How smart is /b/?

>>735793669
how about fuck you?
we won't do your homework for you newfag

this was already posted but you flipped it upside down so that 4chan wouldn't detect it as spam

it's already been proven that this can't be solved mathematically and you need to use a program to find it

fuck off, op

File: tommy.jpg (24KB, 456x297px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 456x297px

>>735793725
>can't be solved mathematically
>need to use a program to find it
Pick one. If a program can find it, then it can be solved mathematically.

>>735793821
So using a program like gimp to get the degree by pixel drawing = mathematical solving?

>>735793821
>dumb faggot detected

no retard they use an application, say, GIMP, and it measures the angle for you without using the math steps that a human being would have to take to solve it

how about you solve it, faggot, since ur such a smartie

>>735793911
this guy gets it

X=30°

50+60 = 110
180-110=70
90-70=20

x=180-20-y
x=160-y

there, how did i do

(also the problem doesn't say it's -not to scale- , so i COULD literally just measure it)

>>735793911
Technically yes as measuring is mathematical but OP is still a retard

>>735793911
>get the degree by pixel drawing
lol, fuck off until you've learned some basic computational mathematics, faggot

>>735793966
>using the math steps that a human being would have to take to solve it
There you go, a human being can solve it through math. Glad we agree.

>>735793725
Provide us with this proof that the problem cannot be solved mathematically

>>735794096
a human being can never get the exact value of x since there's not enough information given, faggot

>>735794259
you solve it nigger i'm not interested in doing your homework

look at this anon
>>735794013
there's ur answer

>>735794043
Are you one of the guys who used a triangle to solve degree problems? If I should learn computational math, you should learn some algebra. This image gives you an unlimited number of solutions.

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

51KB, 482x377px

>>735794271
Bullshit

>>735794344
No it doesn't. It's blatantly clear that x can have one and only one value.

File: 1497445725561.jpg (70KB, 893x533px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 893x533px

>>735793669
atleast proove its impossible
here

>>735794385
Then post the value and your way of computing it. Without a second variable, since it only has one value.

>>735794425
>My shit attempt at solving the problem doesn't work
>Therefore it cannot be solved
Nice work, faggot. Look up non sequitur

File: 250.png (52KB, 291x428px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 291x428px

it's plain impossible to find x because there's not enough info given.

i used "triangle angle sum = 180" and "quadrangle angle sum = 360" rules and i just get x + y = 110 by any fuckin means.

x and y can be literally shitloads of different numbers that give 110 in sum. plain and simple, no trigonometry bullshit here.

op is a faggot.

>>735794348

look at
>>735794425
>>735794013

X has no clear solution since there's not enough information, but hey if you have an answer i'm all ears

File: Untitled.png (52KB, 300x442px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 300x442px

>>735794425
wait, wouldn't that be impossible? 70+70+130+130 doesn't add up to 360 degrees.

if you can't read my handwriting, suck my cunt

File: 1497125805893.png (488KB, 1376x1220px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 1376x1220px

>>735794425
>400 degrees circle in the center
oh i am laffin

also x HAS to be less than 50 because the lower left angles are not right, nor do they look obtuse.

Shit can't be solved you stupid niggers. There isn't enough information

>>735794532
>>735794548
There is enough information, it's just difficult to find the solution. It's easy to prove that x can have only one value: Just try to draw two different versions of the figure with two different values for x. That can't be done without changing some of the angles whose values are already given, which you obviously can't do.

>>735794425
>400° circle

180-70 equals 110, negroid

2×70+2×110=360

>>735794659
could x be 40??? the lower left angle could be bisected for all we know... also isn't there a theorem that opposite interior angles in a quadrilateral are congruent?

>>735794686
i remember puzzle called "easiest hardest geometry problem" or something like that which was almost similiar to this. i remember showing it to lots of mathematicians, having fun due to their inability to solve it, when it was solveable by simple geometry rules. i don't know if this is the case. i'll check. wait a minute.

File: ss (2017-06-14 at 04.31.35).jpg (86KB, 947x614px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 947x614px

>>735794425
>>735794548
>>735794570
>>735794605
>>735794756
sh1d im returded

>>735794425
Is 110, no 130. 130+130+70+70=400
110+110+70+70=360°

>>735793669
Not enough information.

