| 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: | Alan Cooper |
| Date: | May 5 2005 |
 |
|
> . . . three defined a kite as a quadrilateral with
> "distinct pairs of congruent sides," . . .
That's odd. Without the stipulation that the pairs consist of adjacent sides
this would include any parallelogram.
I think you are right when you say:
> 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 also share your preference for the non-exclusive definition; and I like your
perpendicularly bisected diagonal, as that's what makes the most direct
connection to the physical object which motivates the term 'kite' in the first
place.
cheers,
Alan
| |||||||
| Post a new topic to the General Discussion in Geometry discussion | |||||||
| Visit related
discussions: Geometry | |||||||