Does the set of scalene triangles include the special cases of isosceles and equilateral triangles?
$begingroup$
A math question starts:
$triangle$ABC is a scalene triangle ...
From this should I imply the solution must never work when $triangle$ABC is isosceles or equilateral? That is to ask, does the set of scalene triangles include the special cases of isosceles and equilateral triangles?
Can an equilateral triangle be an isosceles triangle, too?
geometry terminology
edited Dec 22 '18 at 5:20
timtfj
2,493420
asked Dec 22 '18 at 1:44
Ron JensenRon Jensen
1688
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A math question starts:
$triangle$ABC is a scalene triangle ...
From this should I imply the solution must never work when $triangle$ABC is isosceles or equilateral? That is to ask, does the set of scalene triangles include the special cases of isosceles and equilateral triangles?
Can an equilateral triangle be an isosceles triangle, too?
geometry terminology
edited Dec 22 '18 at 5:20
timtfj
2,493420
asked Dec 22 '18 at 1:44
Ron JensenRon Jensen
1688
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
isosceles: at least 2 sides equal. this includes equilateral. But once I saw scalene as all unequal sides, and some other time it was one angle bigger than right angle. (don't know which is right-- maybe google it.)
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 22 '18 at 1:57
2
$begingroup$
@coffeemath I think "one angle bigger than right" is "obtuse", I doubt "scalene" is ever used that way. I agree that an equilateral triangle is isosceles but that a scalene triangle can't be isosceles. Wolfram agrees.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Dec 22 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
@EthanBolker So do we have any definitive def of scalene?
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 22 '18 at 2:24
3
$begingroup$
A triangle that might be equilateral, isosceles, or have three sides all different is called "a triangle."
$endgroup$
– David K
Dec 22 '18 at 5:30
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A math question starts:
$triangle$ABC is a scalene triangle ...
From this should I imply the solution must never work when $triangle$ABC is isosceles or equilateral? That is to ask, does the set of scalene triangles include the special cases of isosceles and equilateral triangles?
Can an equilateral triangle be an isosceles triangle, too?
geometry terminology
edited Dec 22 '18 at 5:20
timtfj
2,493420
asked Dec 22 '18 at 1:44
Ron JensenRon Jensen
1688
$endgroup$
A math question starts:
$triangle$ABC is a scalene triangle ...
From this should I imply the solution must never work when $triangle$ABC is isosceles or equilateral? That is to ask, does the set of scalene triangles include the special cases of isosceles and equilateral triangles?
Can an equilateral triangle be an isosceles triangle, too?
geometry terminology
geometry terminology
edited Dec 22 '18 at 5:20
timtfj
2,493420
asked Dec 22 '18 at 1:44
Ron JensenRon Jensen
1688
edited Dec 22 '18 at 5:20
timtfj
2,493420
asked Dec 22 '18 at 1:44
Ron JensenRon Jensen
1688
edited Dec 22 '18 at 5:20
timtfj
2,493420
edited Dec 22 '18 at 5:20
timtfj
2,493420
edited Dec 22 '18 at 5:20
timtfj
2,493420
2,493420
asked Dec 22 '18 at 1:44
Ron JensenRon Jensen
1688
asked Dec 22 '18 at 1:44
Ron JensenRon Jensen
1688
asked Dec 22 '18 at 1:44
Ron JensenRon Jensen
1688
1688
$begingroup$
isosceles: at least 2 sides equal. this includes equilateral. But once I saw scalene as all unequal sides, and some other time it was one angle bigger than right angle. (don't know which is right-- maybe google it.)
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 22 '18 at 1:57
2
$begingroup$
@coffeemath I think "one angle bigger than right" is "obtuse", I doubt "scalene" is ever used that way. I agree that an equilateral triangle is isosceles but that a scalene triangle can't be isosceles. Wolfram agrees.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Dec 22 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
@EthanBolker So do we have any definitive def of scalene?
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 22 '18 at 2:24
3
$begingroup$
A triangle that might be equilateral, isosceles, or have three sides all different is called "a triangle."
$endgroup$
– David K
Dec 22 '18 at 5:30
add a comment |
$begingroup$
isosceles: at least 2 sides equal. this includes equilateral. But once I saw scalene as all unequal sides, and some other time it was one angle bigger than right angle. (don't know which is right-- maybe google it.)
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 22 '18 at 1:57
2
$begingroup$
@coffeemath I think "one angle bigger than right" is "obtuse", I doubt "scalene" is ever used that way. I agree that an equilateral triangle is isosceles but that a scalene triangle can't be isosceles. Wolfram agrees.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Dec 22 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
@EthanBolker So do we have any definitive def of scalene?
