Category Archives: Geometry

Why I hate the definition of trapezoids

Posted on by
17

I should have made this post a long time ago, because it’s a bone of contention I’ve always had with trapezoids. Or…not with trapezoids–I like trapezoids–but a bone of contention I have with the definition of trapezoids. In my humble opinion, it’s a major problem with Geometry as it’s currently taught. Here’s the usual definition of a trapezoid (taken from our school’s Geometry text book, by Holt Rinehart and Winston):

“A quadrilateral with one and only one pair of parallel sides.”

I’ve emphasized the words “one and only one,” which is what I want to comment about in this post. (Here’s another source and another source and another source that say it that way, too.) Sometimes it’s also said, “a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides.”

I’ve prepared a simple GeoGebra applet and posted it here. It allows you to play with the trapezoid, moving its vertices and edges. As you drag it around, at all times, one pair of sides will be parallel. But wait, it’s not always a trapezoid, is it? According to the Geometry book, there’s one moment, as you’re dragging it around, that it stops being a trapezoid and for that one second is exclusively a parallelogram. Here’s the moment I’m talking about:

Is this still a trapezoid?

That’s right, using the Geometry textbook’s definition of a trapezoid, if both pairs of opposite sides of the quadrilateral happen to be parallel,  it’s not a trapezoid anymore. At this point, the mathematical reader should be crying, “Foul! How did we ever let this happen? This definition of a trapezoid is so inelegant!!” And I couldn’t agree more.

We don’t do this with the definition of any other quadrilateral. Why do it with a trapezoid? If I were to make another little applet that lets you drag around a rectangle, would we say “it’s not a rectangle” at the moment you make the four sides equal? No! That would be absurd.

The definition of a trapezoid, in my opinion (and thankfully in the opinion of some others) should read:

“A quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides.”

And the hierarchical diagram should look like this one, I found online (taken from a mathematically enlightened author):

from mathisfun.com

Here’s a nice paragraph from the wikipedia entry on trapezoid:

There is also some disagreement on the allowed number of parallel sides in a trapezoid. At issue is whether parallelograms, which have two pairs of parallel sides, should be counted as trapezoids. Some authors[2] define a trapezoid as a quadrilateral having exactly one pair of parallel sides, thereby excluding parallelograms. Other authors[3] define a trapezoid as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides, making the parallelogram a special type of trapezoid (along with the rhombus, the rectangle and the square). The latter definition is consistent with its uses in higher mathematics such as calculus. The former definition would make such concepts as the trapezoidal approximation to a definite integral be ill-defined.

This site and this site also get it right. So there’s hope for the Geometry community and for teachers everywhere. But please, let’s work hard to eradicate the “exclusive” definition from ALL the textbooks. It’s hideous.

For more posts on this topic, visit here and here.

Vi Hart’s Blog

Posted on by
2

It’s high time I gave a bit of press to Vi Hart’s Blog. If you haven’t checked it out, do so right away. It’s brilliant.  A number of people have pointed me to her blog, including one of my Calc students. Her little math videos are fresh, funny, and insightful. Denise, at Let’s Play Math, gave her some press too, which is what reminded me to finally make this post. Here’s the video Denise highlighted (the most recent of Vi’s creations):

This is particularly appropriate because there were a couple of us in our math department discussing this very question: In total, how many gifts are given during the 12 Days of Christmas song? It’s a nice problem, perfect for a Precalculus student. Or any student. Here’s a super nice explanation of how to calculate this total, posted at squareCircleZ. But before you go clicking that link, take out a piece of scrap paper and a pencil and figure it out yourself!

Here’s another nice video from Vi Hart:

You could spend a lot of time on her site. Here’s another awesome video. I’ll have to have my Precalculus class watch this one when we do our unit on sequences and series.

And you’ve got to love the regular polyhedra made with Smarties ,  right?

