- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 8
for the chocolate it was 58.98895 something but u had to say 58.9.. and u know for the upper bounds question?? did u round them off to 3 significant figures?
We are currently struggling to cover the operational costs of Xtremepapers, as a result we might have to shut this website down. Please donate if we have helped you and help make a difference in other students' lives!
Click here to Donate Now (View Announcement)
LOL MY FRIENDS DID THAT.. I GAVE IT AS A FRACTIONTriangles --> Congruent
S.A. chocolate thingy --> 59.9
11 and 9 were the points, 145 was the price
Ok, so who was stupid enough to round off Upper and Lower bounds of areas?
Heyy.. Hw did u get the surafce area as 59.9?? I got 203..Triangles --> Congruent
S.A. chocolate thingy --> 59.9
11 and 9 were the points, 145 was the price
Ok, so who was stupid enough to round off Upper and Lower bounds of areas?
They might have had but for both the triangles one side of the line was joined by the edges of the inner side of the square while the other was joined by the outer surface of the square and for both the lengths joined by the inner edges or outer surface was different thus making it similar not congruent! They fitted in well, no doubt about that but the similarity of an object is not defined by finding if it can fit into each other or not.no but wait!! they could fit onto each other exactly!! they were exactly the same trianlges!!!
\LISTEN UP YO'ALL !! GIME A DAMN GOOD REASON HOW IN THE NAME OF GOD IS IT CONGRUENT =.=""""""""""""""""""""""
\
THE TRIANGLES WERE EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!!!!
haha atleast some one agrees!Triangles --> Congruent
LISTEN UP YO'ALL !! GIME A DAMN GOOD REASON HOW IN THE NAME OF GOD IS IT CONGRUENT =.=""""""""""""""""""""""
EISH DUNNO.. BUT MY TEACHER SAID THEY WERE CONGRUENTThey might have had but for both the triangles one side of the line was joined by the edges of the inner side of the square while the other was joined by the outer surface of the square and for both the lengths joined by the inner edges or outer surface was different thus making it similar not congruent! They fitted in well, no doubt about that but the similarity of an object is not defined by finding if it can fit into each other or not.
CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW MANY MARKS WAS THE LAST INEQUALITY QUESTION FOR?
2 MARKS.. Y U GOT IT WRONG?CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW MANY MARKS WAS THE LAST INEQUALITY QUESTION FOR?
haha atleast some one agrees!
In the name of Allah check this out :
http://library.thinkquest.org/20991/geo/ctri.html
Two side+1 angle same=CONGRUEEEEEEEEEEENT! honey need more explanation? :/
U just don't want to accept itright <.<""
i think so i made a very stupid mistake :-/BWT
2 MARKS.. Y U GOT IT WRONG?
UR THE BAU5Ohhh yaaa hamdulila hahahaha :S
eeehhhh okay so uhm.. Congruent it is <.<""
U just don't want to accept it
The teacher haven't even seen the question paper! Plus if both the squares would have had the same length then I would have agreed that it was congruent and that is IFFFFF it would have been but its not so its SIMILAR!EISH DUNNO.. BUT MY TEACHER SAID THEY WERE CONGRUENT
this paper was normal so it couls be 90 and above A* 80-89 A and so on.. dont worry ull ace iti think so i made a very stupid mistake :-/
what do you think will be the grade boundaries?
For almost 10 years, the site XtremePapers has been trying very hard to serve its users.
However, we are now struggling to cover its operational costs due to unforeseen circumstances. If we helped you in any way, kindly contribute and be the part of this effort. No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.
Click here to Donate Now