digonal bisect

D

defeated_soldier

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
130
For a parallelogram, my book says

diagonals need not bisect angles at the vertices

What does it mean? I am confused with the word "need not". What does it mean to say? Does it mean any of the following?

Diagonals DO NOT bisect angles at the vertices.

Diagonals DO bisect angles at the vertices.

Diagonals SOMETIMES bisect angles at the vertices.

Which one is correct ?

Another question: Is it true that when the diagonal bisects the vertices, the whole area just becomes two equal halves ?

Thank you
 
"need not" means that the diagonals don't HAVE to bisect the angles of the parallelogram, but it is possible that they CAN. "need not" means "may or may not"......
 
"need not" means that the diagonals don't HAVE to bisect the angles of the parallelogram, but it is possible that they CAN. "need not" means "may or may not"......
Click to expand...
What ?

When we draw a diagonal, what happens actually? Does it bisect? When? Please provide examples. Or does it NOT bisect? When? Please provide examples.

This boolean kind of answer is very much completed. Can you please tell what happens actually?

Thanks
 
I'm sorry, but the tutors cannot teach courses here. The explanation provided by the tutor, in direct response to your question, is suitable to this environment. If you are needing to learn the logic of the various different cases, complete with proofs and examples, then you might want to consider enrolling in a geometry course, as we simply cannot provide here what you have requested.

Thank you for your understanding.

Eliz.
 
stapel said:
I'm sorry, but the tutors cannot teach courses here. The explanation provided by the tutor, in direct response to your question, is suitable to this environment. If you are needing to learn the logic of the various different cases, complete with proofs and examples, then you might want to consider enrolling in a geometry course, as we simply cannot provide here what you have requested.

Thank you for your understanding.

Eliz.
Click to expand...

I could not understand his comment.....so i asked for more clarification. i asked when this happens and when this does not happen......and a small example.

i did not tell him to proof anythng!

so you mean i should keep mum if i dont understand it......
...i should not ask further clarification or question once a response has been given ?

i asked because i did not understand his comment.....i also provided my logic in support of my view.

<*sigh*>
 
You asked for a generalized discussion of a topical area, including the coverage of a listing of cases, and complete with worked examples. This is something that might happen in a textbook or in the classroom, but is simply beyond what is reasonably feasible here.

This tutoring service can help with students with specific exercises, but is not set up for the teaching of generalized courses. I'm sorry that this shortcoming has offended you, but I'm afraid there is little we can do about that.

My best wishes to you in your studies.

Eliz.
 
To see it, draw a short rectangle with a long base. A rectangle is one form of a parallelogram. You will see that the angles are not bisected. As you make it taller they are more nearly bisected. When it becomes a square they are bisected. Taller still and again they are not. Other parallelograms work the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top