0.000...1cm length on two sides. 19.999...9cm length on the other two.
If we restrict ourselves to whole numbers, then 1 x 14 will have the least possible area.
Yes.
42 square units.
You might want to investigate the rectangle that measures [ 6 by 8 ].
A 9 x 1 rectangle has a perimeter of 20 and an area of 9; A 9.5 x 0.5 rectangle has the same perimeter but an area of 4.75; You can go a long way along this road...
52 ft
52 (13•4)
If we restrict ourselves to whole numbers, then 1 x 14 will have the least possible area.
For a fixed perimeter, the area will always be the same, regardless of how you describe the rectangle.
There is no relationship between the perimeter and area of a rectangle. Knowing the perimeter, it's not possible to find the area. If you pick a number for the perimeter, there are an infinite number of rectangles with different areas that all have that perimeter. Knowing the area, it's not possible to find the perimeter. If you pick a number for the area, there are an infinite number of rectangles with different perimeters that all have that area.
Assuming no fractional dimensions, least possible area would be a rectangle measuring 1cm x 9cm. Area increases to a maximum of 25 sq cm when shape is square, ie 5cm x 5cm.
47
NO, because if you did it would be a square
Yes.
(p/4)2, where p is the perimeter.
42 square units.
You might want to investigate the rectangle that measures [ 6 by 8 ].