One to 12 inclusive...
WRONG but idk wat the real answer is so sorry but that is not specific enuff
They are Pythagorean triples
Yes. It is the measures of the three sides that need to be equal not simply the numbers in different units. So a triangle of with sides of 1 yard, 3 feet and 36 inches would be equilateral even though the 3 numbers are different.
I can't say for sure, since you haven't given me any sets of numbers to choose from, but this question is designed to test your knowledge of the Pythagorean Theorem. Multiply the smaller two numbers by themselves and add them together. If their sum does not equal the square of the largest number, that group cannot be a right triangle.
The Pythagerum Thyrum doesn't say anything about adding numbers. It tells how the lengths of the sides of a right triangle are related. According to the thyrum, 1, 1, and 2 can't be the lengths of the sides of a right triangle, because (1)2 + (1)2 is not equal to (2)2 .
For the 6:8:10 triangle, area = perimeter = 24. Also, for the 5:12:13 triangle, area = perimeter = 30. Whether these are indeed the only examples I am not sure. That would take some proving.
It is not possible to answer the question without information about the shape. The fact that there are three numbers given might suggest that it is a triangle. However the three lengths are not consistent with a triangle.
It is not possible to answer the question. The fact that there are three numbers given suggests it is a 3-dimensional object and it is not possible, with just the side lengths to determine its area. It cannot be a triangle.
Those ones, there!
They are Pythagorean triples
Three numbers may or may not define a right triangle. Also, the answer will depend on whether the three numbers are the lengths of sides or the measures of angles.
1&12, 2&6, 3&4!
-- Each number has to be (more than the difference of the other two) but (less than their sum). -- Count the lengths of the sides. If you get to three and then run out of numbers, it's a triangle.
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!
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.
The list that accompanies the question doesn't contain any numbers that could be the lengths of the sides of a triangle.
Yes because they comply with Pythagoras' theorem for a right angle triangle
state if the three numbers can be measures of the sides of a triangle. show your work 1- 15,12,9