How smart are you, /b/?

30

>>716264168
smart enough to see that it doesnt add up

>>716264419
What do you mean it doesn't add up?

solve your homework yourself

it's 30

another one

File: solved.png (64KB, 586x590px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 586x590px

solved

>>716265175
It has to be 360, you can never have more degrees than that.

File: 1482499322763.jpg (178KB, 937x1238px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 937x1238px

pic related

>>716265679
A circle has 360 degrees, a triangle has 180 degrees within it.
Did you drop out of middle school or something?

>>716265679
HAHAHAHAHHAH

It DOES add up - interior angles of a quadrilateral = 360 and interior angles of a triangles = 180

File: what.jpg (11KB, 265x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 265x200px

>>716265679
wtf are you talking about?

>>716265679
lmao braindead

>>716265837
That's what I said, 360 is the max degrees you can have, what is your problem?

File: OP.jpg (9KB, 169x110px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 169x110px

>>716264168

GTFO weeb

>>716265894
omfg

>>716265505
>>716265505

solved another one 2 ez

File: IMG_7943.png (3KB, 122x110px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 122x110px

>>716265894
This is a triangle, anon

>>716265894
HAHAHAHHAHAH

>>716265964
Nowhere is it noted that the angles are equal, so those 110 and 70 degrees are graphically deducted, not mathematically. There's not enough info to solve this, it's a troll.

>>716266580
There's obviously enough info to solve it, it just requires you not to be retarded.

>>716266580
Vertically Opposite angles aren't equal? WTF

>>716266824
hurr durr but I can just measure the angle... let's give up math alltogether

File: vertically-opposite.gif (3KB, 205x157px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 205x157px

>>716266824
When it's stated... they are, they are not because they look that way

>>716265793
ikr

File: solved.png (64KB, 586x590px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 586x590px

>>716265505
I dont know if I'm right. Im 16

>>716266883
No, faggot. We're not going to show you how to show your work on your math homework. Anon is right, now go cry and pray you can pass 10th grade.

>>716267001
Why not dude?

>>716265793
good job, now find the value of X

File: right_tri_perim_area.gif (3KB, 561x220px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 561x220px

>>716267115
For the same reason that the left one is a right triangle, the right one it not. It looks that way, but there's not geometric proof. Get it?

>>716267115
You would have to assume the the intersecting lines are truly straight. They may not be, and then the distribution of angles will be lopsided.

>>716267525
If they are not straight then there is no point then.

Obviously the intersecting lines are straight. If they aren't, the puzzle is impossible to solve.

>>716267786
Yea that's what I thought

>>716265505
How the hell did you determine the 50/80 and 100/x side?

I got everything else but there's no way to determine the rest.

But if the lines are straight, there is no need to figure out the intersection at all.

You can do it with just the larger triangles.

File: 0C37413D-B816-4D2F-A7D0-02F8FD0C3676-1989-00000298F6FC503D_tmp.jpg (206KB, 937x1238px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 937x1238px

My attempt...

>>716267432
It doesn't say to find the value, just to find x.

>>716268041
A straight line is 180 deg, so to speak. If the point of a triangle touches it, the sum of those angles will be 180.

>>716268224
was going to show it to him
thx

>>716268041
There is a way, it's just difficult. No one in this thread has demonstrated a way that works yet, though.

>>716268141
How did you determine 60 &100? I don't see how you can determine the angle of the line with no information?

>>716268224
So it could be anything who adds up to 130 and not specifically 50/80

>>716269187
for example this anon choose 60/70 instead of 50/80 and he gets a different result

>>716264168
>>716264168
>>716265505
>>716265505

exactly all triangles = 180 degree's not hard to work backwards from that

>>716268541
he's wrong, it should be 50 and 110

>>716269351
Knowing that the internal angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees is not enough to find x.

>>716265894
Not in a triangle...

File: theobviousbit.jpg (154KB, 937x1238px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 937x1238px

This much is obvious.. find the remaining ones

File: problem.png (719KB, 1112x1238px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 1112x1238px

>>716269351
I don't think there is a single solution

you can get from here >>716269805 these equation : ( and i don't think i've missed some)


180=y+(x+40)+30
180=x+(50+y)+20

180=x+y+70
180=20+z+t

180=50+y+z
180=x+40+t

and when combined it boils down to :


x+y=110
z+t=160
y+z=130
x+t=140


which has multiple solution

>>716269805
40 + X + C = 180
A + B + 50 = 180
70 + B + X = 180
All equations have two unknowns

>>716269476
Yes it is, you can 100% solve this with only that knowlege.

