this usage is not really a shape, as shapes are generally viewed as independent of orientation. However, this usage is familiar to anyone who knows anything about baseball. I searched a bit further on the Internet for education sites that refer to both the rhombus and the diamond, and found this lesson plan, written for other teachers: "Make six ovals (ellipses), six diamonds, and six rhombi from construction paper.... Draw an oval (ellipse), a diamond, and a rhombus. Point to each shape and say its name. Ask the students to name each shape. Explain that an oval has no sides. Explain that a diamond and rhombus each have four sides. Ask the students if they have ever seen anything with these shapes.... Give each student a different shape. The students may be sitting at their seats or in a circle on the floor. Call out 'ovals, stand up,' then 'ovals, sit down; rhombi, stand up.'" Evidently, the author of this lesson considers the diamond and the rhombus to be different shapes. The problem, as with a lot of educational sites I have seen, is that it doesn't tell us what a diamond and a rhombus are! When I downloaded the accompanying documentation, I saw two rhombi, one with two sides horizontal, the other with the diagonals horizontal and vertical. They weren't labeled, so I can only guess that the former is supposed to be a rhombus and the latter a diamond, differing only in their orientations. However, notice that in one part of the activity, the shapes have been cut out of paper and given to the students. Orientation is lost when this is done. The "standard" supposedly being assessed by this activity is: "Identifies circle, square, triangle, oval (ellipse), diamond, rhombus, and rectangle in various orientations/positions." To me, this suggests that the shapes, including a diamond and a rhombus, can be distinguished regardless of their orientation. If a diamond and a rhombus "shape" are distinguished only on the basis of "orientation," the standard contradicts itself. But what else could distinguish them? I have no clue. I don't like this at all! I'd like to know what the teacher has to say, and also the author of the lesson I found. Please fill me in when you learn what the distinction is supposed to be. End of quote. Lily, I never heard back from this parent, or from a teacher who raised the same issue. I'm glad to hear you at least raising the question, and I hope it leads to a good discussion. - Doctor Rick, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ |
Search the Dr. Math Library: |
[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]
Ask Dr. Math^{TM}
© 1994-2013 The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/