At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
In general you get a parallelogram, which does not necessarily have to be a rhombus.
No you will get a rhombus always.
and square gives square.
Oh my, I was thinking of something else, I apologize. Yep :)
A square is a rhombus though.
No problem :)
If you join the midpoints of a square the secondary figure is also a square.
Yes, but I meant that a square is also a rhombus.
Every square is rhombus, rectangle and parallelogram.
I disagree. A rhombus is a quadrilateral with all four sides being of the same length. A square is an example of this.
I don't mean that to be a square is to be a rhombus, I mean that a square happens to be a particular example of a rhombus.
Yes it's always precise to use the subset instead of super-set when your conditions satisfies the subset. Say what is 2 ? It is an integer and also real but we generally say integer.
Why not natural then?
Yes, but it depends on the problem again we can call it whole too.
Do i get a metal for asking a good question =)
We could also call it prime, which is even more precise. I disagree that it's always better to specify the subset rather than the superset. In that case, the best classification of 2 would be "the number 2". Regardless. The question was answered, the points were made. End of thread. And sure^, why not.
yaay im level 18