What is the smallest possible number of whole 2-by-3 non-overlapping rectangles needed to cover a square region exactly, without extra over-hangs and without gaps?

there are lots of ways.   pick's theorem tells us if the vertices are lattice points the area a is

a = b/2 + i - 1

where b is the number of boundary lattice points and i is the number of interior lattice points.

in the figure i count b=16, i=50 so

a = 8 + 50 - 1 = 57

let's try the shoelace formula.   the area is half the sum of the cross products of the sides.  

a(-2,6)   -2(2)-6(-5) = 26

b(-5,2)   -5(-3) - 2(-2) = 19

c(-2,-3) -2(-3) - (-3)(4) = 18

d(4,-3)   4(3) - (-3)(5) = 27

e(5,3)   5(3) - 3(1) = 12

f(1,3)     1(6) - 3(-2) = 12

a(-2,6)

each of the cross products is twice the area of the triangle with the associated side and one vertex the origin. so the area of abo=26/2=13.

area = (1/2) (26 + 19 +   18 + 27 + 12 + 12) = 57

that checks!

answer: the answer is (b) amie should have multiplied

step-by-step explanation: given a sphere and a cylinder with same radius and height.

let, 'r' be the radius of the cylinder and sphere and 'h' be the height of the cylinder. according to the question,

r = h.

now, the volume of the sphere will be

and the volume of the cylinder will be

therefore, we have

thus, ammie should have multiplied the volume of the sphere

0.6

39mph

step-by-step explanation: