• We need your support!

    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)

How was your paper 4 of Math ?????

C

Cregg Davids

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?
 
Afraah

Afraah

Messages
505
Reaction score
1,507
Points
153
LISTEN UP YO'ALL !! GIME A DAMN GOOD REASON HOW IN THE NAME OF GOD IS IT CONGRUENT =.=""""""""""""""""""""""
 
J

Jspake

Messages
104
Reaction score
18
Points
18
GetSomeLife said:
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? :D
Click to expand...
Heyy.. Hw did u get the surafce area as 59.9?? I got 203..
 
I

IsraJ

Messages
192
Reaction score
112
Points
38
Cregg Davids said:
no but wait!! they could fit onto each other exactly!! they were exactly the same trianlges!!!
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

Cregg Davids

Messages
40
Reaction score
4
Points
8
IsraJ said:
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.
Click to expand...
EISH DUNNO.. BUT MY TEACHER SAID THEY WERE CONGRUENT
 
I

IsraJ

Messages
192
Reaction score
112
Points
38
Cregg Davids said:
EISH DUNNO.. BUT MY TEACHER SAID THEY WERE CONGRUENT
Click to expand...
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!
 
rockerkunal

rockerkunal

Messages
91
Reaction score
23
Points
18
guys, guys, guys!!! Relax with the congruent and similar stufff!!! ( i wrote congruent) WHAT ABOUT PROBABILITY!! :cry: wah did you guys get on the atleast one day ?? X(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top