>>716270065
you can add the top triangle and the inner triangle as i did there but it doesn't help you

>>716270065
OHHHHH!!!!!
(A+B) + 20 + (50 + 30) = 180

>>716268224
>A straight line is 180 deg

I know that but there should be no way to get the 80/50 or 110/x after getting everything else first.

I assume you guessed the 50/80 and 110/x.

>>716270188
Just kidding

>>716270268
lmao

>>716270076
Show such a solution, then.

>>716270065
A + C +20 =180
20+50+x+b

5 equations and 4 unknown this can now be solved. I'm in mobile, so I ain't doing the work.

>>716270316
It work with all value of X who doesn't generate negative value of y,z,t in this set of equation.


x+y=110
z+t=160
y+z=130
x+t=140

( or :

y=110-x
z=x+20
t=140-x

because "y+z=130" is redundant with the 2 first line.

So there is only 3 equation and 4 unknown

>>716270316
See the following and solve for the variables

>>716269805
>>716270065
>>716270359

>>716270359
try solving them you'll see that some of them are redundant. I've found 6 equation here : >>716270038
but when you work on them you see that it boils down to only 3


All these solution for example would work

x= 10 and y = 100 z = 30 t = 130

x= 20 and y = 90 z =40 t = 120 etc...

>>716270599
there is not an unique solution for these set of equation

File: tony05.jpg (36KB, 288x432px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 288x432px

>>716265679
Tony thinks ur dumb!

>>716270652
> but when you work on them you see that it boils down to only 3

dude, no. There's a much much wider range since we don't have enough facts.

for example

x = 1, b=109, a=21, c=139
x = 2, b=108, a=22, c=138
And so forth.
This is for the pic in >>716269805

There's no real answer because we don't have enough info.

>>716271188
linked to wrong pic. i meant >>716269805

>>716271188
There is obviously enough info and a real answer to the puzzle. You just haven't incorporated all the available info into your equations.

>>716265505
Same result. Took me a while bc I was solving writing on a bag.

>>716271188
it was an example.

As i said any value of x is an answer as long as it doesn't generate value of y,z, and t that are negative based on this set of 3 equation :

y=110-x
z=x+20
t=140-x

>>716271263
No anon. Once you figured out the rest, those four are all that's left over that you cannot figure out.

Take a good look at it again and see for yourself. a,b,c and x are unsolveable.

>>716271430
They are unsolvable from the equations posted. They are not unsolvable from the original puzzle, you just have to go about solving it in a different way.

>>716271188
Use trigonometry instead you useless piece of shit

>>716270038
Couldn't you use these equations at the bottom to substitute and swap around, find values for X,y,t, and z?

>>716271588
no because when you do so you see that these equation are redundant

>>716271559
that can be a solution, show us.

>>716271683
>that can be a solution, show us.

however i'm pretty sure it will lead to the same dead end

Fixed it

>>716271402
in that sense yes you are right, it's anything within that certain range, tho it's a really wide range.

There's really no concrete way of figuring out the exact numbers. All we got are ranges of possible solutions.

Anyone who thinks there's one absolute solution to this is a fucking idiot.

>>716271523
>They are not unsolvable from the original puzzle, you just have to go about solving it in a different way.

And what way is that? Guessing games until you find one that works?

>>716271559
We're not looking for the lengths of each side here.

File: sketch-1482506257896.png (439KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 720x1280px

It makes sense now

>>716271925
Holyshit i did not think about that

>>716271925
gg

>>716271919
>And what way is that? Guessing games until you find one that works?

Obviously not, finding out a way to solve it that works is the whole challenge of this puzzle. You can straightforwardly use the laws of sines and cosines to figure it out, but it can also be solved purely with elementary methods, though finding that solution is quite difficult.

>>716271925
how do you infer that the small triangle is isosceles from knowing the big one is ?

>>716271919
>And what way is that? Guessing games until you find one that works?

You could use Trigonometry to figure out the sides, which would let you figure out the angle.

>>716272190
>You can straightforwardly use the laws of sines and cosines to figure it out, but it can also be solved purely with elementary methods, though finding that solution is quite difficult.

anon, you can't because you don't know two variables in every possible equation here.

