Are the adjacent triangles (meaning like the little triangles next to each other and the big triangles next to eachother) congruent in a kite? For some reason I think they are but I can't find it in the book..
Because for the triangles I am talking about I can only create Angle Side Side congruence (Which does not exist!!).. Unless I'm missing something and there is another congruence.
For #39, I am confused, because I know that two angles of a kite can be opposite and acute, but I don't know WHY.. So I checked the back of the book but the explanation does not make any sense to me; "Yes; the congruent angles can be obtuse". Can't the congruent angles also be opposite & congruent..?
Woops, I thought we had to do just odd #39-#44.. Well I'm just lost on all of them. You probably can't help me but is there any advice you could give me?
Diagonals of a kite are perpendicular. They will form congruent triangles which means the opp angles must be bisected... so, yes, diagonals of a kite are ALWAYS angle bisectors.
I think somehow you missed the DEFINITION of a KITE... re-read page 392...
Look at the drawings in theorem 6-22... when segment BD is first drawn, do you see the TWO isosceles triangles it creates... the perp bisector of BD (AC) MUST be the other diagonal... yes?
Questions for #6-6 and the quiz coming soon!
ReplyDeleteAre consecutive angles of a trapezoid supplementary? Or how are we supposed to figure out #2? Because 86+48 does not equal 180..
ReplyDeleteAre the adjacent triangles (meaning like the little triangles next to each other and the big triangles next to eachother) congruent in a kite? For some reason I think they are but I can't find it in the book..
ReplyDeleteBecause for the triangles I am talking about I can only create Angle Side Side congruence (Which does not exist!!).. Unless I'm missing something and there is another congruence.
ReplyDeleteFor #39, I am confused, because I know that two angles of a kite can be opposite and acute, but I don't know WHY.. So I checked the back of the book but the explanation does not make any sense to me; "Yes; the congruent angles can be obtuse". Can't the congruent angles also be opposite & congruent..?
ReplyDeleteI hate these kinds of questions.. I'm having trouble on #41 just visualizing a kite that doesn't work with this rule.. Same with #43..
ReplyDeleteWoops, I thought we had to do just odd #39-#44.. Well I'm just lost on all of them. You probably can't help me but is there any advice you could give me?
ReplyDeleteNow the Mid-Chapter Quiz..
ReplyDeleteIs #1 a trick question? Hahaha they include so much other stuff & all you need to look at are the angles on the line!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what to put down for #12 on the MCQ, it just makes me suspicious that #11 & #12 would both be rectangles; unless I'm wrong?
ReplyDeleteNever mind about the comment above.. I'm just having difficulty on classifying #12. Do the parallel sides affect how long the sides are ?
ReplyDeleteKites are messing me up.. Do any diagonals of a kite bisect the angles?
ReplyDeleteHow about a geo-chat?
ReplyDeleteThe answer for #11 and #12 is rectangles.
ReplyDeleteDiagonals of a kite are perpendicular. They will form congruent triangles which means the opp angles must be bisected... so, yes, diagonals of a kite are ALWAYS angle bisectors.
I think somehow you missed the DEFINITION of a KITE... re-read page 392...
ReplyDeleteLook at the drawings in theorem 6-22... when segment BD is first drawn, do you see the TWO isosceles triangles it creates... the perp bisector of BD (AC) MUST be the other diagonal... yes?
Mr.C? Can we still chat? I had to go to the high school.
ReplyDeleteI'm in the Geometry chat if you can come!
ReplyDeleteBut only ONE diagonal of a kite is an angle bisector.. Right? Because BD in Theorem 6-22 does not look OR seem like it bisects the angle.
ReplyDeleteWill we have our bibles?
ReplyDeleteI think I'll be okay.. I watched a few video tutors and they helped a bit.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, thank you for the answer about the kite! I was just a little confused.