Is it correct to say that ' There is no object with order of rotational symmetry as 0'.Justify this statement.
Answers
Answered by
1
Is the minimum order of rotational symmetry 2?
Surely shapes with only the trivial case have order 1?
Eg (by my understanding)
F - has order one (or no rotational symmetry as some books would have it)
A non-square rectangle - Order two, we count both the 180 rotation position and the trivial case or orignial position.
What do other people teach? No rotational symmetry = order one or do you say minimum order of rotational symmetry is 2 and below that there is none.
Anybody wishing to lay down geometrical law out there or is it one of the eternal moot points?
Surely shapes with only the trivial case have order 1?
Eg (by my understanding)
F - has order one (or no rotational symmetry as some books would have it)
A non-square rectangle - Order two, we count both the 180 rotation position and the trivial case or orignial position.
What do other people teach? No rotational symmetry = order one or do you say minimum order of rotational symmetry is 2 and below that there is none.
Anybody wishing to lay down geometrical law out there or is it one of the eternal moot points?
Answered by
0
Answer:
Yes it is correct to say that there is no object with 0°.
Step-by-step explanation:
Because the object is said to in rotation when it looks as the original object.
Similar questions