2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29
Cubes of squares or squares of cubes, like 1, 64 and 729.
Cubes of all numbers are irrational numbers, if they're not natural
none 3 x 3 x 3 = 27 4 x 4 x 4 = 64 ---------------------------- Every number has a cube root, just most of them are not whole numbers, so every number between 30 and 50 is a cube. If you meant what the perfect cube numbers (ie the cubes of whole numbers) between 30 and 50, then the answer is, as above, none.
The ratio of volumes is directly proportional to the cube of the ratio of their sides. And, incidentally, all cubes are similar.
Of the natural numbers, the smallest (excluding 0 and 1 which are the same to any power) cubes are: 8 (2 cubed), 27 (3 cubed), 64 (4 cubed), and 125 (5 cubed).
Cubes are special cases of rectangular prisms.
yes they can
30
The cubes of all rational numbers will be rational. But the cubes of irrational numbers can be either.
no, but a cube is a rectangular prism... Remember this, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is never a square!
For a rectangle, do the following:1. Count the number of cubes on one side of the retangle.2. Count the number of cubes on an adjacent side (not the opposite side)3. Multiple both numbers together. The result is your answer.
No because cubes do not have opposite sides that are different lengths. Cubes have all equal sides and all equal coners. A cube is not a rectangle.
The sum of the cubes of the first 100 whole numbers is 25,502,500.
They are all examples of geometric shapes. A rectangle is two diminutional and pyramids and cubes are three diminutional.
Rectangles can overlap and interlock better than cubes, which makes walls stronger.
Cubes are 3 dimensional figures and are equal on all edges. Therefore if one face is not a rectangle, then no face is a rectangle. Basically no.
Probably infinite. The smallest is known as Ramanujan's number, 1729 using cubes of 1 and 12, and of 9 and10. Read more about the genius Ramanujan in Wikipaedia.