You will get no 8.5 yard squares!
The answer obviously depends on the units used for the 8.5 squares. But since you have not bothered to provide that crucial bit of information, I cannot provide a more useful answer.
You will get no 8.5 yard squares!
The answer obviously depends on the units used for the 8.5 squares. But since you have not bothered to provide that crucial bit of information, I cannot provide a more useful answer.
You will get no 8.5 yard squares!
The answer obviously depends on the units used for the 8.5 squares. But since you have not bothered to provide that crucial bit of information, I cannot provide a more useful answer.
You will get no 8.5 yard squares!
The answer obviously depends on the units used for the 8.5 squares. But since you have not bothered to provide that crucial bit of information, I cannot provide a more useful answer.
Chat with our AI personalities
You will get no 8.5 yard squares!
The answer obviously depends on the units used for the 8.5 squares. But since you have not bothered to provide that crucial bit of information, I cannot provide a more useful answer.
Very many if they are much smaller than the hexagon.If the square is to have the same length side as an equilateral hexagon and you are not allowed to cut the square then one.If you are allowed to cut the square but it (they) have to have the same length side as an equilateral hexagon then: about 2.6 [Exactly (3 * (Sqrt 3)) / 2 ]
yes, because if you cut the rectangle in half it would make 2 squares
The probability of the event given in the question is 0.
two
-- The area of each little square is 1 square meter. -- The area of the big square is 9 square meters. -- So 9 little ones will cover the big one. Note: If the big one wasn't in the shape of a 3m x 3m square or a 1m x 9m rectangle, then you might have to cut up some of the little ones to make them fit the shape, but even so, 9 of them would exactly cover the bigger shape.