Isosceles used in a sentence

Isosceles in a sentence as an adjective

What did the math teacher say when she saw tennis star monica seles?A. isosceles

The fact that triangle ADE is not isosceles makes it impossible for x to be 10.

I see where according to the figure, triangle ADE must be isosceles, but I don't trust that the figure is actually drawn to scale.

Given three lengths, output whether that forms a triangle or not and whether it's a right triangle or isosceles triangle.

If so, where?On the sheet of paper in front of me, as the hypotenuse of the isosceles right-angled triangle with unit length I drew a moment ago.

Well done, but it would have been better if the graphics depicted a right scalene triangle -- the more general case -- rather than a right isosceles triangle.

The prefix "iso-" means "equal", as in "isomorphism", "isosceles", "isometric", etc.

The side and diagonal of an isosceles right triangle are incommensurable - there is no length that goes into both an integer number of times.

Also, instead of dealing with squares, hexagons & triangles separately... a square is just 2 isosceles triangles, and a hex is 6 equilateral triangles.

What's its mean distance from the origin?Instead of integrating, approximate the circle with a regular n-gon and use the centroids of the n isosceles triangles connecting the polygon's vertices to the origin.

It's funny how he describes personality types using isosceles triangles, equilateral triangles, and squares.

> all circles have two possible center points with two radiiReminded me of those p-adic sets where given the |a-b| metric:- a circle radius is equal to its diameter- all points inside the circle are a centre of that circle- all triangles are isosceles- appending a segment to itself may actually make it shorter

If your model has been trained using only black isosceles triangles and red rhombuses, it is possible that it would classify a red right triangle as rhombus or an entirely different thing and there would be no reason in principle to say that the classification was objectively wrong apart from the objective measure of triangularity itself.