Perhaps a rectangular prism
not posiable
Using all 13 squares, and not counting different orientations, only one.
no,we can divide the figure into squares,rectangles and triangles
They are basically the same thing however, a rhombus has the sides all congruent and the parallelogram has the opposite sides congruent. If the rhombus had angles of 90 degrees it would become a square and if a parallelogram had sides 90 degrees it would become a rectangle. All rhombuses are parallelograms, but not all parallelograms are rhombuses. Likewise, using the above example of squares, all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
That is correct, when finding the area for rectangles, you would be using the equation b*h, and with a right angle triangle would you use b*h/2.
not posiable
Using all 13 squares, and not counting different orientations, only one.
no,we can divide the figure into squares,rectangles and triangles
Using a protractor will help in finding obtuse angles in some quadrilaterals except squares and rectangles
3 or 6, depending on whether rectangles rotated through 90 degrees are counted as different. The rectangles are 1x12, 2x6 3x4 and their rotated versions: 4x3, 6x2 and 12x1.
You can arrange them to make a cube.12 edges, 6 faces.
Squares and Rectangles. Haxagons, to a lesser extent. Traingles, Rhombi are possible for tessellation using only one shape. It is also possible to use a combination of shapes. Octagons and squares are a popular combination.
__ __ | | __ __ | | __ __ hope u can see that. :S * * * * * Not easy to see. In any case, it gives two rectangles, not two squares. What you need is a 2x2 square and in one of its corners, a 1x1 square.
They are basically the same thing however, a rhombus has the sides all congruent and the parallelogram has the opposite sides congruent. If the rhombus had angles of 90 degrees it would become a square and if a parallelogram had sides 90 degrees it would become a rectangle. All rhombuses are parallelograms, but not all parallelograms are rhombuses. Likewise, using the above example of squares, all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
That is correct, when finding the area for rectangles, you would be using the equation b*h, and with a right angle triangle would you use b*h/2.
Yes because they can be measured mathematically. But free form shapes can't for instance you can't measure a pare using i ruler. But you can measure a square with a ruler.
Circles and rectangles are plane (2-dimensional) figures, so it doesn't seem that they can be used to construct solids.