Want this question answered?
That's more of a statement than a question. It's also a false statement. You can build a three dimensional object from two dimensional objects, if you have an infinite number of them.
true You can imagine any 3 dimensional shape as stacking the 2 dimensional version of that shape on top of each other. Actually, it is false. You can imagine a 3-d object being made up of a lot of 2-d objects stacked on top of one another. But remember that, by definition, a 2-d object has no thickness (or, in this case, height). Height of one 2-d obect = 0 so height of n such objects = n*0 = 0 So a stack, no matter how many objects you use, will remain 0. And so you are not building up a 3-d object. Alternatively, you could imagine a cube (3-d) being built up from 6 square faces (2-d). Except that this is just the shell of the 3-d object, not the 3-d object itself.
[object Object]
a model
not really because they are 2 diffrent objects floor and stair hall is only BUILT on the floor witch makes it no.
false
That's more of a statement than a question. It's also a false statement. You can build a three dimensional object from two dimensional objects, if you have an infinite number of them.
The smaller objects which are built to represent the larger objects are called Model
true You can imagine any 3 dimensional shape as stacking the 2 dimensional version of that shape on top of each other. Actually, it is false. You can imagine a 3-d object being made up of a lot of 2-d objects stacked on top of one another. But remember that, by definition, a 2-d object has no thickness (or, in this case, height). Height of one 2-d obect = 0 so height of n such objects = n*0 = 0 So a stack, no matter how many objects you use, will remain 0. And so you are not building up a 3-d object. Alternatively, you could imagine a cube (3-d) being built up from 6 square faces (2-d). Except that this is just the shell of the 3-d object, not the 3-d object itself.
Not really. You can imagine a 3-d object being made up of a lot of 2-d objects stacked on top of one another. But remember that, by definition, a 2-d object has no thickness (or, in this case, height). Height of one 2-d obect = 0 so height of n such objects = n*0 = 0 So a stack, no matter how many objects you use, will remain 0. And so you are not building up a 3-d object. Alternatively, you could imagine a cube (3-d) being built up from 6 square faces (2-d). Except that this is just the shell of the 3-d object, not the 3-d object itself.
false Actually, the statement is true. You can imagine a 3-d object being made up of a lot of 2-d objects stacked on top of one another. But remember that, by definition, a 2-d object has no thickness (or, in this case, height). Height of one 2-d obect = 0 so height of n such objects = n*0 = 0 So a stack, no matter how many objects you use, will remain 0. And so you are not building up a 3-d object. Alternatively, you could imagine a cube (3-d) being built up from 6 square faces (2-d). Except that this is just the shell of the 3-d object, not the 3-d object itself.
The smaller objects which are built to represent the larger objects are called Model
Object[] arrayToBeSorted; Arrays.sort(arrayToBeSorted);
A multi-dimensional spreadsheet is one that utilizes models built on objects called variables instead of data in the cells of a report. This was created in the late 1980's.
A multi-dimensional spreadsheet is one that utilizes models built on objects called variables instead of data in the cells of a report. This was created in the late 1980's.
No, an object's built-in gravity is determined by its mass, not its distance. Gravity depends on the mass of the object causing the gravitational pull, not on the distance between the object and the affected object.
Static charge can be built up through friction between two objects, by induction where a charged object is brought near a neutral object causing the charges to separate, or by contact where a charged object transfers electrons to a neutral object when they come in contact.