tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3956790627414205964.post7722344408737869878..comments2022-01-04T22:22:35.400-06:00Comments on 905 MATH (2010): Hannah's scribepost for Oct 5Mr. B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05985906859927097654noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3956790627414205964.post-56992049671652539822010-10-07T17:04:24.690-05:002010-10-07T17:04:24.690-05:00You did a good job of explaining how you got your ...You did a good job of explaining how you got your answer although you added 3 extra faces, as seppe said, they would just be part of the front, top, and side view. That's why you got a bigger number then the one in the book. But other than that you did a good job :)Brianna905https://www.blogger.com/profile/09805696899012616958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3956790627414205964.post-22903900372036729742010-10-05T22:26:55.506-05:002010-10-05T22:26:55.506-05:00That's an interesting way to do it.That's an interesting way to do it.Harvey906https://www.blogger.com/profile/13869064423638947557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3956790627414205964.post-34907594428846977442010-10-05T21:41:40.128-05:002010-10-05T21:41:40.128-05:00Here's a short cut, you could pretend that the...Here's a short cut, you could pretend that there isn't any missing cube. Because if you look at it from front, side, and top, it would still have the same faces as a normal prism would have. Okie? Good job!seppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01743711771581030932noreply@blogger.com