Talk:Geometry

I love math but I know the frustration of trying to learn math by myself when the source is obtuse, ambiguous and incomplete. Wiki's geometry readers might not have teachers or tutors to help them. We should specify particular prerequisites for such readers. We should build only on material already presented in previous more elementary wikibooks.

• In this case that means Geometry for elementary school which is great. Some arithmetic and simple algebra is needed, but unfortunately I haven’t found a good wikibook source that isn't too advanced.

• Each new paragraph should be tested to be sure it is built on these basic assumed skills plus what was taught in the previous paragraphs. It is easier for a well prepared reader to deal with a presentation that is too basic in the first few chapters than for someone new to geometry to bridge that gap when advanced material is introduced too early.

--Cretaceous9 (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay I like the concept aligning with California standards and creating a High School Level textbook. Nothing has been done in awhile. I am thinking about taking this up. My only qualification is that I teach this subject in a CA highschool.

A great looking intro page. I can't wait 'till it's finished as I really want to learn about advanced geometries. Theresa knott 22:25, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

However, why is the book set up so the contents are set in stone? Why did I only have that chapter available to edit for where I wanted to define R^3? I am asking not just because it seems hard to find out, but because it might help me as a student but also tutor who may one day more formally teach math. If there is some sort of 'standard curricula' in academia I need to know who thinks they are qualified to make it up and why.--Dchmelik (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

This book is gaining a similar structural problem to what the Trigonometry book had - advanced material being added that is beyond a high school level. The solution there was to split the ToC into two parts, a book 1 and a book 2. I think the same could and should be done for this book. JamesCrook (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please fix the links so that each chapter of this book is not categorized as a whole book of its own! --Daniel 09:47, 3 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

• A book about Geometry with few or none ilustrations...

Seconded.DroEsperanto 12:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think there should be an appendix listing out all the major postulates and definitions, grouping them by topic (e.g., SSS and SAS would go in "Triangle Congruency," whereas the Corresponding Angles Postulate and that parallel-transitivity property would go in "parallel lines."DroEsperanto 12:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think there should also be an appendix listing all of the important theorems, also grouped by categories. I think there should also either be a list of the theorems with their proofs or, since that might be seen as helping students cheat, doing what my old geometry textbook did: having a two-column proof chart with only some of the boxes filled in, and having the student fill statements for a given reason or reasons for a given statement to have the complete the proof.DroEsperanto 12:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think there should be bolded vocabulary words throughout the text, and a glossary. These don't need to be the precise words used by California (we should try to keep this pretty even and not tailored to one state!), but whatever comes up.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm starting to add information on some of the subjects listed in geometry. --Isipeoria 01:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am a teacher in a small high school and would like to use this text next semester and have my students help edit and illustrate as we work through the subject. I am new to Wikiland and would appreciate any comments or suggestions. Is anyone working on this subject intensely right now? --Forrestbrinker 18:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestbrinkerReply

I want to know how the style of the book is outlined. Should new terms or definitions be bold or italicized or underlined. Musical Inquisit (discuss • contribs) 22:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm currently editing "Parallel Lines, Quadrilaterals, and Circles" and noticed that it comes before polygons. I think polygons should come before it and before triangles since a discussion of either requires a knowledge of what a polygon is.

The exercises at the end of chapter 2 require concepts that have not yet been introduced. These should be simpler exercises that clearly explain the basic proof concepts introduced in chapter 2. I'm going to change these exercises shortly, if nobody objects.

The five postulates of Euclidean geometry? Which set of postulates are you using? Euclid's? That's has been shown not to stand up to rigorous standards a long time ago...

Isn't it a bit old-fashioned to teach 2D Euclidean geometry along the lines of Euclid's elements?

I agree. And I believe that Euclid's fifth "postulate" was derived from his other four in the 19th century.DroEsperanto 12:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Euclid's Fifth was shown to be independent of (i.e., not derivable from) the other four axioms by the work of Lobachevsky, Bolyai, and Riemann, and secretly by Gauss, in the 19th century, a result reconfirmed by many others in the years since. Although Euclid did not have the insight we have today, Euclidean Geometry is every bit as good a tool for helping build a working understanding of deduction as it has been for the past 2300 years. It is the responsibilty of the instructors and modern mathematicians to point out and amend the program as needed.

The original The Elements of Euclid, and the best. I wish I had this when I was learning geometry at school. It is crystal clear and free of "pedagogical" techniques. It takes time to gain any mastery over the content, but it is better then any textbook I have had to suffer through in 16 years of schooling (up to Bachelors degree). As a bonus it's in the public domain. --41.243.101.252 (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think I agree with the poster that says 'seriously try Euclid,' except I wrote the chapter 11 that defines R^3, etc., so I think there is value in a geometry text using modern set theory--surely it is necessary now that Topology exists or just that some teachers and even students think it is worth it to them.--Dchmelik (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

.. зиждетца .. как бы на костях. Без суставов лишних! Ну и конечно .. от ненужных соблазнов и в стороны - не имеющие какой-либо ?? толщины !! .. вооот .. А далее - от бра��сываем и мясожирыблоньикровьигной .. бррр .. Нет мяса! Нет "буквы" "м" ! Нет "метра" длины. Только "цифра". Теперь - всё хорошо! Всё отлично!! Всё по-вы-брос-или !! ))) ..

А дальше всё - элементарно! Числим! Вся "Геометрия" - одна "теорема Пифпафпуфгора"-а .. Плоская гора. Без объёма! Потомушто длина, плющщадь, мясса и объём - весь этот ненужный хлам как бы "жизни", но! - реально грязного мозгоуродства .. Ура! Вперёд! Даёшь семиПифагоровы числа! 13! 21! 10! Нискоко!! )))

P.S. Vыccocov..or. "Шизофрения" всё это. Нельзя отдалять себя от жизни. Жизнь всегда больше нашей Галактики и других. Што есть "на самом деле" её жизнь ? Ну и конешно в "окружении" всех иных. Не "тел". Тело живёт своей жизнью. "И у опарыша есть тело" - говорил великий Черчиль ) .. "Я - да и не видел?!" - возмущался великий Дарвин. И плюнув на трибуну ! уходил .. ) !! .. О которых мы ничего не знаем! Ну и я пойду .. 176.59.208.115 (discuss) 06:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Similiarity" > "Similarity" ? R. Henrik Nilsson (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply