| Discussion: | All Topics |
| Topic: | Is a rhombus a kite? |
| Post a new topic to the General Discussion in Geometry discussion |
| ||||||||
| Subject: | RE: Is a rhombus a kite? |
| Author: | Craig |
| Date: | May 5 2005 |
 |
|
mid-1970's up through 2002. Three made no mention of kites (oldest AND
newest), three defined a kite as a quadrilateral with "distinct pairs of
congruent sides," and the other two added the stipulation "such that opposite
sides are not congruent."
I think the answer is: you decide what you want a kite to be (maybe agreeing
with the author of your textbook, if s/he offers one, would be best for your
students). I personally prefer the non-exclusive definition (consistent with
my stance on rhombi) that would classify a rhombus and a square as kites.
Another definition (the one I thought of first, but I don't know that it would
be in print): a quadrilateral such that at least one of the diagonals is a
perpendicular bisector of the other diagonal.
| |||||||
| Post a new topic to the General Discussion in Geometry discussion | |||||||
| Visit related
discussions: Geometry | |||||||