ANy parallel lines at all and what's the reason if they do or don't?
123163
There is no possible way that a triangle has a pair of parallel sides. In a pyramid, if the base is rectangular then the opposing sides of the base will be parallel but I assume that by triangular pyramid you mean the base is a triangle and each wall is a triangle...then nothing is parallel to anything.
413010
Normally, a parallel port can only be connected to 1 device. However there are a couple of exceptions. Some devices are designed to "daisy chain" the parallel port, meaning that you can connect another parallel port device to them. Also, you can purchase a parallel port switching box, which will allow you to connect several devices, although you can only use one of them at a time. By the way the parallel port is "dying" slowly, and you will probably find fewer and fewer devices using it. For example, my printer connects to the USB port of my computer...
291351
Parallel is parallel.....it's like being a 'little' pregnant....either you ARE or you are NOT.\n\nYes, they are parallel to the 3rd line.
547857
What you say is true --IF-- all the components are in series. That will not be true in a circuit with parallel paths, because the current that left the voltage source has to divide at any 'T', some electrons going along one branch and the rest the other branch.
9091
Here's a quasi-logical answer:\nBy definition, two lines are parallel if they have the same slope (s1=s2) and they are perpendicular if the product of their slopes is -1 (s1*s2=-1)\n\nSo we have s1=s2 and s1*s2=-1\nTherefore s1^2=-1, so s1=s2=i=sqrt(-1)\nIn conclusion, any two lines y=ix+a and y=ix+b are both parallel and perpendicular at the same time.
574340
Actually, there has been a proven world out there that is parallel to our own! However, it's not the same concept of parallel that you read in science fiction books. In theory, the parallel world to our world is the exact same, but with a couple of difference. The first difference is that you can't see the parallel world. Also, in this parallel world, it is the exact opposite of ours. That means that when something in our world is positive charge, the world parallel to ours has a negative charge. This phenomenon exist to satisfy the balance of the universe in electrical charge. However, this parallel world can't have support life because it would unstable its atomic structure if it does.\n\nThis a fascinating prediscovery of the secrets of the universe.
104836
The only things that remain the same between the series and parallel circuit are the individual resistances themselves. You can derive an equation relating the two total resistances; it would just be a lot of messy math and lots of substitution. For example, if there were only two resistors:\n\n1/(Rparallel) = 1/(R1) + 1/(R2)\n1/(Rparallel) = R2/(R1*R2) + R1/(R1*R2)\n1/(Rparallel) = (R2 + R1) / (R1*R2)\nRparallel = (R1*R2) / (R2 + R1)\nRparallel = (R1*R2) / (Rseries)
246728
These are parallel lines.\ny = -x + 3\ny = -x - 1\nThey both have slope m = -1\nThe first one has a y-intercept of 3 and the second one has y-intercept -1.\nIf you are looking for the solution, then the answer is \nNo solution.\nWhy? because parallel lines never intersect.
429907
Whoever is requiring you to solve this sentence probably wants you to write "not".  There's a mild conflict between the community of mathematicians and the community of elementary educators about whether the definition of trapezoid should include parallelograms.\n\nAs a mathematician, it seems that a parallelogram or even rectangle should be counted as a trapezoid, because everything true about trapezoids is also true about them.  Also when you use the Trapezoid Rule for approximating integrals, it would be foolish to say "and Rectangle Rule", to handle the flat case.\n\nI'm not entirely clear on the educator's argument, some nebulous idea about how children should view them as being essentially different things.  Since trapezoids don't have much application in mathematics, this debate has gone unnoticed by most.  However in every textbook on geometry I've seen they insist on forcing this unpleasant definition down pupil's throats by having test questions like the above.\n\nAnyway I want you to get a good grade so write "not".   It's not your teacher's fault.  :/
603115
If the lines are parallel, that means they have the same slope\n\nSince they are the same we can say that\n\nx/4=(x+5)/6\nThen just algerbra from here\n6*x = 4(x+5)\n6x=4x+20\n2x=20\nx=10.
340591
I have a drawing that shows the various types of shell and tube exchangers. I believe their functions are self evident if you see the cross sectins.\n\nSend me you email address and I'll send the drawing.
544604
If the resistors are in parallel, then the voltage is the same across all of them - that's pretty much the definition of parallel.  If they are the only circuit elements, then that voltage will be the voltage of the circuit.  Since you didn't tell us what that voltage is, there's no way for us to figure the rest of the problem.  If you know the voltage, though, then Ohm's Law will give you the currents.
463674
Rule #1) If the slopes of the lines are the equal, then the lines are parallel.\n\nRule #2) If the slopes of the lines are the negative reciprocal of one another, then the lines are perpendicular.\n\nRule #3) If the slopes of the lines do not meet any of the above criteria, then they are regular intersecting lines.
227968
to find if a line is paralel to each other, you had to find out it's gradient or slope. If the gradient is the same, then the lines are paralel.\n\nTo find gradient is rather easy.\n\nYou just plug in the points into (y2 - y1)/(x2 - x1)\n\nSo the first line is:\n(3 - - 7) / (1 - - 4)\n= (3 + 7) / (1 + 4)\n= 10/5\n= 2\n\nand the second line is:\n(10 - 6) / (4 - 2)\n= 4 / 2\n= 2\n\nyou see here that 2 = 2, so the two lines are paralel
99914
im a geo student, but i havent done proofs for a long time sorry. ok\n2. false, because squares are parallelograms with 4 congruent sides and 4 right angles, while kites have 2 pairs of congruent sides and only 1 pair of congruent angles that are NOT right angles\n3. false, because a rhombus is a parallelogram with 4 congruent sides, while a kite is any thing BUT a parallelogram. enuff said\n4. false, because kites are quadrilaterals with only two pairs of congruent sides, while the quadrilateral mentioned has 3 congruent sides\n5. false, for example- do trapezoids have 4 congruent sides, and 4 right angles, and is a parallelogram (characteristic of squares)? i think NOT\n6. read above- trapezoids are not parallelograms.
212506
Lines which lie in the same plane and never intersect.
570383
since you claim both lines intersect,\n5+λ=2+μ      (in direction i, both lines reach the same point)\n3-2λ=-11-4μ (in direction j, both lines reach the same point)\nsolving the above,\nμ=-10 λ=-13\nWe can substitute λ and μ in the k direction, and verify whether both lines really intersect:\n-2+2(-13)=-28\n14+5(-10)=-36\n\nBoth lines do not intersect