math.answers.com/geometry/A_three-dimensional_object_cannot_be_built_from_two-dimensional_objects

Preview meta tags from the math.answers.com website.

Linked Hostnames

8

Thumbnail

Search Engine Appearance

Google

https://math.answers.com/geometry/A_three-dimensional_object_cannot_be_built_from_two-dimensional_objects

A three-dimensional object cannot be built from two-dimensional objects? - Answers

false Actually, the statement is true. You can imagine a 3-d object being made up of a lot of 2-d objects stacked on top of one another. But remember that, by definition, a 2-d object has no thickness (or, in this case, height). Height of one 2-d obect = 0 so height of n such objects = n*0 = 0 So a stack, no matter how many objects you use, will remain 0. And so you are not building up a 3-d object. Alternatively, you could imagine a cube (3-d) being built up from 6 square faces (2-d). Except that this is just the shell of the 3-d object, not the 3-d object itself.



Bing

A three-dimensional object cannot be built from two-dimensional objects? - Answers

https://math.answers.com/geometry/A_three-dimensional_object_cannot_be_built_from_two-dimensional_objects

false Actually, the statement is true. You can imagine a 3-d object being made up of a lot of 2-d objects stacked on top of one another. But remember that, by definition, a 2-d object has no thickness (or, in this case, height). Height of one 2-d obect = 0 so height of n such objects = n*0 = 0 So a stack, no matter how many objects you use, will remain 0. And so you are not building up a 3-d object. Alternatively, you could imagine a cube (3-d) being built up from 6 square faces (2-d). Except that this is just the shell of the 3-d object, not the 3-d object itself.



DuckDuckGo

https://math.answers.com/geometry/A_three-dimensional_object_cannot_be_built_from_two-dimensional_objects

A three-dimensional object cannot be built from two-dimensional objects? - Answers

false Actually, the statement is true. You can imagine a 3-d object being made up of a lot of 2-d objects stacked on top of one another. But remember that, by definition, a 2-d object has no thickness (or, in this case, height). Height of one 2-d obect = 0 so height of n such objects = n*0 = 0 So a stack, no matter how many objects you use, will remain 0. And so you are not building up a 3-d object. Alternatively, you could imagine a cube (3-d) being built up from 6 square faces (2-d). Except that this is just the shell of the 3-d object, not the 3-d object itself.

  • General Meta Tags

    22
    • title
      A three-dimensional object cannot be built from two-dimensional objects? - Answers
    • charset
      utf-8
    • Content-Type
      text/html; charset=utf-8
    • viewport
      minimum-scale=1, initial-scale=1, width=device-width, shrink-to-fit=no
    • X-UA-Compatible
      IE=edge,chrome=1
  • Open Graph Meta Tags

    7
    • og:image
      https://st.answers.com/html_test_assets/Answers_Blue.jpeg
    • og:image:width
      900
    • og:image:height
      900
    • og:site_name
      Answers
    • og:description
      false Actually, the statement is true. You can imagine a 3-d object being made up of a lot of 2-d objects stacked on top of one another. But remember that, by definition, a 2-d object has no thickness (or, in this case, height). Height of one 2-d obect = 0 so height of n such objects = n*0 = 0 So a stack, no matter how many objects you use, will remain 0. And so you are not building up a 3-d object. Alternatively, you could imagine a cube (3-d) being built up from 6 square faces (2-d). Except that this is just the shell of the 3-d object, not the 3-d object itself.
  • Twitter Meta Tags

    1
    • twitter:card
      summary_large_image
  • Link Tags

    16
    • alternate
      https://www.answers.com/feed.rss
    • apple-touch-icon
      /icons/180x180.png
    • canonical
      https://math.answers.com/geometry/A_three-dimensional_object_cannot_be_built_from_two-dimensional_objects
    • icon
      /favicon.svg
    • icon
      /icons/16x16.png

Links

58