How smart are you, /b/?

Took me milliseconds to find it.

File: 1497022649349.jpg (25KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 309x451px

IQ over 9000

>>735281914
You're definitely not smart, needing to make a copy of the image just in case you lose it.

>>735281914
Between 1-70 degrees.

bump. solving

must be retarded, can't find it.

>>735282738
Look harder man, it's right there

File: 1497022649349.jpg (29KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 309x451px

Either I'm retarded cause I haven't done geometry in years, or there's not enough information to solve the problem

File: 1497022649349.jpg (34KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 309x451px

>>735282882
i have the same

p sure it's a troll image

shit looks 30*ish

40 degrees right?

the top triangle with the x init is isosceles

Assuming image isn't drawn to scale, you can't know. Any two angles will work as long as they have a sum of 110°.

sin = o/h
cos = a/h
tan = o/a

>>735283438
sure. for right triangles.

>>735283438
There are no right triangles

and there are no distances

nah I've got it x is 40 degrees

>>735283366
Arrant nonsense. Changing the value of x would necessarily entail changing at least one of the four angles whose values are already given for the figure to remain the same geometrically. Obviously that can't be done, so x can have one and only one value, and ditto for the top left angle. This also means that there is sufficient information in the image to determine the value of x.

>>735281914
Stupid fucking troll image.

>>735283622
yea, and looks slimmer than the 40 next to it. you're pulling my leg here

bump again. almost there.

>>735283717
No I'm telling you it's fucking 40 degrees lmao

>>735283780
You lads want the working? will take a few mins to write down

>>735283747
got it. the answer is 55.

>>735283878
nah mate thats wrong

>>735283920
i'll prove it to you. going to write it out on my engineering paper. one sec

making an educated guess of 30 seems to be about right

>>735283438
Idiot.

File: 1497022649349.jpg (27KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 309x451px

Turns out, GIMP has an angle measurement tool. It's definitely a 30 degree angle

>>735283717
>>735283780
That's not how drawn triangles work lmao.

If you say "well it looks like the 40 degree angle next to it so it must be 40 degrees" you're assuming every triangle where you must find x is drawn to scale which is insane to expect.

Assume that one side has the length of 1. Calculate all other sides. Calculate X. Win

>>735284115
you've clearly never worked with geometry. scale doesn't matter

File: afaSDGFEW.png (44KB, 669x651px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 669x651px

>>735281914
Here

>>735281914
There are two x's. One is at the top to the right of the word "find." The other is just under that, at the top of the diagram.

>>735284086
Apply the same tool to any of the known angles.
Do the results match up with the expected values?

>>735282882

I concur, there's info missing.

I got the same as you, 180' for the trianlges and straight lines but you hit a brick wall.

>>735284233
>>735284282
Introducing a scale would give you measurements for the right and left triangle, leading to a top triangle which is defined by two sides and the angle between the sides.

It's 20 degrees dumbfags

>>735283964
just about done.

Is it 40degrease I'm gussing its isosceles and from my calculations one of the base angles is 70 so 180-(70+70) is 40 but I'm probably wrong

File: bale.jpg (135KB, 1600x990px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1600x990px

>>735281914
>Smart
>/b/

sub 40 in for x works

>>735284086
What is its not drawn to scale?

>>735284688
so does 30, insufficient information?

20° you dumb fucks

File: image.jpg (18KB, 193x240px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 193x240px

>>735281914
Got'em

>>735284902
nah dude its troll question, 20 works but so does 30, 40 etc

>>735284549
uploading

>>735284902
40 you dumbfuck>>735284298

File: Proof.jpg (855KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

855KB, 1440x2560px

>>735284975
The angle is 55 degrees

>>735283033
>>735283081
fucking checked fag i keked

File: Sketch (1).png (68KB, 842x714px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 842x714px

Notice that x exists for range 0<x<110 so everybody is right as long as x isn't greater or equal to 110 or less than or equal to 0

File: 1497023585604.jpg (34KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 309x451px

here's a hint

>>735285468
this

>>735285380
The sum of the angles in any triangle is 180 degrees. If two lines intersect, opposite angles are the same. Also, I extended the figure to be a full triangle to draw conclusions about some angles.

>>735285468
Bullshit, ref >>735283707

>>735285380
horseshit

>>735285594
prove me wrong

>>735285380
>first line
>wrong
try harder son

>>735285569
no this statement is incorrect

>>735285620
you are right but so are many others

>>735285380
>>735285532
Also, on a line, the sum of the angles is 180

>>735285714
genius

>>735285677
my "first line" is not wrong if you follow what I am doing. I defined my x differently. My final angle is just written at the bottom.