>>735794686
Wat?
It can. Only elongate the drawing. The degree for x will diminish and the degree for y will increase

>>735794891
Are you trolling? Elongating the drawing will obviously change the four angles at the top.

File: Untitled.png (62KB, 300x442px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 300x442px

>>735794757
okay so remember how i said x could be 40? maybe the triangle fformed on the bottom left could be isosceles.

>>735794757
The one triangle with the 20 would have another angle with the size 110 (180-70). Therefore the 3th has to be 50 (180-110-20), but the angle (z) in of the triangle with x cant be found because the 50° and the needed angle (z) doesnt share a straight line

180-50=z wont work in this case.
180-z-70=x neither

>>735793725
>>735794344
>>735794548
>>735794659
>>735794686
>>735794869
you're fired

File: two-big.gif (12KB, 362x936px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 362x936px

>>735794826
no, no, it's different problem. however, it still seems similiar enough to think that op problem is solveable. check this; try solving this triangle problem. seems pretty impossible, right? haha, no, it isn't at all. i'll show you explanation. that's why i think op can be right too.

>>735794973
you're a faggot
the photo is bait and it's not going to be solved for the next 10 minutes that this post is still up

>>735794973
Said the bedroom dwelling negroid.

File: Untitled.png (65KB, 300x442px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 300x442px

>>735794947
you're right... but isn't there a theorem saying that the opposite exterior angles in a quadrilateral are congruent?

>>735795160
you know you could just type out the numbers rather than being an aspie and drawing everything in mspaint

>>735793669
30 degrees boiiii look up 80 80 20 triangle solution

>>735793725
>>735794013
>>735794425
>>735794532
>>735794570
>>735794841
brainlets

File: Untitled.png (68KB, 300x442px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 300x442px

>>735795160
GUYS I THINK I FIGURED SOMETHING OUT

IT'S A TRAPEZOID

i know this contradicts "what if the opposite angles are congruent" statement, but i don't even know if that's true or something i misunderstood

>>735795335
>dumb faggot

go to bed OP, its unsolvable

File: 1497447293143.gif (13KB, 362x936px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 362x936px

>>735795017
diff guy
no clue

File: 1488521154310.png (230KB, 980x742px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 980x742px

>>735793983
you sir are correeeeecccttttttttt

File: no.png (11KB, 528x206px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 528x206px

>>735795271

>>735795455
HOW

>>735795407
The top angle is 20
180-20-60-30-50

>>735795338
HE'S DONE IT

the absolute madman

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/80-80-20/Classical1.shtml#solution

>>735795530
oh, right

doesn't really help me tho

>>735794425
30 shoul dbe 50 and 130 should be 110

File: 054-sharon-stone-theredlist.jpg (136KB, 714x704px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 714x704px

Well I'm not blind. Just gonna say 40 yeah?

>>735795688
yeah close enough

>>735794686
dumbass there are two free variables, it has infinite solutions

>>735795388
fucking brainlet asshole look up your shit before saying stupid shi piece of faggot trap>>735795616

>>735795688
close it's 30

>>735795731
shut up you dumb aspie that problem is different entirely to the one shown in OP, that's the reason why nobody so far has solved this stupid bait equation
you should have been aborted

File: x=60.jpg (37KB, 545x582px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 545x582px

>>735793669


Unless I'm missing something, why are people saying you can't solve this? I don't use math at all in my job so haven't used geometry in about 10 years but from memory, quadrilateral has internal angles of 360, triangles 180, if you know the two top angles are both 80 the bottom angles must each be 100, why can't you solve for X?

>>735794934
What? I mean along the angle cutting line between 30 and 50 degree. Shortening or lengthening it while keeping every known angle the same changes x and y directly. Did a test image and was wrong. Elongating it increases x and decreases y.

>>735795900
i think you're right, those dubs can't lie...

>>735795900
x =/= 60

a program that can be used for measuring angles showed itself that the angle was 30 degrees

>>735795930
Post this test image

>>735795900
How do you get 50 next to x? It is no angle halving line.

>>735795930
Shortening or lengthening that line would change the 20 degree angle.

File: 1497445725561.jpg (220KB, 1236x1768px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1236x1768px

>>735793669
31

File: solved.png (59KB, 327x442px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 327x442px

blugh

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/80-80-20/Classical8.shtml

File: i35brno34hrn4oiro3it54659f43f584jofi43fij.gif (2MB, 480x292px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x292px

What the fuck is this 9th grader shit? I'm fucking offended, now. Who the fuck do you think we are, you subhuman baboon? Give us some cicada 3301, not this utter piece of garbage.