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 22 '18 at 2:24
3
$begingroup$
A triangle that might be equilateral, isosceles, or have three sides all different is called "a triangle."
$endgroup$
– David K
Dec 22 '18 at 5:30
$begingroup$
isosceles: at least 2 sides equal. this includes equilateral. But once I saw scalene as all unequal sides, and some other time it was one angle bigger than right angle. (don't know which is right-- maybe google it.)
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 22 '18 at 1:57
$begingroup$
isosceles: at least 2 sides equal. this includes equilateral. But once I saw scalene as all unequal sides, and some other time it was one angle bigger than right angle. (don't know which is right-- maybe google it.)
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 22 '18 at 1:57
2
2
$begingroup$
@coffeemath I think "one angle bigger than right" is "obtuse", I doubt "scalene" is ever used that way. I agree that an equilateral triangle is isosceles but that a scalene triangle can't be isosceles. Wolfram agrees.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Dec 22 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
@coffeemath I think "one angle bigger than right" is "obtuse", I doubt "scalene" is ever used that way. I agree that an equilateral triangle is isosceles but that a scalene triangle can't be isosceles. Wolfram agrees.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Dec 22 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
@EthanBolker So do we have any definitive def of scalene?
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 22 '18 at 2:24
$begingroup$
@EthanBolker So do we have any definitive def of scalene?
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 22 '18 at 2:24
3
3
$begingroup$
A triangle that might be equilateral, isosceles, or have three sides all different is called "a triangle."
$endgroup$
– David K
Dec 22 '18 at 5:30
$begingroup$
A triangle that might be equilateral, isosceles, or have three sides all different is called "a triangle."
$endgroup$
– David K
Dec 22 '18 at 5:30
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I don't believe you'll find debate on the in/exclusiveness of "scalene" the way you do with "isosceles" vs "equilateral" (or "rectangle" vs "square", or "trapezoid" vs "parallelogram", etc). The term seems to exist precisely to guarantee that there are no symmetries that can cause elements —say, an altitude, median, and/or angle bisector from a vertex— to coincide, so that constructions relying on distinct elements don't degenerate. At the moment, I can't think of a particularly-good example that "goes bad" for isosceles triangles, but I'll note that the Euler line is undefined for equilaterals, due to the coincidence of all the key "triangle centers" that would otherwise uniquely determine it.
Incidentally, according to the "Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics" pages, "scalenum" excluded isosceles from way-back-when.
In Sir Henry Billingsley’s 1570 translation of Euclid’s Elements, scalenum is used as a noun: "Scalenum is a triangle, whose three sides are all unequall."
It might be interesting to check Elements to see to what degree the passages using the term needed the triangles in question to be asymmetric.
As for whether you should (ahem) "[infer] the solution must never work when $triangle ABC$ is isosceles or equilateral" ... It's possible that symmetry will cause a problem's solution to fail completely (think Euler line), but it's also possible that an isosceles/equilateral configuration amounts to a "limiting form" of the property under discussion; in the latter case, such a form might well be considered valid from a suitable point of view, but the presenter may not (yet) want to burden the discussion with such nuances. So, never infer "never".
In, say, textbook exercises or contest problems, my sense of things is that the term "scalene" is often the author's assurance that the reader needn't fear gotcha degeneracies.
answered Dec 22 '18 at 6:23
BlueBlue
49.3k870157
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One observation. If the set of scalene triangles included isosceles and equilateral triangles, then it would actually be the set of all triangles. So scalene triangle would just mean triangle and the term would be redundant.
Clearly this would be true whether or not isosceles triangles were defined as including equilateral ones.
A proof might consider scalene triangles in order to guarantee that it works for arbitrary side lengths—but this is different from defining all triangles as scalene.
answered Dec 22 '18 at 16:16
timtfjtimtfj
2,493420
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3049057%2fdoes-the-set-of-scalene-triangles-include-the-special-cases-of-isosceles-and-equ%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I don't believe you'll find debate on the in/exclusiveness of "scalene" the way you do with "isosceles" vs "equilateral" (or "rectangle" vs "square", or "trapezoid" vs "parallelogram", etc). The term seems to exist precisely to guarantee that there are no symmetries that can cause elements —say, an altitude, median, and/or angle bisector from a vertex— to coincide, so that constructions relying on distinct elements don't degenerate. At the moment, I can't think of a particularly-good example that "goes bad" for isosceles triangles, but I'll note that the Euler line is undefined for equilaterals, due to the coincidence of all the key "triangle centers" that would otherwise uniquely determine it.