>>735285380
There is no basis for "y - x = 10"

>>735284781
ding ding ding

>>735285680
Disprove it, then.

>>735285836
But there is, the difference between the angle 140 and 130 is 10.

>>735285949
So what? That doesn't mean that y - x = 10. That's only the case if the two unknown angles in the small triangle are the same (55 degrees).

>>735285620
50 + 130 + 55 does not equal 180 degrees.

>>735286060
The angle at the top is 20, meaning that the sum of the other two angles must be 160. You can see that they are not quite equal. If they were equal, each would 80 degrees. One is slightly larger and one is slightly smaller. I know that the difference between the larger angles that the smaller angles are a part of is 10.

>>735285516
still dry
just moved the problem

>>735286162
Obviously. Follow the angles man. 70 +55 +55 = 180

>>735284298
looks right, but why do I still think it's 40?

>>735285569
X having one value has nothing g to do with whether there is enough information in the problem.

File: failure.jpg (65KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x750px

>>735284298
How do you get the 80? I honestly don't know, and haven't taking Geometry since 1996. Can you explain it, please?

>>735286449
They used a computer program to get it from the image. It could still be wrong if the shape is not drawn to scale.

>>735286284
I hope you're trolling. For starters, I never disputed that x + y = 160, that's obvious. You still have absolutely no basis for saying that because the difference between the two large angles is 10 degrees (140 - 130 = 10), therefore the difference between the two smaller angles that are part of them must also be 10 (y - x = 10). I repeat, that is only the case if you assume that the two unknown angles in the small triangle are the same, ie. 55 degrees. That is an assumption with no basis.

>>735283707
"Errant" you fucking genius.

>>735286619
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/arrant

engineerfag here, i went through it, extended that external 20 degree angle, ended up with 2 more unknown angles, threw together a system of equations and the result was a variable dependent solution. so basically you choose one and everything else falls in place. there isn't enough information to solve the problem theoretically. You can measure it and be happy with that. the guy with the solution on paper is lost and confused. go on about your day everyone, nothing to see here

>>735286562
that 55° assumption can easily be proven wrong
left diagonal is leaning at 60°
right at 50°
both side leaning at 80°, therefore, top line is not parallel to bottom line, hence x =/= y

File: 1467670722167.png (1MB, 808x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 808x960px

>>735286670

Dont you just have to fill in a random value for one line and then you can just calculate the other line lengths and from that you can get x?

>>735286380
Yes it does. If x only has one possible value, it means that it cannot be anywhere between 0 and 110 degrees, as retards here are claiming. It has only one value, and it is entirely determinable from the information given.

>>735286745
Another retard, I rest my case.

File: righttri.png (2KB, 373x270px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 373x270px

>>735286356

>>735286878
whats the answer then bill nye

>>735284282
Thats exactly what i just said ya fuck

>>735286562
That wasn't my assumption, that was my conclusion. Notice that the small triangle is rotated. The two 55 angles can be the same while producing a 10 degree diffference in the larger angles written above. The conclusion supports that. I did not assume it.

>>735287089
Yes you did, which is the whole point: You arrived at that conclusion precisely because you had already assumed it in your calculations without realizing it.

>>735286831
Again it is not an assumption, it is a conclusion. What you have said is only true if the triangle were drawn to scale. Nothing about the angles alone supports what you are saying. The triangle is rotated in it's position, which is what makes this problem so vexing.

>>735287296
no

>>735282882
Same thing happened to me

File: img006.jpg (477KB, 2480x3509px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 2480x3509px

30 degrees

I figured it out it is 30 degrees exactly. Typing out derivation now.

>>735287296
Woops i meant 60

File: derp.jpg (81KB, 618x902px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 618x902px

>>735281914
OK, I think I have it..?

X = 10?

I'm pretty sure that it can be solved, but I might have made an error in some calculation

>>735287296
wayy off my dude

>>735281914
The angles are incorrect.

If you try to find numbers that fit for both the 20 degree triangle and the 30 degree triangle you will be over by 10 degrees on the 30 degree one each time. None of the other triangles have numbers that fit and make any kind of sense either. The upper left angle must be 50 degrees, because the sum of the angles on the bottom right triangle (from the info given) is 130. Therefor X must be a 90 degree angle. That doesn't work with the other triangles it's connected to though.

You are always off by 10, the angles are a lie.

