[QUOTE=xilman;586957]So?
The formula is a correct expression for the area of the figure depicted.[/QUOTE] Perhaps I'm confused as well. Are not three of the four formulas depicting volume? Edit: I suppose you could call volume A if you wanted to. . . 
[QUOTE=EdH;586959]Are not three of the four formulas depicting volume?[/QUOTE]Reading the alt text might help to explain.
[spoiler]Geometry textbooks always try to trick you by adding decorative stripes and dotted lines.[/spoiler] 
[QUOTE=EdH;586959]Perhaps I'm confused as well. Are not three of the four formulas depicting volume?
Edit: I suppose you could call volume A if you wanted to. . .[/QUOTE]No, all depict areas. Simple dimensional analysis shows that the formulae all denoted areas. All products of lengths contain precisely two factors. 
[QUOTE=EdH;586959]Perhaps I'm confused as well.
. . .[/QUOTE]Yep![QUOTE=retina;586960]Reading the alt text might help to explain. [spoiler]Geometry textbooks always try to trick you by adding decorative stripes and dotted lines.[/spoiler][/QUOTE]I had read it. It hadn't helped.[QUOTE=xilman;586977]No, all depict areas. Simple dimensional analysis shows that the formulae all denoted areas. All products of lengths contain precisely two factors.[/QUOTE]My limited analysis was to see "h" in the formulae. (I almost used this plural the first time, but, alas. . .) 
[QUOTE=EdH;586985]Yep!I had read it. It hadn't helped.[/QUOTE]Ignore all of the internal lines and stripes (the "decorations") and just consider the area of the outer shape.

[QUOTE=retina;586986]Ignore all of the internal lines and stripes (the "decorations") and just consider the area of the outer shape.[/QUOTE]Thank you  surface area of 3D object, rather than volume of 3D object! I was kind of thinking something wasn't quite correct for volume in the third example with pi*r/2.

[QUOTE=EdH;586987]Thank you  surface area of 3D object, rather than volume of 3D object! I was kind of thinking something wasn't quite correct for volume in the third example with pi*r/2.[/QUOTE]close, but no cigar.
None of the objects depicted are threedimensional. They are just flat shapes annotated with superfluous lines, etc, to fool you into thinking that they represent 3D objects. The "cuboid" for instance, is just a rectangle with a rhombus adjoined to two of its sides. The "cone" is a triangle adjoined to a segment of a circle, and so on. 
[QUOTE=xilman;586988]close, but no cigar.
None of the objects depicted are threedimensional. They are just flat shapes annotated with superfluous lines, etc, to fool you into thinking that they represent 3D objects. The "cuboid" for instance, is just a rectangle with a rhombus adjoined to two of its sides. The "cone" is a triangle adjoined to a segment of a circle, and so on.[/QUOTE]I see it now (he says again). I've flattened all the figures and taken into account the ellipses and b being half the triangle base for the second. I "think" I now have it! Thank you for the help. (And, especially, for pointing out that I must take the time to fully look at these to appreciate them.) 
Nordic countries have the most impressive tourism add.
[youtube]FDpoZdL1g0E[/youtube] [youtube]enMwwQy_noI[/youtube] 
All times are UTC. The time now is 16:44. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.