Teacher2Teacher

Q&A #4194

Teachers' Lounge Discussion: Non-Euclidean Geometry

T2T || FAQ || Ask T2T || Teachers' Lounge || Browse || Search || T2T Associates || About T2T

View entire discussion
[ next >>]

From: Bev Greco

To: Teacher2Teacher Public Discussion
Date: 2008060413:30:27
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- The Math Forum at NCTM. All rights reserved.
http://mathforum.org/