>>735287203
ah, I see. You may be right. The answer is just about there though. If it is possible to solve, there is one piece missing.

>>735287447
still wayy off

>>735287518
I don't know, I tried it two different ways and got 60

>>735287504
But where is the error in
>>735287468
?

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

51KB, 482x377px

>>735287504
Horseshit

>>735287653
Pretty much all the angles you solved in the red lines are wrong and can be proven wrong

>>735287468
Anyone care to find the error here?

>>735287515
also you randomly assumed that the middle little triangle is an isosceles without any reason to do so

>>735287434
not2sclae

>>735287780
dude, a whole lot of that is wrong

>>735287782
yes, I implicitly assumed that. That's what I just admitted to.

File: newbs.jpg (27KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 309x451px

how did I got to 30°? I guessed the angle and just checked if its concludes with the other angles

>>735287694
Try it yourself if you don't believe me. That's the beauty of math. It's really simple math too, all you have to do is add and subtract.

>>735287667
Your upper right triangle in red seems to have a sum of 230 for one.

>>735287880
see>>735286745
if you choose one within reason, the others will add up nicely

File: file.png (150KB, 409x421px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 409x421px

>>735287468

>>735287958
That was what I was going to post too

>>735287902
Must suck to lack the ability to do even really simple math, then.

>>735282057
clap clap clap

>>735287958
lol

>>735287785
I drew it out from first principles using the angles given, you fuckwit. i thought the protractor might have provided a clue to even the most retarded observer.

And scale doesn't matter - there are no dimensions and geometrically the figure can be defined by angles alone

>>735287902
>Your upper right triangle in red seems to have a sum of 230 for one.

woops, nevermind, miscounted

>>735287958
the red line isnt intended as a continuation of the black diagonal, right?

>>735288021

Is there any way you could tell me why I'm wrong instead of being a faggot?

>>735287958
This can't be right, but the approach might work. The lowest circled angle can't be 40. It must be 50, because we know the other angles are 110 and 20.

File: derp2.jpg (81KB, 618x902px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 618x902px

>>735287958
Thanks! Corrected.

X is 20

File: Untitled.jpg (56KB, 620x599px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 620x599px

there you go

>>735287437
I called the bottom side a. In the bottom triangle I called the right side b. Solving for b using the Sine Law yields b=asin60/sin70. Looking at the triangle with x, I called the bottom left side c. Looking at the triangle formed from the two bottom left triangles notice how two angles are the same so that the bottom is side a and the long side is c + b and the other side is length a too. Solving for c + b yields asin80/sin50 and therefore c = a(sin80/sin50 - sin60/sin70). So c is one of the unknown sides of the triangle with x. I do a similar process for another unknown side. Looking at the bottom triangle I called the left side d. d = asin50/sin70. The triangle with x I called the bottom ride side e. Considering the bottom right two triangles as one I solved for d + e = asin80/sin40. Therefore e = a(sin80/sin40 - sin50/sin70). I now have two of the three unknown side lengths of the triangle with x. I know the angle in between them being 70. I use the cosine law to solve for the last side I called f. f = sqrt [ c^2 + e^2 - 2ceCos70 ]. I know use the Sine law to solve for x. x = invsin [ csin70/f ]. Crunch the numbers and you get 30 degrees exactly where I assigned side "a" to a lenght of 1. c ~ 0.36397 and e ~ 0.71688 so f ~ 1.46190 and x ~ 29.99999

>>735288245
> I know
I meant I now. Sorry

>>735288245
Congratz, first correct answer with correct calculations.

File: 1497023585604.jpg (41KB, 679x705px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 679x705px

>>735287518
How?

>>735288221
Someone care to either approve or disprove of this..?

I'm quite sure, we nailed it this time.

>>735288099
It is.. If you are thinking of the red line, that I am thinking of Kappa

>>735288245
But then the sum of the angles you get from the big triangle on the left with the 20 degree angle would be about 10 off still, wouldn't it?

>>735288474
Of the four triangles, you mean the left one? The 20 deg was given. the right angle can be calculated from the bottom triangle, it is 110. The other angle is 50. It all adds to 180.

File: Screenshot_1.png (8KB, 540x118px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 540x118px

>>735281914
You, OP, are magnificent. Those fucking coordinates.

>>735288245
I don't think that Sin or Cos is the right way to go for this.

>>735288221
I strongly believe that this is the correct and final answer.

>>735288474
No it wouldn't. It has already been shown that you can trivially find the values for almost all angles, ref. >>735282882 and >>735283026. Add in x = 30 and the last unknown angle = 80, and it all fits.