Plus, Vi Hart plays StarCraft, which is awesome too.  Back in the day, I really loved playing. I haven’t played in a while, and I certainly haven’t tried SC 2 yet, because then I’d never grade my students’ papers.

Bottom line is, you need to check out all the playful stuff Vi Hart is doing at her blog. Happy Wednesday everyone!

 

Pythagorean Theorem

Posted on by
Reply

Just when I said the other day that we care less about the ancient Greek mathematicians than we did 200 years ago, I turn the attention of my readership to the Pythagorean Theorem. It’s a simple repost: I liked the following video that Denise @ Let’s Play Math posted yesterday and wanted to share it. It also connects nicely to the post my dad made the other day about beautiful proofs.

The Important Theorems Are the Beautiful Ones

Posted on by
6

Dr. Gene Chase guest blog author here again.

What makes a math theorem important?

The usual answer is that it is either beautiful or useful. If like me you think that being useful is a beautiful thing, then important theorems are the beautiful ones.

But what makes a theorem beautiful? For example, why is the Theorem of Pythagoras widely regarded as beautiful: and a, b, and c are not 0 if and only if a, b, and c are the sides of a right triangle? (OK, break into small groups and discuss this among yourselves! An answer appears at the bottom of this post.)

But the theorem 1223334444 = 1223334443 + 1 is not beautiful, won’t you agree?

If the theorem is geometric, we can appeal to visual beauty. For example, three circles pairwise tangent have a beautiful property that is animated here.

But beautiful theorems do not have to be geometric. Numbers are beautiful. For example, Euclid’s theorem that there are an infinity of primes is beautiful. No one has been able to draw a beautiful picture about that, although people have tried from astronomer and mathematician Eratosthenes in 200 BC to science fiction writer and mathematician Stanislaw Ulam in 1963.

For $15 you can have a mathematical theorem named after you. But I can guarantee that it won’t be beautiful. So if you want a theorem named after you, give Mr. Chase the $15 instead and he’ll find one for you. Don’t use 1223334444 = 1223334443 + 1. I claim that as “Dr. Gene Chase’s theorem.”

Answer to discussion question above: Most folks say that a beautiful theorem has to be “deep,” which is just a metaphor for “having many connections to many other things.” For example, the Theorem of Pythagoras has to do with areas, not squares specifically. The semicircle on the hypotenuse of a right triangle has an area equal to the sum of the areas of the semicircles on the adjacent sides. And so for any three similar figures.

Do you remember the joy that you feel when you first learned that two of your friends are also friends of each other? That’s the joy that a mathematician feels when she discovers that the Theorem of Pythagoras and the Theorem of Euclid are intimate with each other. But I’ll leave that connection to another post.

Math is about surprising connections. Which is to say, it’s about beauty.

Math vocabulary sometimes makes sense

Posted on by
1

This is the first guest post from John Chase’s dad, also a math teacher.  Thanks, son, for letting me post to your blog.

Gene Chase:  I was taking a shower today when I figured out why I always confused the words “sequence” and “series.”  2, 3, 4, 5, … is a sequence; 2+3+4+5 is a series.  Until today, I thought that my confusion was because “series” and “sequence” both begin with “s.”  Now I see the real problem!  Teachers would say “sum the following series.”  They should have said “evaluate the following series,” since the series is already a sum.

Comment from John Chase:   In non-mathematical contexts we don’t differentiate between the two. We think of “television series” and a “series” of cars in a line at an intersection. How mathematically sloppy!

Gene Chase:  Yes, usually mathematical language is general language made more precise, not less precise.  For example, if you tell a story elliptically, you leave things out of it; if you tell the story parabolically, you give an analog of the story; if you tell the story hyperbolically, you embellish it.  The corresponding geometric figures have eccentricities which are either between 0 and 1 (ellipse), precisely equal to 1 (parabola), or greater than 1 (hyperbola).

This makes sense when you remember that “elliptic” is Greek for “defective,” “para” is Greek for “along side,” and “hyper” is Greek for “beyond.”