You should be able to solve this.
At some point I did remember how to do this but then I realized I had no idea what I was solving other than a math puzzle that served no purpose what so ever. And so is the general state of higher math in school.
I can't read squiggly
Z is North, X is East, Y is North-East
It's possible but the angle values given make it impossible. A triangle's interior angles have to add up to 180 degrees. However the numbers given throw that requirement out the window. Once that requirement is gone; the formulas no longer work. You'd get two or three answers where there's meant to be one.
Only a fool couldn't handle such simple math.
Assuming that AB and DE are parallel lines, it would be 70°, otherwise I have no idea.
The third angle with 60 and 70 is 50 degrees yet looks more than 90. The angle to either side of it on the same line are 130 degrees but look like 70. This is why you don't assume
Simplify the expression.
I know that you really wanted to impress people by showing that you know an equation needs equal signs but you should have thought about it a tiny bit more.
the question and answer are both readily available on the first page of google results, you fucking retards
>no one solved these simple problems
>tfw /a/ is brainlet board
It's been a while but I think this is right.
I have no clue how get the missing two angles
It actually is mathematically provable to be impossible
look at >>160706848
check the value of what should be γ (the angle at C). Anon here gave it the value 20 because he constructed a rectangle with E,D, C and the intersection between EA and BD. However, when you construct a large triangle ABC, the angle should be 80° to make the sum of all angles 180°.
The question can't be answered with the values given here.
Should have stopped here. Fuck that image.
No, it is not. It is possible to get the answer and prove it mathematically. You just can't solve it by relying on systems of linear equations only.
all you have to do is assign any length to a side and go from there
the answer is
It's common practice to not have the image make sense for the angles given so that
a) You can reuse the same image and just stick in different values
b) Some lazy students can't just measure the answer
Are you literally retarded? This has nothing to do with the solving method, if the angles don't add up, it's completely impossible for the given values to add up to something.
Also this has absolutely nothing to do with linear equations, this is geometry.
Even if you didn't have the idea to solve it by elementary geometry (and you are too lazy to find the solution on internet), you can still solve it by trigonometry. So, it is still not "is mathematically provable to be impossible".
the "drawing parallel lines" argument is fallacious because he, without a solution doesn't know where (relative to other points) the new point (F) in his examples will fall. If F falls on either side of E, the equations used will change. By linear systems the problem has 4 unknown variables and a system of rank 3. Any solution will work so long as it's orthogonal to the systems nullspace, ie that (\alpha + CDE) - (BDE + CED) = 0
Essentially, he's using a not-to-scale image to wrongly impose extra restrictions on the solution space.
Back in high shcool used to get some projects or questions applicable to a familiar application to maintain some semblance of sanity.
Like figuring out the optimal path a butterfly would travel in the wind, or angles required by a cannon to hit a moving target, etc...
I am shit at maths myself but do find it fun on occasion when working on problems you might encounter in practice.
There is only one way to construct the triangle fulfilling all the conditions required (in Euclidean geometry). If any solution will work, the easiest way to show it is to show alternative diagram. But, I really doubt you can do it.
If the trig-based approach shows that there is only one solution, then there is only one solution even if one goes trig-less approach.
The actual solution.
>when you construct a large triangle ABC, the angle should be 80° to make the sum of all angles 180°.
I think you made a mistake somewhere because γ = 20° is correct for both cases
I finished civil engineer like 4 years ago and I'm amazed at how useless I am without a calculator
checkmate Langley fags
This artist should be shot Jesus fucking Christ.
>small difference in size between 70° and 10°
>130° angles drawn as acute angles
>50° drawn as obtuse
>30° angle close to a right angle in size
Everything is so fucking off visually