Yes if it's divided diagonally.
By cutting off two of its corners which will leave you with 2 triangles and 1 pentagon.
A rectangle has 4 sides and the opposite sides are of equal length. You therefore have two sides of length 5 m and two sides of length 11 m. To get the perimeter you add up the length of all the sides. I will leave this last bit for you to do.
By cutting through its diagonal and cutting off each corner parallel to its diagonal which will leave you with 2 triangles and 2 trapezoids.
Fuor toothpicks from 16 leave 12 which, by coincidence (?) is exactly enough for four equilateral triangles!
It is 199.
If you are dividing the numerator and the denominator by the same number (the GCF), it is the same as dividing the fraction by 1, which will leave it unchanged and create the same product.
You cannot build a platonic solid with six equilateral triangles meeting at each vertex because the angles of equilateral triangles do not allow for a closed three-dimensional shape at that vertex. Each angle of an equilateral triangle is 60 degrees, and six triangles would sum to 360 degrees, which does not leave room for a vertex in three-dimensional space. In contrast, the only platonic solids possible with equilateral triangles are the tetrahedron (3 triangles per vertex) and the octahedron (4 triangles per vertex).
It is decreased by half. If you decrease the width by half and leave the length alone, you get the same result.
To solve this, multiply the two values (assuming you mean a rectangle) This will leave you with 559in(squared)
You use the surface area formula for a rectangle, but remember to leave out the top of it.
No - dividing 5296 by 3 does not leave an integer solution. 5296/3 = 1765.3 recurring (that is, 1765.3333...)
Subtracting a number by itself will leave you with 0, whereas dividing leaves 1. So dividing a number by itself will give the larger result.