Interesting, but not only controversial, also incomplete. Don't forget the kite! Kite should be same level as the trapezoid. Underneath the the kite is the rhombus. ie, rhombus is not only a special type of trapezium, it's also a kite. This means completely redrawing the relationships I'm afraid.
Somewhere between you and khanacademy, would be the perfect teacher. Do you know the arguments as to why a parallelogram shouldn't be considered a trapezoid?
The rationale for not considering a parallelogram a trapezoid is that the definition for a trapezoid is a quadrilateral with one pair of parallel sides. As in EXACTLY one pair, not AT LEAST one pair. Parallelograms have two pairs of parallel sides, and therefore don't meet those requirements. It's like when classifying triangles: an isosceles triangle has two congruent sides. According to the rationale in this video, an equilateral triangle would also have to be an isosceles triangle because it too has two congruent sides; the fact that the third side is also congruent doesn't mean that the first two sides stop being congruent. But the definition of an isosceles triangle isn't two OR MORE congruent sides, it's two congruent sides.Three is not two, so equilateral triangles are not a subset of isosceles triangles. Back to the quadrilaterals: trapezoids have one pair of parallel sides, not one OR MORE pairs of parallel sides. One and only one. So parallelograms, which have two pairs of parallel sides are not actually a subset of trapezoids. Hope that explanation of the logic behind the great trapezoid-parallelogram schism helps :)
Johari Malik So why does the definition state that a trapezoid can only have one pair of opposite sides? Almost every theorem about trapezoids also applies to parallelograms. And I don't think the definition of a trapezoid is universally agreed upon, just like how there is no universal agreement on what a natural number or whole number is.
***** I was explaining this particular line of logic, whereby one pair means exactly one pair, not endorsing one view over the other. I understand that this isn't a universally agreed upon thing, especially when it comes to quadrilaterals.
+anticorncob6 Right, it's not universally agreed upon. But your question that I responded to asked for the arguments for why a parallelogram wouldn't be considered a trapezoid. That's what I addressed.
What about triangles? Isosceles triangle means two sides are equal. Equilateral triangle means all three sides are equal. All equilateral triangles are isosceles. Scalene triangle means no sides are equal. We could use your logic with the trapezoids and parallelograms to say that all triangles are scalene.
Wait a minute rhombus have equal sides but it doesn't have equal angles and square have equal sides and equal angles than how could they be same in your world 🙄
My 3 kids and I all enjoyed this. Thanks for making it fun!
Interesting, but not only controversial, also incomplete. Don't forget the kite! Kite should be same level as the trapezoid. Underneath the the kite is the rhombus. ie, rhombus is not only a special type of trapezium, it's also a kite. This means completely redrawing the relationships I'm afraid.
Great explanation. I'm going to show my second grade class.
Well done!! Interactive and fun.
i like ur video, it really helps me understand it better!
But at that point, it's parallel, so in your world, what defines a trapezoid? certainly not all parallel... right?
Trapezoid = At least one pair of opposite sides parallel
Somewhere between you and khanacademy, would be the perfect teacher.
Do you know the arguments as to why a parallelogram shouldn't be considered a trapezoid?
The rationale for not considering a parallelogram a trapezoid is that the definition for a trapezoid is a quadrilateral with one pair of parallel sides. As in EXACTLY one pair, not AT LEAST one pair. Parallelograms have two pairs of parallel sides, and therefore don't meet those requirements. It's like when classifying triangles: an isosceles triangle has two congruent sides. According to the rationale in this video, an equilateral triangle would also have to be an isosceles triangle because it too has two congruent sides; the fact that the third side is also congruent doesn't mean that the first two sides stop being congruent. But the definition of an isosceles triangle isn't two OR MORE congruent sides, it's two congruent sides.Three is not two, so equilateral triangles are not a subset of isosceles triangles. Back to the quadrilaterals: trapezoids have one pair of parallel sides, not one OR MORE pairs of parallel sides. One and only one. So parallelograms, which have two pairs of parallel sides are not actually a subset of trapezoids.
Hope that explanation of the logic behind the great trapezoid-parallelogram schism helps :)
Johari Malik So why does the definition state that a trapezoid can only have one pair of opposite sides? Almost every theorem about trapezoids also applies to parallelograms. And I don't think the definition of a trapezoid is universally agreed upon, just like how there is no universal agreement on what a natural number or whole number is.
***** I was explaining this particular line of logic, whereby one pair means exactly one pair, not endorsing one view over the other. I understand that this isn't a universally agreed upon thing, especially when it comes to quadrilaterals.
+anticorncob6 Right, it's not universally agreed upon. But your question that I responded to asked for the arguments for why a parallelogram wouldn't be considered a trapezoid. That's what I addressed.
Isn't the definition of trapezoid 1 pair of parallel sides, because parallelograms are 2 pair of parallel sides
I skipped to the end and I was like this guy took it too far
Andy Wu LOL SAMEEEE
That isn't a rectangle, the angle is slightly less and more than 90
he looks like the guy from blues clues
yea
He does
Who’s here for school
what does 2 years of latin have to do with the word rhombus
ur very kid and gentleman and good teacher
yes he is very kid
Please .. What is the name of this program? Thank you
Art of Problem Solving omfg read the title
Thank you! My students loved this video!
My math teacher put this on his blog
Dumachew Anime good. job
same
same
Brilliant !
i love this!
I agree with you
Jacob and Abbie good
I thought today we had to watch the cursed “math antics” thankfully we got to watch this instead
FineBrother Cringe you need to do E learning? XD
Isabella Sofia sadly
FineBrother Cringe me too :(
we had to do both
AWSOME
Love it, great job! The quad in the top left could almost be a kite
What about triangles? Isosceles triangle means two sides are equal. Equilateral triangle means all three sides are equal. All equilateral triangles are isosceles.
Scalene triangle means no sides are equal. We could use your logic with the trapezoids and parallelograms to say that all triangles are scalene.
You could actually. You don't ever use scalene triangles outside of classification if you think about it, you use a "general triangle".
Thank you!this help me for my math problem💗💗
Watching this for me
Interactive fun😮😃
what are u using
ikr i never thought that there was that technology in 2012
Shout out to Mrs. Zarns class!
+Izi Smith YASSS!!!!
I’m in that class
106 plus 74 is not 108
he said 180 not 108
#TrapezoidsArePeopleTo
lel
*too
#TrapezoidsAreParallelogramsToo
tnx man, great explanation ;)
@Isabella Warner yes my teacher asked us to watch it :)
I love math
OOOH! smart
yes
hi
Nice
I would have loved to show this video to my deaf and hard of hearing students but unfortunately there were no captions... what a shame :(
L
NICE
180
Im confused
COOL
i like it it cool
WOW
!
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHH
Then I guess that his world is quite small
yep
indeed, the earth is small in the universe
kidz show maan. thiz iz four for year olds.
You should get your spellings right first.
Your spellin doe
@@slongz2750 .
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA what you get for making fun
MMMMMMMMM
Wait a minute rhombus have equal sides but it doesn't have equal angles and square have equal sides and equal angles than how could they be same in your world 🙄
2 years of latin wasted
!