No because the sum of the smaller lengths must be greater than the longest length
There is no such triangle because in order to construct a triangle the sum of its 2 smaller sides must be greater than its longest side.
The last side length could be between 4 units and 10 units inclusive.
No. The '6' and '4' sides would flop down and lie exactly on top of the '10' side.The whole thing would look like a line segment that's 10 cm long.
Information about the lengths of two sides of a triangle is insufficient to determine its area.
No
Yes.
11, 4, 8
No because the sum of the smaller lengths must be greater than the longest length
There is no such triangle because in order to construct a triangle the sum of its 2 smaller sides must be greater than its longest side.
The last side length could be between 4 units and 10 units inclusive.
Yes, one side is 5, one side is 10, and the third side can be however long you can make it. As long as it connects with the edges of the side of 5 and the side of 10.
No. The '6' and '4' sides would flop down and lie exactly on top of the '10' side.The whole thing would look like a line segment that's 10 cm long.
Information about the lengths of two sides of a triangle is insufficient to determine its area.
No because it does not comply with Pythagoras; theorem if the lengths were 10, 24 and 26 then it would be.
When two shapes have proportionally equivalent lengths and angles, they are geometrically similar. For example, take a triangle with sides of length 3, 4, and 5. Another triangle with side lengths 6, 8, and 10 would be geometrically similar to it because its angles are the same and its side lengths are proportional.
Yes and it will be a scalene triangle