>>735795900
that 40 + 60 would be 100 which is over 90 and that obviously isn't an obtuse angle.

>>735795900
No, the sum of the bottom angles is 200, we know the bottom right triangle has angle of 50 because we have the 2 other interior angles. This means the quadrilateral has bottom angles anywhere from 40, 160 to 150, 50. It's 'unsolvable' because there are two unknown angles that can be changed without affecting the known angles. In other words the solutions are x = 110 - y For all 0 <= y <= 110
There is no singular solution.
I have a math bs, this shit is simple

>>735796130
Oh forgot the explain in case someone doesn't get it. Just set any of the sides to 1 and do math from there since we aren't finding any length as an answer only angles it doesn't matter what the lengths actually are.

>>735796225

Sure if you're assuming all the angles are drawn to scale, without actually measuring it though and simply solving with information provided in the question, that would be right though?

Obviously the X angle looks nothing like the top right 60 degree but a lot of math questions aren't drawn to scale to be accurately measured with a protractor, using the rules of geometry (Straight line = 180, triangle = 180, quadrilateral = 180) X would be 60?

>>735796311
>can be changed without affecting the known angles
Post two different versions of the figure with two different values for x without the known angles being different, then. Should be easy for someone with a math bs.

File: 1497445725561.jpg (22KB, 309x347px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 309x347px

here's the original image that op posted a few weeks ago, ofc the text is upside down but im too lazy to fix it

>>735793725
Naw, this guy is right. I'm a programmer and do trig all the fucking time. None of the triangles have right angles, so you resort to law of sines and cosines. Those only work if you know the length of at least a single side.

>>735796040

How I got 50 is explained in what I said, everything I did was not going according to scale and just total angles within shapes/lines

>>735796483
Hope you're trolling. You know you can set a side to any length you want in order to solve it, like >>735796130 did? You must be a shit programmer.

>>735796370

meant quad = 360 not 180

File: 7a5.gif (29KB, 482x800px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 482x800px

I love watching a bunch of mathematical autists throwing shit at each other.
it's great.

File: Unbenannt.png (107KB, 1152x603px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1152x603px

am i right?

File: mathishard.jpg (38KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x426px

>>735793669

>>735796370
Well I suppose you are right for not automatically assuming its drawn to scale, but I was working on
>>735796130
while I said that so I already knew everything properly angled, but even then all the angles LOOK proper if you look at them, so I assumed.

>>735796795
no you're not because x is 30 degrees

try again

nobody cares nerd

>>735796893
how do you know?

>>735796561
Whatever, at least i had the right idea, these other bitches were doing all sorts of crazy shit.

>>735796795
I don't think so, but I really don't want to check your work so ill just link mine and the calculator I used, so you can check for yourself.
>>735796130
http://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html?vc=30&vx=1.347&vy=1.286&va=&vz=&vb=&angleunits=d&x=48&y=0

>>735793725
Are people like you really allowed to vote?

>>735793725
all you need to solve this are properties of isosceles/equilateral triangles, and constructing a few more points. For starters, extend it to a triangle like >>735795017 . It is very nice basic geometry puzzle.

File: 1468679918-054-sharon-stone-theredlist.jpg (27KB, 350x345px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 350x345px

>>735795688
I just figured it out, I reckon it's 30... do we need proof?

>>735797003
>>735796959
solve it you fucking faggots

>>735794425
You are wrong dipshit

>>735797070
proofed
>>735796130

>>735797216
I did it without calculations, draw a box around the points like my drawing.

>>735797168
>>735797003
>>735796959
>>735796216
>>735795335
>>735794973
>>735794510
>>735794348
>>735793821
>>735794096
>>735794259
>>735797168

>ITT: A bunch of faggots who claim they can solve it but don't

>>735796678
that's a nice one.

>>735797321
What am I looking at? Explain please.

>>735794425
400 ≠ 360
You already messed up in the middle

File: Unbenannt.png (6KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 800x600px

>>735796485
You only said, you just a quadrilateral. Yet for the quadrilateral you have two missing angles. And the bottom two ones dont have to he both 100. Else we only would have trapezoid quadrilaterals. Maybe I am missing something, but look at my image. Bottom two angles are the same, below ones arent

>>735797478
*you only said the bottom angles have to be both 100. But then we would only know trapezoids.