File: Sketch (1).png (287KB, 681x974px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 681x974px

can someone care to explain?

>>735286934
This is not a right angle triangle you dick

>>735288653
It's incorrect. The problem cannot be solved.

>>735288559
But then wouldn't the angle on the right triangle sharing the x and the 30 degree angle that isn't solved have to be 120 for the sum to be 180? if that angle is 120 how does that work with the triangle on the left

File: file.png (145KB, 861x452px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 861x452px

>>735288221

>>735288221
nigger thats only slightly smaller than 40 and you say its 20 ?

>>735288789
If you are considering the top triangle and the right triangle as one big triangle then the angle at the bottom given is 30. You can determine the top angle to be x + 40 and the remaining angle to be 110 - x. With x as 30 the sum is still 180

>>735288653
180 - 40 - 90degree angle above = 50

>>735288653
Im making a GIF to explain.. Hang in there

>>735288882
we are solving theoretically so its not assumed to be to scale

just for you to know that by measuring on a scaled drawing, I get around 28,5° for X

>>735288653
cuz there must be 180 and theres already 40 and 90

>>735282882
70+x+y=180
20+60+50+30+40+x+50+y=360
Solve simultaneously to find x and y(where y is the ?)
Enjoy

>>735288847
Thanks. You are right. My answer is wrong.

>>735289075
lmao the 90 is not known at that point, the 90 is solved assuming the other angle is 50

>>735289095
both equations are the same dumbass
x+y=110

>>735289095
Both those equations give x + y = 110. Nice work, dumbass.

>>735289095
both eqn r same dumbass

damn, never though I would go through so much excitement around a geometric problem on /b
gonna make myself another coffee

>>735288909
Ok I see now, I was overlooking angles. Woops.

>>735289144
ya , wasnt looking to be honest , also wtf 40 + 20 + 40 + 10 = nice fucking 90 upper right corner of that rectangle

x = 25

eat my balls

>>735289249
oh nvm , hangover

>>735282057
exactly. im not seeing the problem here. its right there.

This problem can't be solved without using the trigonometric ratios, such as in the form of the Sine Law and the Cosine Law. This solution is correct.
>>735288245

>>735289270
i would if it were right

>>735289244
Nice job on your "really simple math", lmfao

File: 1491114306314.jpg (26KB, 576x470px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 576x470px

>>735282057
HUEHUEHEUEHEUHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>735289317
Yes it can, but it takes some creativity.

File: 1497022.jpg (45KB, 851x766px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 851x766px

It's 30

>>735289404
You could be right, but I don't see another way. Not yet anyway. There are some problems out there that do need those equations. Those equations were derived from the basic trigonometric rules such as SinX = O/A and a^2 + b^2 = c^2 for right angled triangles. So in way using the Sine and Cosine Law are creative. Sorta.

File: 34823856.gif (916KB, 245x250px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 245x250px

>>735289450
oh shit nigga u did it!

>>735289450
how did you get the angle to the left of x as the 30?

>>735289450
lmao the fuq is that 30?

>>735289669
He pulled it out of his arse

>>735289710
>5289710 ▶
>>>735289450
exactly

File: 1497022649349.jpg (53KB, 618x902px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 618x902px

those values are still being guessed , how to touch them ?

>>735282882
>>735283026
I got the same, we need to know a few of the sides of the triangles to find the rest

if i had to guess i'd say 40 degrees

>>735284086
thats not useful. this is a mathematical thought experiment not a physical one

>>735289450
ill better stop browsing this thread now before someone finds a hole somehow

File: arag.jpg (135KB, 866x644px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 866x644px

>>735287958

File: 1.jpg (48KB, 851x766px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 851x766px

>>735289669

File: 1496539675902.png (11KB, 418x359px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 418x359px

>>735289916
Whoa dude

>>735289911
>>735289450
FUUUUUUUUUUCK
those 30 and 30 dont have to be 30s

>>735289891
Ruler postulate

>>735290024
but who says theres 60 and 30 ?

Nah I've been here since start there's no solving this laters dudes

>>735290024
dumb fuck, how did you find the other angle in the orange triangle to be 60?

File: solved.png (57KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 309x451px

Here

>>735290267
there he goes again, pulling numbers out of his ass

>>735290267
fuck right off you scummy fucker

>>735283026
>>735282882
it is a troll image because x and and the other corner have set ranges they can be in with no set value

File: trick.png (73KB, 569x639px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 569x639px

Guys it's a trick question. Stop wasting your time. The sides are infinite.

