It could be 1 cm by 81 cm, 3 cm by 27 cm, 9 cm by 9 cm, 27 cm by 3 cm, or 81 cm by 1 cm.
You can make a perimeter with side lengths if 3, 3, 3, 3 or you could do a rectangle with side lengths of 4, 4, 2, 2. Finally you could do a rectangle with side lengths of 5, 5, 1, 1.
A rectangle, or could be a square if lengths are the same.
The perimeter of a rectangle cannot be determined with the area alone as the lengths could vary. For example, the perimeter of the rectangle could be 12 (1 and 5) or 9 (2 and 2.5). For both cases, the area is still 5cm2, but the length can still change to result in different results.
It could be 1 x 10.
Here's something to think about: -- Every rectangle is a parallelogram. There are an infinite number of them. -- There are also an infinite number of more parallelograms that are not rectangles.
You can make a perimeter with side lengths if 3, 3, 3, 3 or you could do a rectangle with side lengths of 4, 4, 2, 2. Finally you could do a rectangle with side lengths of 5, 5, 1, 1.
There is no definite answer to that, as a rectangle that is 153 square metres could have different lengths.
A rectangle, or could be a square if lengths are the same.
because it was estimation, the lengths were different and the rectangles are not the same
Given unchanging lengths of the sides, a triangle cannot change its shape. But given unchanging lengths of the sides of a rectangle, it can change its shape by some force by changing its angle measurements. If a 2d load were put on a rectangle, enough force could squish the rectangle into a parallelogram, whereas a triangle cannot change shape without changing the lengths of its sides or bending its sides out of shape (most likely into a curve).Given these properties, a rectangle can collapse its shape much more easily and is flimsy compared to a triangle.
The perimeter of a rectangle cannot be determined with the area alone as the lengths could vary. For example, the perimeter of the rectangle could be 12 (1 and 5) or 9 (2 and 2.5). For both cases, the area is still 5cm2, but the length can still change to result in different results.
It could be 1 x 10.
It would be a rectangle. The lengths of the sides must be such that the length times the width equals 36: So it could be a square with sides 6; or A rectangle with sides 4 and 9; or A rectangle with sides 3 and 13; or A rectangle with sides 2 and 18; or A rectangle with sides 1 and 36; or A rectangle with sides ½ and 72, etc The rectangle can get as thin as you like and would become longer to accommodate the area.
Here's something to think about: -- Every rectangle is a parallelogram. There are an infinite number of them. -- There are also an infinite number of more parallelograms that are not rectangles.
This question is impossible to answer. An area cannot be 34 cm since the latter is a linear measure. Furthermore, the question is under-specified because the shape of the [planar] figure is not specified. Moreover, even if it were specified, eg a rectangle, there are an infinite number of combinations of side lengths which could give a required area.
There is not enough information to answer the question. The number of possible answers is infinite. The rectangle could be 15 ft * 16 ft or 12 ft * 20 ft or 10 ft * 24 ft or 8 ft * 30 ft or 6 ft * 40 ft etc and then there are fractional lengths.
A real physical rectangle on a piece of paper . . . no. Mathematically . . . if one of the dimensions is a negative length, then the area is negative.