>>735797455
looks like he is using the circle formula to find identical angles

>>735797463
X = 30 btw

there is no formula beside a = arccos((x2 + z2 - y2)/2xz) which calculates the length to proof it all

>>735797277
>>735797194
I'ma check this myself

>>735797562
Sounds bretty made up. Is there an any down syndrome formula you can take to solve your broblem. Inb4phoenix downs :DDDDFF

File: 1497445725561.jpg (32KB, 309x442px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 309x442px

>>735793669
30+y+(40+x)= 180
20+x+(50+y) = 180
70+x+y=180

You just gotta figure out the other angles first.
50+60+(70)=180
70+110=180
20+110+(50)=180
30+110+(40)=180

you dumb cunts its 30

>>735797794
And how do you solve that system of equations? In every equation you have two variables, so you can't subsitute them.

The answer is to construct additional pylons, as has been sone by others in this thread. You could probably draw some parallel lines, maybe just continue some, answer.

>>735797076
mine is solution #5 on the cut-the-knot site. Solution #9 is also suitable, doesn't require extending the figure to the 80-80-20 triangle.

>>735798232
but then you are overrun my a sperg rush

>>735798056
each triangle = 180 degrees, each straight line = 180 degrees, and using previously solved angles eventually leas you to x and y, which X + Y = 100, and I just made assumptions based on how it looks that 70+ x + y triangle is isosceles.

File: done.png (51KB, 309x442px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 309x442px

>>735793669
x = 110 - z
Done.

>>735795900
just because the bottom two add up to 200 doesnt mean the two angles must each be 100. they could easily be 110 and 90 then.

>>735798489
If you turn your device (or head), you can clearly see that it is not isosceles

>>735796418
nah m8, dont care nearly enough for this. This drawing isn't to scale so it's pointless to remake it. The lengths of the sides would change but the known angle would be constant. If you can't realize that it's not my problem.

>>735798590
as others have stated there is NOT enough information to determine X or Y for that matter the ONLY thing that can be determined is that X + Y = 110 degrees, x could be 1 degree and y could be 109. but my assumption was based on y looking similar to 70.

>>735797794
This literally shows why it's unsolvable. x and y are free variables, you can only get x in terms of y or y in terms of x without being able to solve for an exact value.

>>735798888
But x = 110 - y is a solution.

>>735798888
nice quads, but maybe I didn't articulate myself clearly but that's what I was trying to say.

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

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

49KB, 309x451px

>>735793669
this shit was posted a fucking week ago and IT WAS SOLVED.

I do not have the elaborate fucking pic of what the anon had, but this is the finished simple pic

>>735799169
dude there are literally over 200 possible and correct answers yours is merely one.

>>735798772
Great excuse, faggot. You should sue whatever college gave you your supposed math bs, seeing as you obviously don't know shit about math.

>>735795017

x = 30

>>735799365
are you really that stupid? did you not read a part of my post? i do not have a pic of the work the anon did, but this was the result. it is 100% correct.

>>735795967

Diagrams arent supposed to be perfect dingus.

File: 2ndMethod.jpg (34KB, 309x442px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 309x442px

>>735797194
Well this is as far as I got with that method after 2 crashes, maybe I'm just dumb.

>>735799595
ok nigger, I said your answer is in fact 100% correct, but there are over 200 other 100% correct answers. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get only 1 correct answer using the information that was provided. Maybe if you weren't a high school dropout you would be able to solve the problem yourself and actually be able to defend it.

>>735799689
I forgot it in a dream. Okay somehow I got the thirty under x. Let me see again.

>>735799828
Different guy.
What is this 200 number? The exact answer has already been found multiple times in this thread alone. There has been enough information just because something isn't explicitly written down doesn't mean its not there.

>>735794425
wrong. 70 plus 130 doesn't equal a flay line

File: IMG_0151.gif (11KB, 330x891px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 330x891px

It's that hardest easy geometry question, except op chopped the top off and flipped it upside down

>>735800348
He's just an idiot who doesen't understand that there's only ONE correct answer

>>735800497

I dont know why people split it up into smaller triangles. With the information shown you can find every angle but two of them. Afterwards I just played with numbers and plugged them in until it worked.

