<p>lol, GoodScores just peaced out ‘like a G’ -lollll “I know I got all these right…so I’m not gonna look on the thread anymore.” …I’m not mocking you; I admire your audacity</p>
<p>2, 4, 6 is an impossible triangle because the sum of any two sides must be greater than the third side. 2 + 4 is not greater than 6… sorry. But even if it were possible, the question said ANY two sides are twice the third side. 6 + 4 is not twice 2.</p>
<p>Did anyone have the question with a pyramid and a smaller pyramid using the midpoints of the slant lines in the original? It asked the volume of the small compared to the volume of the original. I’m pretty sure it’s 1/8 of the original, but I had to assume the height would also be cut in half and I’m not sure that’s correct. I think that may have been the only one I missed if I did miss it and since no one’s asked I’m thinking it’s experimental :D</p>
<p>why doesnt 20 work for the grid in</p>
<p>@neon I don’t recognize that. Did you have math as experimental?</p>
<p>What about 3-4-5 …it said any two sides so that works :o</p>
<p>@rd, 20 does indeed work.</p>
<p>@skorpius: 3-4-5 doesn’t work because 5+4 = 9 which is not equal to 2*3. It must work with ANY two sides.</p>
<p>the triangle one was none. the question is must which implies always. 2+4=6 half of this is 3 hense 2,3,4
2,3,4</p>
<p>3+5=8=2*4…</p>
<p>lmao skorpius, just accept it and take it again in november :)</p>
<p>i hope skorpius and rdpgn105 are right lol</p>
<p>Skorpius, the question was talking about any two sides being equal to twice the third side</p>
<p>3+4 = 12; 12 is not equal to 5*2 or 10</p>
<p>ughhh guys i screwed up :'(</p>
<p>Wait waas the triangle one none?</p>
<p>Any equilateral triangle would work:</p>
<p>3+3 = 3<em>2
5+5 = 5</em>2
etc.</p>
<p>(So the answer was “II. only”, I believe)</p>
<p>2-4-6 (and other similar) triangles cannot exist because the sum of two sides must be greater than the third side.</p>
<p>Pen question: why was it 1.6 and not 1.4??</p>
<p>triangle NOT EQUILATERAL</p>
<p>2+4=6 half is 3
2,3,4</p>
<p>yes but 2+3=5 which is not 4*2</p>
<p>Damnit, -3 from everything I’ve seen in this thread so far.</p>
<p>@rdpgn105 correct me if i’m wrong, but finding an example of a non-equilateral triangle doesn’t mean that answer wasn’t correct. all equilaterals work, but that doesn’t mean others don’t work as well.</p>