Incidentally, according to the "Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics" pages, "scalenum" excluded isosceles from way-back-when.
In Sir Henry Billingsley’s 1570 translation of Euclid’s Elements, scalenum is used as a noun: "Scalenum is a triangle, whose three sides are all unequall."
It might be interesting to check Elements to see to what degree the passages using the term needed the triangles in question to be asymmetric.
As for whether you should (ahem) "[infer] the solution must never work when $triangle ABC$ is isosceles or equilateral" ... It's possible that symmetry will cause a problem's solution to fail completely (think Euler line), but it's also possible that an isosceles/equilateral configuration amounts to a "limiting form" of the property under discussion; in the latter case, such a form might well be considered valid from a suitable point of view, but the presenter may not (yet) want to burden the discussion with such nuances. So, never infer "never".
In, say, textbook exercises or contest problems, my sense of things is that the term "scalene" is often the author's assurance that the reader needn't fear gotcha degeneracies.
answered Dec 22 '18 at 6:23
BlueBlue
49.3k870157
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't believe you'll find debate on the in/exclusiveness of "scalene" the way you do with "isosceles" vs "equilateral" (or "rectangle" vs "square", or "trapezoid" vs "parallelogram", etc). The term seems to exist precisely to guarantee that there are no symmetries that can cause elements —say, an altitude, median, and/or angle bisector from a vertex— to coincide, so that constructions relying on distinct elements don't degenerate. At the moment, I can't think of a particularly-good example that "goes bad" for isosceles triangles, but I'll note that the Euler line is undefined for equilaterals, due to the coincidence of all the key "triangle centers" that would otherwise uniquely determine it.
Incidentally, according to the "Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics" pages, "scalenum" excluded isosceles from way-back-when.
In Sir Henry Billingsley’s 1570 translation of Euclid’s Elements, scalenum is used as a noun: "Scalenum is a triangle, whose three sides are all unequall."
It might be interesting to check Elements to see to what degree the passages using the term needed the triangles in question to be asymmetric.
As for whether you should (ahem) "[infer] the solution must never work when $triangle ABC$ is isosceles or equilateral" ... It's possible that symmetry will cause a problem's solution to fail completely (think Euler line), but it's also possible that an isosceles/equilateral configuration amounts to a "limiting form" of the property under discussion; in the latter case, such a form might well be considered valid from a suitable point of view, but the presenter may not (yet) want to burden the discussion with such nuances. So, never infer "never".
In, say, textbook exercises or contest problems, my sense of things is that the term "scalene" is often the author's assurance that the reader needn't fear gotcha degeneracies.
answered Dec 22 '18 at 6:23
BlueBlue
49.3k870157
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't believe you'll find debate on the in/exclusiveness of "scalene" the way you do with "isosceles" vs "equilateral" (or "rectangle" vs "square", or "trapezoid" vs "parallelogram", etc). The term seems to exist precisely to guarantee that there are no symmetries that can cause elements —say, an altitude, median, and/or angle bisector from a vertex— to coincide, so that constructions relying on distinct elements don't degenerate. At the moment, I can't think of a particularly-good example that "goes bad" for isosceles triangles, but I'll note that the Euler line is undefined for equilaterals, due to the coincidence of all the key "triangle centers" that would otherwise uniquely determine it.
Incidentally, according to the "Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics" pages, "scalenum" excluded isosceles from way-back-when.
In Sir Henry Billingsley’s 1570 translation of Euclid’s Elements, scalenum is used as a noun: "Scalenum is a triangle, whose three sides are all unequall."
It might be interesting to check Elements to see to what degree the passages using the term needed the triangles in question to be asymmetric.
As for whether you should (ahem) "[infer] the solution must never work when $triangle ABC$ is isosceles or equilateral" ... It's possible that symmetry will cause a problem's solution to fail completely (think Euler line), but it's also possible that an isosceles/equilateral configuration amounts to a "limiting form" of the property under discussion; in the latter case, such a form might well be considered valid from a suitable point of view, but the presenter may not (yet) want to burden the discussion with such nuances. So, never infer "never".
In, say, textbook exercises or contest problems, my sense of things is that the term "scalene" is often the author's assurance that the reader needn't fear gotcha degeneracies.
answered Dec 22 '18 at 6:23
BlueBlue
49.3k870157
$endgroup$
I don't believe you'll find debate on the in/exclusiveness of "scalene" the way you do with "isosceles" vs "equilateral" (or "rectangle" vs "square", or "trapezoid" vs "parallelogram", etc). The term seems to exist precisely to guarantee that there are no symmetries that can cause elements —say, an altitude, median, and/or angle bisector from a vertex— to coincide, so that constructions relying on distinct elements don't degenerate. At the moment, I can't think of a particularly-good example that "goes bad" for isosceles triangles, but I'll note that the Euler line is undefined for equilaterals, due to the coincidence of all the key "triangle centers" that would otherwise uniquely determine it.
