Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing

waheguru

  • 4 years ago

by connecting the midpoints of a reatangle u get a rhombus right?

  • This Question is Closed
  1. FoolForMath
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    yes.

  2. jimmyrep
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    yup

  3. Jemurray3
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

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

  4. FoolForMath
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    No you will get a rhombus always.

  5. FoolForMath
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    and square gives square.

  6. Jemurray3
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

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

  7. Jemurray3
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    A square is a rhombus though.

  8. FoolForMath
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    No problem :)

  9. FoolForMath
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

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

  10. Jemurray3
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

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

  11. FoolForMath
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Every square is rhombus, rectangle and parallelogram.

  12. Jemurray3
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    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
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    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
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    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
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Why not natural then?

  16. FoolForMath
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

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

  17. waheguru
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

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

  18. Jemurray3
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    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
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    yaay im level 18

  20. waheguru
    • 4 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    no 20

  21. Not the answer you are looking for?
    Search for more explanations.

    • Attachments:

Ask your own question

Sign Up
Find more explanations on OpenStudy
Privacy Policy