## waheguru 3 years ago by connecting the midpoints of a reatangle u get a rhombus right?

1. FoolForMath

yes.

2. jimmyrep

yup

3. Jemurray3

In general you get a parallelogram, which does not necessarily have to be a rhombus.

4. FoolForMath

No you will get a rhombus always.

5. FoolForMath

and square gives square.

6. Jemurray3

Oh my, I was thinking of something else, I apologize. Yep :)

7. Jemurray3

A square is a rhombus though.

8. FoolForMath

No problem :)

9. FoolForMath

If you join the midpoints of a square the secondary figure is also a square.

10. Jemurray3

Yes, but I meant that a square is also a rhombus.

11. FoolForMath

Every square is rhombus, rectangle and parallelogram.

12. Jemurray3

I disagree. A rhombus is a quadrilateral with all four sides being of the same length. A square is an example of this.

13. Jemurray3

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.

14. FoolForMath

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.

15. Jemurray3

Why not natural then?

16. FoolForMath

Yes, but it depends on the problem again we can call it whole too.

17. waheguru

Do i get a metal for asking a good question =)

18. Jemurray3

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.

19. waheguru

yaay im level 18

20. waheguru

no 20