>>735290456
That's what I thought but If you change x, the known angles that are given also change and that can't happen

>>735290486
solved

>>735290456
>it is a troll image because x and and the other corner have set ranges they can be in with no set value
No it isn't because you can draw it. I know this, as I did it, here
>>735287434
I haven't been able to come up with a geometric proof yet

I'm not "smart" as you call it but I am wise.

>>735283854
Please I couldn't font the other angle in the triangle with the x and that's where I stopped

>>735290267
There is no reason for the other angle to be congruent to the 50 degree angle.

>>735290556
but it is a troll image , in original there was 1 number more to solve shit , got removed and that version is fucked , im guessing it should be 30 but cant prove it cuz not enough info

>>735282882
>>735283026
the sum of all the internal angles has to be 360 degrees, then you have it

>>735290486
>80+80=180

File: IMG_20170609_200009.jpg (2MB, 1125x1842px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1125x1842px

>>735281914

>>735290815
but again values of 80 and 30 are guessed because shit looks like that

>>735290486
/thread

>>735290871
get a load of this guy

>>735289916
/thread

>>735290267
here's where I'm at

fuck me this is hurting my head
i think its a troll

File: 1497029721742.jpg (48KB, 851x766px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 851x766px

>>735291120
shit no image

>>735290871
end of discussion

I did it, keep this thread alive so I can write it out again in neater looking form so you fags will understand
Just to let you know though, x is 30°

>>735291588
is it final ?

File: thread.jpg (27KB, 269x534px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 269x534px

here ya go

No matter how you try to solve it x can equal 30 and x can equal 40.

>>735291588
Hey asshole how could the small angle on the top be 20 if the two ones at the bottom already give out 180 ?

>>735282882
>>735283026
u can do it by trial and error. to check if you're right, all angles in a 4 sided polygon add up to 360 degrees.

when x = 30, you should find that all your calculations should accept this as the answer

>>735291588
but how you know relation between x and z

>>735291588
How do you know that those two angles are x+z?

>>735291760
>80+80=180
>american education

>>735291760
80 + 80 = 180

>>735291827
because he mirrored the left part on top of itself... what did you idiots do in school

File: 20170609_191452.jpg (39KB, 308x450px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 308x450px

>>735281914

File: 76.jpg (14KB, 142x208px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 142x208px

>>735289916

This is the best geometry exercise I have ever seen.

Thanks, OP. Enjoyed the ride.

>>735291965
Well, then he can't assume that the lines line up to 180 degrees.

>>735291688
is this the solution?

>>735292179
yes
thank me later

File: 20170609_131741.jpg (1MB, 4032x2268px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4032x2268px

You need to know a side value to solve it. But we don't so I just made the bottom side to be 1 Unit long. Idk how long U, the unit is but it shouldnt matter

x = 38.1

>>735281914
I found it!

>>735292179
No it's not.

>>735292280
yes it is. prove me wrong

>>735292158
finally, I was wondering when someone would catch up to that one

File: 1497022649349.jpg (41KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 309x451px

>>735281914
it's all about symmetry

File: 1497031901005.jpg (26KB, 269x534px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 269x534px

>>735292325
How did you find the angles I've removed?

File: 1497022649349.jpg (36KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 309x451px

>>735292358
prove me wrong

You can't tell exactly, since you're missing one of the angles and don't have any lengths to work with, but it looks like a 30 degree angle.

By doing angle stuff you can get x<110, so x=30 is a reasonable answer anyway.

>>735281914
60° cuz of opposing angles theorem

X=30°

>>735292491
not sure if bait or dumb

I mirrored the triangle. If the outer triangle is 90-50-40, so is the inner one.

File: 1497031799376.jpg (49KB, 686x799px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 686x799px

>>735291588
Elegant proof. But how do we know that ABC (see attached) is a straight line?

>>735292866
You don't, which is why it's not a proof at all.

File: high school shit.png (49KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 309x451px

cmon guys. get with it.

>>735292866
but who the hell said that z is 40 and x 30 ?

>>735283359
No. It is not.

>>735292799
If you just mirrored the triangle, then the only angle of it you know is the 90 degree one. To get the other two you have to assume that the left side of your new triangle lines up with the middle line starting in the lower right corner. That is an unjustified assumption.

I see two x's. It doesnt say solve x it says find it. There is a large X and a small x. Easy

>>735293029
how did u get the 80?

