Teacher2Teacher

Q&A #4194

Teachers' Lounge Discussion: Non-Euclidean Geometry

_____________________________________
T2T || FAQ || Ask T2T || Teachers' Lounge || Browse || Search || Thanks || About T2T
_____________________________________

View entire discussion
[ next >>]

From: Bev Greco <bgreco@gasd.org>
To: Teacher2Teacher Public Discussion
Date: 2008060412:30:27
Subject: postulate vs theorem for corresponding angles

	
We are choosing a new text for our NYS Geometry course, and different
texts present 2 column proofs differently.  In our math department,
there is a disagreement as to whether we can use the corresponding
angles formed when 2 parallel lines are cut by a transversal as a
postulate rather than a theorem.  I can find it both ways in many
places.  We have always proven it as a theorem using an indirect
proof.  If we are to talk about true Euclidean proofs, is it incorrect
to use corresponding angles as a postulate rather than a theorem? 
Some teachers feel it is not obvious that corresponding angles formed
when 2 parallel lines are cut by a transversal are congruent.  Others
just feel that it is not acceptable under the title "Euclidean".  Any
ideas?

Post a reply to this message
Post a related public discussion message
Ask Teacher2Teacher a new question


[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

_____________________________________
Math Forum Home || The Math Library || Quick Reference || Math Forum Search
_____________________________________

Teacher2Teacher - T2T ®
© 1994-2014 Drexel University. All rights reserved.
http://mathforum.org/
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel School of Education.The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.