Question

by connecting the midpoints of a reatangle u get a rhombus right?

Answer 1

yes.

Answer 2

yup

Answer 3

In general you get a parallelogram, which does not necessarily have to be a rhombus.

Answer 4

No you will get a rhombus always.

Answer 5

and square gives square.

Answer 6

Oh my, I was thinking of something else, I apologize. Yep :)

Answer 7

A square is a rhombus though.

Answer 8

No problem :)

Answer 9

If you join the midpoints of a square the secondary figure is also a square.

Answer 10

Yes, but I meant that a square is also a rhombus.

Answer 11

Every square is rhombus, rectangle and parallelogram.

Answer 12

I disagree. A rhombus is a quadrilateral with all four sides being of the same length. A square is an example of this.

Answer 13

I don't mean that to be a square is to be a rhombus, I mean that a square happens to be a particular example of a rhombus.

Answer 14

Yes it's always precise to use the subset instead of super-set when your conditions satisfies the subset. Say what is 2 ? It is an integer and also real but we generally say integer.

Answer 15

Why not natural then?

Answer 16

Yes, but it depends on the problem again we can call it whole too.

Answer 17

Do i get a metal for asking a good question =)

Answer 18

We could also call it prime, which is even more precise. I disagree that it's always better to specify the subset rather than the superset. In that case, the best classification of 2 would be "the number 2". Regardless. The question was answered, the points were made. End of thread. And sure^, why not.

Answer 19

yaay im level 18

Answer 20

no 20