>>735293103
No. Whenever two line intersect, the angles are the same. Just like the basic 110/70 in the middle over which all tend to agree, this applies to the 130/50 intersection

>>735293363
No shit, the point is that you have assumed that it is an intersection, with no basis.

>>735293438
not the guy you are talking to but look man... there is no assumption. you just obviously dont know a fucking thing about geometry.

>>735293522
Yes there is, you're just too retarded to see it.

>>735293438
I don't see why that would be an unjustified assumption. The lower 50 angle of said intersection is determined by the bottom left 20+60=80 and the bottom right 50+30=80 angles

File: Screenshot_20170327-100041.png (2MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1440px

X=60°
90+30=120
180-120=60

>>735293564
you fucking idiot. you can make any corner an intersection by continuing the lines.

are you really this fucking retarded or are you trolling right now?

>>735293618
fuck me in lower right it's of course just the 50

>>735293671
I hope you're fucking trolling. The guy said that he created the new triangle by mirroring the one to the right of it. If you do that, there is no reason to assume that the left side of that new triangle with "continue the line" as you say with the middle line from the lower right corner.

guys, game over, here's the solution, no one here would have been able to solve it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQc-54hQ8kw

>>735293772
I'll add that, conversely, if you create the new triangle by "continuing the line" from the lower right corner, then you have no reason to assume that the new triangle you've created is a mirror image of the triangle to the right of it.

>>735294047
Yup, that's the only correct way of solving it that doesn't involve more complex mathematics.

>>735294047
so how come loads of ppl got x = 30?

>>735294178
Arriving at the correct solution doesn't mean that you correctly solved it. This thread is full of morons with erroneous "solutions".

>>735294047
dumbass there's not just one way to solve problems.

60°

>>735294061
yes you do because of the 90° line added on top

>>735294469
No you don't. All that tells you is that they both have one 90 degree angle. The remaining angles could be different for both triangles

>>735294590
how come my solution is right then

again, I started out with the 130/50 intersect then added the 90 and worked my way through

>>735294686
how come my first guess is right too? Is guessing now a correct approach because it was correct this one time?

>>735294686
You said in >>735292799 that you mirrored the triangle, you can't even stay consistent in your bullshit. I'll repeat, if you started out by creating the intersection, you can't assume that the new triangle you create is a mirror of the one to the right of it. If you instead start by mirroring the triangle, then you can't assume that the left line of that new triangle lines up with the middle line from the lower right corner and that there is therefore an intersection. As for why you've arrived at the correct solution, because your unjustified assumption happens to be correct. This thread is full of similar correct "solutions" that are built on unjustified assumptions.

File: 20170609_210450.jpg (906KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 2048x1152px

I FUCKING GOT IT
>>735290688
>not enough info
Hahaha nigga bow down

Why a = 10? Because with triangles it's a matter of proportions, and those stay the same no matter what, I could've used a = sqrt(e) and still got the same solution, what value a has doesn't matter so we can assign any value to it.
As for the big red letters, they can be ignored, I used them to mark where on my calculator I had saved the individual solutions from 1.) to 7.)

>>735295098
Correct, >>735288245 did it before you though.

>>735294951
I never said I started out by mirroring it, I just happened to do so in the process of solving the issue.
If you start nitpicking at least do it properly

>>735295192
Nice, I didn't see that, good to know not everyone here is retarded

>>735295258
Your "solution" is still garbage

File: op ams dildos.jpg (15KB, 171x250px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 171x250px

mystery solved

It can literally be whatever the fuck it wants as long as X and the other unknown add up to 110°.
You guys are all retarded.

File: IMG_20170609_212503.jpg (644KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 1200x1600px

we had to do this in high school, so that's how smart /b is I guess.

60 deg. The two opposite angles of a quadrilateral is 180. The sum of 2 angles will give you the adjacent 110 degree. Im too lazy to draw.

>>735288221
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Impressive amounts of retardation on display in this thread

>>735298590
>Impressive amounts of retardation on display in this thread
says the fagoot who contributed nothing

>>735298711
Better to contribute nothing than to contribute retardation

File: pseudo.png (276KB, 610x610px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 610x610px

>>735299218
>Better to contribute nothing than to contribute retardation

ha ha! not on 4chan, the asshole of the internet.
back to feddit, raggot.

File: solved.png (108KB, 1390x698px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1390x698px

>>735282023
>>735282882
This?

So a couple of hours later and hundreds of replies, not a single correct solution until some btard found it on youtube

This thread should be an eye opener for how dumb /b/ is