File: IMG_1620.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>735793669
God, I leave /b/ for a week and you guys are still faggots. When are y'all gonna evolve?


Solved;
> x=60
> y=50

>>735800348
Ok X+Y=110, meaning X can be any number between 1 and 109, and the answer would be correct provided that X+Y = 110. that is 110 answers just using whole numbers, now add in all the possible fractions, technically it's infinite but figured a point was being made by just saying over 200.

File: 20170614_171802.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

X = 30

>>735800655
And why do you still cling to that horseshit when it has been disproved multiple times in this thread?

File: 1470513011588.png (57KB, 480x559px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 480x559px

faggotssssssssss

>>735800617
Because with a mathematical proof you're not allowed to 'play with numbers until it works'. You have to have a solid line of logical reasoning that follows established theorems, even if their just simple ones like for this question

>>735798888
its easy if you know how to solve systems of equations

>>735800615
Ya... X=30 Y=80, or X=40 Y=70, or X=1 Y=109. Every one of these sets of answers are correct, and there are even more possibilities.

File: IMG_0152.png (156KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 750x1334px

>>735800497
Also, since I'm a mobile fag and cheated anyway, let me ruin the magic with the proof of the question. X=30

File: 20170614_172514.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>735800657
Clearer picture.

>>735801096
Proofs have been posted multiple times over in this thread, retards are still claiming that it is unsolvable/has infinite solutions.

>>735800869
Do it, show him

>>735794570
This is correct and the farthest you can solve this polygon.

>>735800655
OK, but where does Y come from in this situation, the only 110 there is, that i can see, is the two inside angles in the middle which can easily be defined by the 70 angle you get from 50 and 60

>>735799689
Well I forgot but this genius' got it..
>>735801163

>>735793669
I believe this might be solvable. I'm shitting, don't have pen and paper, but if we set that top, horizontal line length equal to 1, then we should be able to calculate the lengths of the two outer edges that are each at 80 degrees with respect to that line. From there we should be able to calculate the locations of the corners of the mystery triangle. Great, I got on here for a poop-and-jack and now I want to do some math.

I'm going to take a stab at it, even if it has already been solved.

>>735801949
But there is no measurement, and it isn't to scale in the first place

>>735800647
This cant be right, in the top right you have 60, 20, 10 which equals 90 degrees, then you have another 90 degrees which would put line 50-60 parallel with line x-y which is obviously not true,

>>735802148
It doesn't matter if there is a defined length given because we can just make one, just set the top line equal to 1 then just use trig, even if its not drawn properly we aren't taking any measures from the image just using defined angles e.g.
>>735796130

>>735801733
>>735801163
Yeah but I still cant tell what I'm looking at :I

lol @ all the sheer retards here claiming this can't be solved. How inflated sense of your own intelligence do you need to have to think that if YOU can't solve it, then it must be unsolvable?

>>735794425
Your 130 angles are wrong. They should be 110.

It's fully constrained, it can definitely be solved.

MORE DIAGRAMS.

You have to show working.

File: solveforx.png (62KB, 536x743px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 536x743px

Computer solved for me, too lazy to work it out but it is absolutely solvable. This was done in SolidWorks,black lines indicate the line is fully defined/constrained. I had to enter a length for one of the lines to constrain it, but the angles would be the same for any length. Black dimensions are driving (i.e. ones I entered manually). Gray dimensions are driven/resultant.

>>735804102
(and the orange color of the length dimension just indicates that I had clicked on it or hovered the mouse over it - it's a black dimension, since I entered it manually).

File: nearly solved x.jpg (59KB, 900x442px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 900x442px

>>735793669

>>735804298
Dude just give any side a length, since you not solving a length it will translate back into an an angle just fine.

>>735804592
>>735796130
I can't understand why people wont go the extra step.

>>735804745
You should be able to solve the angles without needing a length. Length helps but it isn't necessary to solve for the angles.

>>735801949
I got x=40 degrees

>>735805587
It's definitely 30, see >>735804102

>>735805074
True, but the point I was trying make is that it IS solvable. And that people either don't recognize or refuse to acknowledge information that is there even if it isn't written out explicitly.

nunya can do it by just using mspaint n mouse y'all need pen n paper

>>735805587
god damn it I misread a variable

File: IMG_20170614_185142.jpg (1MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3264px

Where did I go wrong

can use compass to solve ?or not allowed

>>735807018
>can use compass to solve
Yes, this will work

>>735807032
Nice job copypasting from the last time this puzzle was posted.

