A community for students.
Here's the question you clicked on:
 0 viewing
waheguru
 4 years ago
by connecting the midpoints of a reatangle u get a rhombus right?
waheguru
 4 years ago
by connecting the midpoints of a reatangle u get a rhombus right?

This Question is Closed

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0In general you get a parallelogram, which does not necessarily have to be a rhombus.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0No you will get a rhombus always.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0and square gives square.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Oh my, I was thinking of something else, I apologize. Yep :)

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0A square is a rhombus though.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0If you join the midpoints of a square the secondary figure is also a square.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Yes, but I meant that a square is also a rhombus.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Every square is rhombus, rectangle and parallelogram.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I disagree. A rhombus is a quadrilateral with all four sides being of the same length. A square is an example of this.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I 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.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Yes it's always precise to use the subset instead of superset when your conditions satisfies the subset. Say what is 2 ? It is an integer and also real but we generally say integer.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Why not natural then?

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Yes, but it depends on the problem again we can call it whole too.

waheguru
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.2Do i get a metal for asking a good question =)

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0We 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.
Ask your own question
Sign UpFind more explanations on OpenStudy
Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.
spraguer
(Moderator)
5
→ View Detailed Profile
is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...
23
 Teamwork 19 Teammate
 Problem Solving 19 Hero
 Engagement 19 Mad Hatter
 You have blocked this person.
 ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...
Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.