Incidentally, according to the "Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics" pages, "scalenum" excluded isosceles from way-back-when.
In Sir Henry Billingsley’s 1570 translation of Euclid’s Elements, scalenum is used as a noun: "Scalenum is a triangle, whose three sides are all unequall."
It might be interesting to check Elements to see to what degree the passages using the term needed the triangles in question to be asymmetric.
As for whether you should (ahem) "[infer] the solution must never work when $triangle ABC$ is isosceles or equilateral" ... It's possible that symmetry will cause a problem's solution to fail completely (think Euler line), but it's also possible that an isosceles/equilateral configuration amounts to a "limiting form" of the property under discussion; in the latter case, such a form might well be considered valid from a suitable point of view, but the presenter may not (yet) want to burden the discussion with such nuances. So, never infer "never".
In, say, textbook exercises or contest problems, my sense of things is that the term "scalene" is often the author's assurance that the reader needn't fear gotcha degeneracies.
answered Dec 22 '18 at 6:23
BlueBlue
49.3k870157
answered Dec 22 '18 at 6:23
BlueBlue
49.3k870157
answered Dec 22 '18 at 6:23
BlueBlue
49.3k870157
answered Dec 22 '18 at 6:23
BlueBlue
49.3k870157
49.3k870157
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One observation. If the set of scalene triangles included isosceles and equilateral triangles, then it would actually be the set of all triangles. So scalene triangle would just mean triangle and the term would be redundant.
Clearly this would be true whether or not isosceles triangles were defined as including equilateral ones.
A proof might consider scalene triangles in order to guarantee that it works for arbitrary side lengths—but this is different from defining all triangles as scalene.
answered Dec 22 '18 at 16:16
timtfjtimtfj
2,493420
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One observation. If the set of scalene triangles included isosceles and equilateral triangles, then it would actually be the set of all triangles. So scalene triangle would just mean triangle and the term would be redundant.
Clearly this would be true whether or not isosceles triangles were defined as including equilateral ones.
A proof might consider scalene triangles in order to guarantee that it works for arbitrary side lengths—but this is different from defining all triangles as scalene.
answered Dec 22 '18 at 16:16
timtfjtimtfj
2,493420
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One observation. If the set of scalene triangles included isosceles and equilateral triangles, then it would actually be the set of all triangles. So scalene triangle would just mean triangle and the term would be redundant.
Clearly this would be true whether or not isosceles triangles were defined as including equilateral ones.
A proof might consider scalene triangles in order to guarantee that it works for arbitrary side lengths—but this is different from defining all triangles as scalene.
answered Dec 22 '18 at 16:16
timtfjtimtfj
2,493420
$endgroup$
One observation. If the set of scalene triangles included isosceles and equilateral triangles, then it would actually be the set of all triangles. So scalene triangle would just mean triangle and the term would be redundant.
Clearly this would be true whether or not isosceles triangles were defined as including equilateral ones.
A proof might consider scalene triangles in order to guarantee that it works for arbitrary side lengths—but this is different from defining all triangles as scalene.
answered Dec 22 '18 at 16:16
timtfjtimtfj
2,493420
answered Dec 22 '18 at 16:16
timtfjtimtfj
2,493420
answered Dec 22 '18 at 16:16
timtfjtimtfj
2,493420
answered Dec 22 '18 at 16:16
timtfjtimtfj
2,493420
2,493420
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3049057%2fdoes-the-set-of-scalene-triangles-include-the-special-cases-of-isosceles-and-equ%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
isosceles: at least 2 sides equal. this includes equilateral. But once I saw scalene as all unequal sides, and some other time it was one angle bigger than right angle. (don't know which is right-- maybe google it.)
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 22 '18 at 1:57
2
$begingroup$
@coffeemath I think "one angle bigger than right" is "obtuse", I doubt "scalene" is ever used that way. I agree that an equilateral triangle is isosceles but that a scalene triangle can't be isosceles. Wolfram agrees.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Dec 22 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
@EthanBolker So do we have any definitive def of scalene?
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 22 '18 at 2:24
3
$begingroup$
A triangle that might be equilateral, isosceles, or have three sides all different is called "a triangle."
$endgroup$
– David K
Dec 22 '18 at 5:30