>>716272190

This guy got it
>>716271925

>>716272255
i don't see how trigonometry will add any information. But you can show us wrong.

>>716272334
answer this : >>716272238

>>716272334
stop being baited by him you dumbass.

Never learned trig. But, If you make an assumption about the length of a side, calculate all the other lengths, and then find the angle, would that angle be the same regardless of what you initial assumption was?

>>716272325
Yes you can, you just need to set a length for one side.

>>716271925
Top is 20, not 40.

The biggest, outer triangle is:
> (20 + 60) + (50 + 30) + X = 180
> (80) + (80) + X = 180
> 160 + X = 180
> X = 20

Recalc your work accordingly.

>>716265679
are you fucking retarded? A triangle adds up to 180, a square adds up to 360.

>>716272413
except you'll end up with length expressed as a variable of x and W ( where W is the "assumption" you've made about one length), and that in the end you'll end up having a circular equation like x+w= x + w

>>716265894
we're talking about triangles here, anon.

>>716272413
I.e the unknown angles are all constrained by the lengths of the two long intersecting lines. It's those lengths that are missing.

File: wrong.jpg (51KB, 482x377px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 482x377px

>>716272533
Clearly you don't know shit about trigonometry.

>>716272604
the do the math, show me

>>716272644
then*

>>716272470
Still does not change the outcome

>>716272436
>you just need to set a length for one side.

So you just admitted that you can't do shit here because you have no length at all to work with.

>>716272683
see this : >>716272238

>>716272704
Are you retarded? You can set one of the lengths in the figure to whatever you want, the angles don't change.

>>716272786
that's true, and yet, that's precisely a proof that adding a single length won't give you any more info, and won't make you closer to the answer.

>>716272786
>You can set one of the lengths in the figure to whatever you want

What the flying fuck? You can't just input random numbers just because you feel like it?

>>716272238
I don't know it is the only way i got further into solving it

Right, if it is the case that the small triangle, is isoscelean, then we know the angle b and the whole thing collapses.
And that can be solved using an assumed side length. So, it can be solved in the particular case of that being an isosceles triangle.

File: 13507218_876555149154943_8219824590701256720_n.jpg (3KB, 175x175px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 175x175px

>>716265679
then why does steal melt at 1510 degrees

This thread is interradasting

>>716272945
you just picked a solution from one of the set of solution defined there : >>716271402


But your particular case isn't more a solution than the other. All x<110 works.

>>716272976
>if it is the case that the small triangle, is isoscelean,


that's a big IF.

you need to prove that. As long as you haven't i stand my ground that any positive value of x<110 is a solution

>>716273037
because you're a faggot.

>>716272872
Yes you can, because the valid of x is not dependent on the length of any lines.

>>716273296
Value*

>>716267021
You are not.

>>716272857
Wrong. How does it "prove" anything of the sort?

>>716271430
>>>
>Anonymous 12/23/16(Fri)10:13:22 No.716271383▶
That's false.
there are 4 unknowns,
and you can make 4 independent linear equations using 4 triangles that include combinations of x, a, b, c.

x+b =110
b+a =130
x +c=140
a+c=160

solving this set of linear equations, we get
53.234=x
56.766=b
73.234=a
86.766=c

>>716268141
Wrong.

File: sketch-1482507792824.png (417KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 720x1280px

Think out of the box you cunts

>>716273479
x=1
c=139
a=21
b=109 is also a solution.

because the 4 equation ( that are been figured out way earlier ) aren't independant.

>>716273579
30
Make the right two triangles one.

File: 1.jpg (177KB, 937x1238px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 937x1238px

1

>>716274124
Read the 50 as a 60 btw

File: IMG_0245.jpg (441KB, 640x846px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 640x846px

I found it

File: 2.png (329KB, 937x1238px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 937x1238px

2

>>716274174
how do you know that the brown angle is 100 ?

File: straight-angle.gif (3KB, 277x102px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 277x102px

>>716274445
It's a line

>>716274445
Not that poster. But the outer boundary is bisected by another line. You know the 80 above the brown angle, because it was set at the same angle as the original larger version (80). So the brown angle and the angle on the other side must equal 180. 180 - 80 = 100 (brown angle).

>>716264168
20

>>716274174
i agree with all the colored number, and yet i don't see how you jump from them to your solution