>>735807018
>>735807082
Assuming the image is drawn with proper angles (which it actually is).
But that also induces measured error, so beware. If you can its best to solve using math and definitions, instead of direct measurements.

>>735798996
Yeah, this works. Props for disproving all the retards who claimed there is "not enough information" and that the problem is unsolvable/has infinite solutions.

>>735806956
When you were born

I have an oral exam in religious studies tomorrow. What the fuck am I even doing here

>>735807270
no , i meant as in to involve 2x in a isosceles triangle where you kno the obtuse and get 2x=a knon degree therefor x= half of it but i cant be arsed to do it.

>>735808593
can also split segments in half and draw a bissectile with compass but i dont have one here

>>735807270
thats it eh generally ?

>>735793669
you might try with a problem that isn't for people in middle school

>>735797794
I got this as well before opening the thread, dunno why people feel the need to use more information than is given than numbers in the problem, though

>>735794838

that is a solution
the number set fit to the equation y = -x +110

>>735798056

the answer would be a number set since you have two unknowns and only one unique equation

>>735807252
You are so clever

>>735805900
nice!

File: IMG_3072.jpg (89KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1000x1000px

solved you stupid faggots. lrn2math

>>735810693
Are you serious?

>>735811204
yes.

x=~28.5

File: IMG_3073.jpg (58KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1000x1000px

>>735811204

>>735797003
Except there are no isosceles or equilateral triangles in this problem.

>>735793669
50 degrees.

File: Screenshot (142).png (240KB, 1984x1328px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1984x1328px

>>735807270
found it, its 50 degrees - 20 degrees =30 degrees as demonstrated here in the same configuration but with slightly different angles


I mean I found the solution not only to it but to ALL problems of this kind , pretty neat huh ? without actually solving it . That's very canny :D

SHOLVED

>>735798489
The problem is that because you have to make an assumption you can't prove it.

there is only one answer, and that is x equals 30. you solve it by intersecting the 2 segments pointing down, this way making a 80 80 20 triangle, then draw a line through the 30 angle so the whole angle will be 20 10 50. from here, all you need to do is some congruences and sums of angles

File: IMG_3392.jpg (37KB, 309x442px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 309x442px

Got this far with vertical angles theorem and 180/360 rules

>>735811793

I know 30 is a solution but is it the only solution that fits, too lazy to do it myself

try 40 and see if it fails

>>735796056
underrated post

>>735812263
im too lazy too, i just found it solved for different angle but if you substitute our data the result is 30

>>735800348
The problem is that you can't define X as a single answer. As long as 0<X<110 it's technically valid even if it's absurd. As a result, you can't prove X is anything.

>>735812460
haha /pol/ is always right :P

>>735801238
>>735801096
That proof has nothing to do with this problem.

>>735811231
>>735811443
And that is why you fail.

>>735812596
Yes it does, as >>735800497 pointed out. I guess drawing something upside down makes it too difficult for you to recognize, how does it feel being that retarded?

>>735812460

a set of solutions is still a solution

x:0<x<110 is technically an answer

>>735801238

that's not a proof, working an answer does imply no other answers

Holy shit this thread is full of morons. Anyone with the slightest bit of mathematical intuition can spot in two seconds that the figure is fully defined by the four angles given and that there therefore is only one possible value for x. I took the time to calculate a general solution based on the laws of sines and cosines, here faggots:

x = arcsin(sin(b + c) / sqrt(sin^2(a) * sin^2(c) * csc^2(d) * csc^2(a + b + c) + 2 * csc(a) * sin(c) * sin(d) * cos(b + c) * csc(a + b + c) + 1))

Where in this case a = 30°, b = 50°, c = 60° and d = 20°. Giving x = 30°.

>>735812859
it is a technical answer

>>735813004
Hope this is bait. "2 + 2 = 4". "That doesn't prove that 5 couldn't also be an answer."

File: SpacePirateAstroph.gif (68KB, 331x330px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 331x330px

>>735813084
pff, overkill

>>735813216
This is less 2+2=4 and more 2+N=X

>>735813216

and 1 + 1 can equal 10... what's your point?