No. In order to be the sides of a right triangle, the square of one of the numbers must be the sum of the squares of the other two numbers. (the square of 9) + (the square of 10) = 181 but (the square of 15) = 225 .
Pick three numbers. If the square of the largest number is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two, then the three numbers could represent the sides of a right triangle.
Yes and the given lengths would form an isosceles triangle.
Yes, those three numbers could represent the angles of a triangle, since their sum is 180.
Pythagoras says no.4squared + 5squared = 6squared16 + 25 = 3641 = 36Unless you could prove that all numbers have exactly the same value without diving by zero, 4, 5 and 6 cannot be the lengths of a right-angled triangle.
7
No. In order to be the sides of a right triangle, the square of one of the numbers must be the sum of the squares of the other two numbers. (the square of 9) + (the square of 10) = 181 but (the square of 15) = 225 .
The list that accompanies the question doesn't contain any numbers that could be the lengths of the sides of a triangle.
The sides of a triangle are its lengths are cannot be negative. However, you could place a triangle on coordinate system and some points where the vertices are could be negative numbers.
There are lots of sets of numbers that fit that definition! But the important thing to remember about triangles is the Third Side Rule, or the Triangle Inequality, which states: the length of a side of a triangle is less than the sum of the lengths of the other two sides and greater than the difference of the lengths of the other two sides. So you can have a triangle with sides of 3, 4 and 5 because 3 < 4 + 5, 4 < 3 + 5 and 5 < 3 + 4; and because 3 > 5 - 4, 4 > 5 - 3 and 5 > 4 - 3. But you can't have a triangle with sides 1, 2 and 8, for example. Just imagine three pieces of wood or three straws with lengths 1, 2 and 8. Put the longest piece, 8, horizontally on the table. Then put the other two, one at each end of the longest piece. Could those two shorter sides ever meet to form a triangle? No, never!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The length is always positive, so that all real positive numbers can represent the length of sides of a triangle: {x| x > 0}.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Whoever added that to my answer, sorry, I beg to differ! The question asked what SET of numbers cannot represent the lengths of the sides of a triangle. There are infinite possibilities for that. While the lengths are always a set of real positive numbers, not every possible set of real positive numbers is a potential set of numbers that represent the lengths of the sides of a triangle!
Pick three numbers. If the square of the largest number is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two, then the three numbers could represent the sides of a right triangle.
5cm, 5cm, and 5cm could represent the lengths of the sides of an equilateral triangle, or might indicate the length, width, and height of a cube.
If its a right angle triangle then its side lengths could be 3, 4 and 5
Yes and the given lengths would form an isosceles triangle.
i dont undstand exactly what your asking but the name for it is a phythangorean triple like 3,4, & 5
If any of its 2 sides is not greater than its third in length then a triangle can't be formed.
It can't.