Your question is inconsistent on its face.
You asked "What shape has zero faces . . . . . and has only one face."
I'd say that nothing could ever meet both of those requirements.
They are ... how you say ... 'mutually exclusive'.
There is no shape with only four triangular faces and five vertices. If there is also a quadrilateral face then it is a quadrialteral based pyramid.
There is no such shape. The only convex shape that has four faces is a tetrahedron, and that has four vertices, not 5.
A dodecagon is a plane shape and so has only one face. It has 12 sides and 12 vertices.
You can't have a 3-d shape with only 2 faces. A triangular prism has 9 edges and 6 vertices, but it has 5 faces.
The answer will depend on what is known of the shape. If you know only the number of faces, or only the number of vertices, then you cannot work out the number of edges. If you only know the shapes of the faces you cannot.The answer will depend on what is known of the shape. If you know only the number of faces, or only the number of vertices, then you cannot work out the number of edges. If you only know the shapes of the faces you cannot.The answer will depend on what is known of the shape. If you know only the number of faces, or only the number of vertices, then you cannot work out the number of edges. If you only know the shapes of the faces you cannot.The answer will depend on what is known of the shape. If you know only the number of faces, or only the number of vertices, then you cannot work out the number of edges. If you only know the shapes of the faces you cannot.
There is no shape with only four triangular faces and five vertices. If there is also a quadrilateral face then it is a quadrialteral based pyramid.
There is no shape with only four triangular faces and five vertices. If there is also a quadrilateral face then it is a quadrialteral based pyramid.
There is no such shape. The only convex shape that has four faces is a tetrahedron, and that has four vertices, not 5.
There can be no such shape. A hexagon is a 2-dimensional shape and so has only one face, six sides and 6 vertices.
A dodecagon is a plane shape and so has only one face. It has 12 sides and 12 vertices.
You can't have a 3-d shape with only 2 faces. A triangular prism has 9 edges and 6 vertices, but it has 5 faces.
The answer will depend on what is known of the shape. If you know only the number of faces, or only the number of vertices, then you cannot work out the number of edges. If you only know the shapes of the faces you cannot.The answer will depend on what is known of the shape. If you know only the number of faces, or only the number of vertices, then you cannot work out the number of edges. If you only know the shapes of the faces you cannot.The answer will depend on what is known of the shape. If you know only the number of faces, or only the number of vertices, then you cannot work out the number of edges. If you only know the shapes of the faces you cannot.The answer will depend on what is known of the shape. If you know only the number of faces, or only the number of vertices, then you cannot work out the number of edges. If you only know the shapes of the faces you cannot.
Oh, dude, a decagon has 10 sides, so it also has 10 vertices. As for faces, well, a decagon is a 2D shape, so it technically only has one face. But hey, who's counting, right?
A rectangle has 4 sides, which are also its edges. It has 4 vertices where the sides meet. In terms of faces, a rectangle is a 2-dimensional shape and therefore only has one face, which is the flat surface enclosed by the four sides.
That's an impossible shape. No shape can have only 2 edges.
A square or rectangular pyramid.NO. The above have four triangular faces PLUS a square or rectangular face. A tetrahedron has only four faces, all of which are triangular.A triangular based pyramid has 4 triangular faces, 6 edges and 4 vertices
If the shape was simply connected then the Euler characteristic would require it to have only two vertices. No such shape exists.