ScienceGuy2012 wrote:impossible question
ScienceGuy2012 wrote:at least 1 correct answer
ScienceGuy2012 wrote:How many squares in a triangle?
ScienceGuy2012 wrote:half a square = a triangle
Pawel.Anikiel wrote:ScienceGuy2012 wrote:half a square = a triangle
not nessesarily
it can only be if the trinagle is Right-angled and Isosceles
like this:
if the triangle would be different it would be a parallerogram
WTF MATH
oh and the question NO IDEA HOW MANY
Pawel.Anikiel wrote:i just KNEW somebody would react like this
Pawel.Anikiel wrote:ScienceGuy2012 wrote:half a square = a triangle
not nessesarily
it can only be if the trinagle is Right-angled and Isosceles
like this:
if the triangle would be different it would be a parallerogram
WTF MATH
oh and the question NO IDEA HOW MANY
ScienceGuy2012 wrote:Pawel.Anikiel wrote:ScienceGuy2012 wrote:half a square = a triangle
not nessesarily
it can only be if the trinagle is Right-angled and Isosceles
like this:
if the triangle would be different it would be a parallerogram
WTF MATH
oh and the question NO IDEA HOW MANY
Haha. The rule for that actually is: 2 of the triangle's vertices are 2 of the square's corners. They create a line. Let's say that's a. the opposite, let's say O.
The triangle's third vertice has to be touching the side O. Therefore, it fits.
Heehee I beat you at math and I'm only 10 years old.
Pawel.Anikel got pwned in math by a fifth grader!
ScienceGuy2012 wrote:Pawel.Anikiel wrote:ScienceGuy2012 wrote:half a square = a triangle
not nessesarily
it can only be if the trinagle is Right-angled and Isosceles
like this:
if the triangle would be different it would be a parallerogram
WTF MATH
oh and the question NO IDEA HOW MANY
Haha. The rule for that actually is: 2 of the triangle's vertices are 2 of the square's corners. They create a line. Let's say that's a. the opposite, let's say O.
The triangle's third vertice has to be touching the side O. Therefore, it fits.
Heehee I beat you at math and I'm only 10 years old.
Pawel.Anikel got pwned in math by a fifth grader!
ScienceGuy2012 wrote:duh, that's what I meant.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]