How smart are you, /b/?

30

60 sry

35

>>736249918
x= filthy jew

>>736249918
It can be any number between 0 and 90
As long as the angle to the right is 90-x

>>736251845
Lol retard. Look at the angles bottom left. 50 degree angle is smaller than 40

>>736251935
>implying the angles on the drawing are relevant in any way

it's the numbers that count, you fucking autist

Smart enough to ignore this problem and move on.

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

32KB, 309x442px

I got to here, and I do not believe we have enough information to continue.

>>736252164
Though it does ask the question: HOW did you get 50 degrees and 60 degrees as the angles of the bottom triangle?

Can anyone explain the step after solving the angles 70, 40 and 50? I have an exam soon and stuff like this is gonna pop up.

It can be 60 or 50
>>736252278
60 would work for you
But 50 works for
>>736251845

>>736252378
Gcse maths m8. Are you 12?

>>736252353
educated guess, since >>736252278 is correct in saying that there's not enough information to continue purely mathematically, or if there is, then it's some retarded theorem that you learn once in high school and never use again in your entire life

>>736252491
This

>>736252491
as the guy who got 50, this

fucking 8th graders

File: 20170619_023035.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>736252715
How to get 60

>>736252278
This, you cannot proceed after this

but you do know that x + y (other unkown angle) = 180 - 70

meaning x+y = 110

so x could be 50
and y could be 60

or x could be 45
and y could be 65. whatever you want.

>>736249918
There are 8 triangles, faggots

>>736252534
You could've spent the same amount of energy just answering the fucking question. But instead, you chose to be a prick.

Are you 12?

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

51KB, 482x377px

>>736252857
No.

>found it
>>>/x/

>>736252923
prove him wrong then, faggot

File: fuck math draw more lines.png (63KB, 568x442px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 568x442px

Should be 55 unless I'm retarded.

>>736252534
No. For refference we also do taylor polynomials, but stuff like this is there for kicks and giggles, to test 'cleverness' i guess.

>>736251845
did you make 60 = y and did a SoE?

>>736253034
Oh shit, I've not thought about doing that. Looks like it checks out, too.

>>736253254
the fuck is SoE

35, but there's no way to know

>>736252857
lol there are other triangles to consider

>>736252491

It can't be 60. If it were then the quadrilateral would be cyclic, yet the top chord is subtended by a 40 and 50. Impossible!

>>736253034
on the bottom left side, how did you get 55 (the angle under x)

>>736253034
This makes no sense.

He's basically saying that because the opposite angle is 110, that x and the angle under it are both exactly half of 110. They are clearly different angles

The problem is 100% unsolveable

>>736253651
>>736253768

Meme magic lads.
X can literally be any number you want it to be and all the triangles work out under the one constraint that the other unknown angle is 110-X.
55 is just the nicest number.

It's blatantly clear that the whole figure is completely defined by the four angles given, meaning that x can have one and only one value. If you think x can have several values, try drawing two different versions of the figure with two different values of x with the four given angles remaining the same. It can't be done.

>>736253768
>>736253858
This. OP bamboozled us and is a filthy rotting nigger

>>736252278
Can law of sines or cosines be used to continue?

File: 71hjaSooVrL._SL1500_[1].jpg (165KB, 1500x829px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1500x829px

i got this

File: 1483997223491.png (376KB, 700x518px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 700x518px

>>736254014

>>736254098
Wrong. See >>736254014

>>736253034
why did you decide 130=55+75 and not 70+60 ?

>>736253034
You ARE retarded you dumb cuck

You have decided without proof that the angles adding up to 110 would be 55 and 55 and not any other number.

>>736254144

Yes they can. It boils down to (sin(30)sin(60))/(sin(40)sin(20)) = sin(x)/sin(110-x)

>>736254498

Which I just calculated is x = 30 degrees.

>>736254498
what sides are you using?

>>736254498
I... what?

Which law are you using?

>>736254498

also, had the wrong equation its sin(110-x)/sin(x)

>>736249918
35

>>736254716

Call the top a, the bottom b. Then by sine law

asin(60)/sin(40) = bsin(110-x)/sin(30)

and

asin(50)/sin(50) = bsin(x)/sin(30)

>>736254792
but you don't know the lengths of a or b

>>736254732
wtf is this law?

>>736254792

Oops, bsin(x)/sin(20) in the last equation. Which rearranges to b = asin(20)/sin(x). Plug into first equation, cancels a.

>>736254868

Sine law.

>>736254858

Don't need to, they'll cancel out in the end.

>>736254014
image not drawn to scale, so "size" of angles means nothing. I am a high school math teacher with a BS in pure mathematics.
>tl;dr
>I wasted my fucking education

>>736249918

30 degrees.

>>736255011

I also got a bachelors in pure math. also a masters and phd. Uni prof.

>>736255011
Hope you're trolling. Four of the angles have their sizes explicitly given, this has nothing to do with the image being drawn to scale.

>>736254485
actually, it looks like process of elimination.
With the other side, where the 50/130 lines were made, the non-x, unknown angle was determined to be 55, and the only angle that could fit 55 and 70 in a triangle would be 55.

>>736255083
regardless, in high school, we teach the students to disregard what the picture looks like. We even use pictures that not mathematically possible to drive home the idea of solving for unknowns using only geometric properties

>>736252857
All 4 angles in the quadrilateral equal 360.

Now you can solve.

>>736255124
the post I was replying to suggested it was "impossible" to draw the image with angles of different measures than anon was trying to prove. my point was that it doesnt matter what the angles "look" like

>>736255235

I'm not the guy from before. Just making friends!