Here's the question you clicked on:
waheguru
by connecting the midpoints of a reatangle u get a rhombus right?
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.
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.