A rhombus by definition has four equal sides and the sum of its internal angles is 360o A square is a speicial case of the rhombus as it is further defined that its internal angles are all equal (to 90o) So, some rhombuses may be squares, and, all squares are rhombuses.
Suppose you have two variables X and Y, and a set of paired values for them. You can draw a line in the xy-plane: say y = ax + b. For each point, the residual is defined as the observed value y minus the fitted value: that is, the vertical distance between the observed and expected values. The least squares regression line is the line which minimises the sum of the squares of all the residuals.
The definition of a parallelogram is that it's a quadrilateral in which both pairs of opposite sides are parallel. So, that part is true about all parallelograms. Apart from that, there are some other properties that can be deduced, such as: * Opposite sides are congruent * Opposite angles are congruent * The diagonals bisect one another * The sum of the squares of the sides equal the sum of the squares of the diagonals As well as some other properties.
Pythagorean Theorem: In a right triangle, the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.Converse: If the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides of a triangle, then it is a right triangle.
Yes
The only squares of perfect squares in that range are 1, 16, and 81.
Here is a procedure that would do the job nicely: -- Make a list of all the perfect squares between 5 and 30. (Hint: They are 9, 16, 25, 36, and 49.) -- Find the sum by writing the numbers in a column and adding up the column.
8081 can be the sum of two perfect squares because its perfect squares are 41 x41+80x80=1681+6400. Answer=1681+6400
Including 2500, it's 42,785.
no
64 and 36.
No.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theorem
1166650
The proposition in the question is simply not true so there can be no answer!For example, if given the integer 6:there are no two perfect squares whose sum is 6,there are no two perfect squares whose difference is 6,there are no two perfect squares whose product is 6,there are no two perfect squares whose quotient is 6.
1x1=12x2=43x3=94x4=165x5=256x6=367x7=498x8=649x9=8110x10=10011x11=12112x12=144So to sum it all up, the first 12 perfect squares are1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,81,100,121,144.
Difference between the sum of the squares and the square of the sums of n numbers?Read more:Difference_between_the_sum_of_the_squares_and_the_square_of_the_sums_of_n_numbers
5