How smart are you, /b/?

70 d

>>736757574
No it doesn't make sense faggot

>>736757360
It's been 14 years since I took geometry in high school. I probably could have solved this back then.

>>736757360
x = y

x = 0

x is all solutions

can't be done. this was created by a cunt

>>736757947
yes it can

25

60

>>736757360
30°

>>736757360
I'm shit at math but it should be around 30

File: Untitled.png (54KB, 364x453px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 364x453px

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=60+%2B+20+%2B+50+%2B+180+-+x+-+70+%2B+x+%2B+40+%2B+30+%2B+50+%3D+90*4

>>736757360
Well, we're waiting....
>>736758162
>>736758168
>>736758193
>>736758311

File: fuck-me.jpg (38KB, 309x537px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 309x537px

>>736758431

x cant be anything

>>736757360
30 degrees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQc-54hQ8kw
look how smart i am i can use google

File: 1498273428220.jpg (88KB, 746x668px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 746x668px

>>736757360
35

>>736758969
Where did you get that 75?

>>736758391

>>736758969
>>736759232
Wait He did (180 - 30) / 2 = 75, you cant just assume the 2 angles are equal?

10 degrees

>>736757360
30

>>736757947
youre wrong dummy
lrn2geometry

File: 1498273428220.jpg (71KB, 740x568px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 740x568px

As far as i can get without assuming angles

File: P_20170624_003747.jpg (1MB, 4096x3072px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4096x3072px

Idk if it counts as cheating but using a ruler + compass I could solve it.

>>736760052
it doesnt count as cheating, it counts as wrong
youre foolishly assuming the angles in the problem are correctly drawn

>>736758522
as far as i got as well

>>736760052
yeah, it's cheating, in fact it doesn't have one solution for x, cause you can draw the bottom right corner following the diagonal line varying the x angle and conserving the originals angles.

>>736760368
>>736759924
extend it into a bigger triangle niggers

80, 60 plus 20 is 80. those added up are congruent to x, as you can see with the congruent angle marker. This problem is shit though and obviously not drawn to scale.

>>736760507
im not talking about scale the whole thing, imagine you drag the bottom right corner, you still got the angles from the image but x is change, therefore x you can make x as big as you want

File: P_20170624_004819.jpg (2MB, 4096x3072px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4096x3072px

>>736760336
Well, not if you have these handy dandy tools. I'm a Civil Engineer student.

>>736760889
> needing those to do a simple geometry problem

How's feenix yuniversitee?

30

>>736761143
Well, be my guest, noble gentleman, prove it with algebra and trigonometry then.

0<x<110

>>736761775
As far as I got, too.

>>736761523
well, its a shit problem. technically its 80 because its saying x is congruent to the other 2 angles (30 + 50) or (60 + 20) which are both 80. its a bad problem.

might be wrong tho

>>736761870
that's because there are infinite solutions as long as that's true

>>736761902
you are

>>736758969
Wrong. You cant assume that the left big triangle is isosceles.

>>736760368
>>736760778
Bullshit, that would change the 20 degree angle.

>>736761929
either not good at math or don't know what infinite means

Got 55°.

>>736762083
nah

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

51KB, 482x377px

>>736760368
>>736760778
>>736761929
Fucking dumbasses

>>736762426
there are is an infinite set of numbers between 0 and 110. Angles don't have to be whole numbers you dumb fuck

>>736762426
No, that anon made a correct statement. There are an infinite number of solutions to 0 < x < 110.
> not all numbers are integers

Ugh, this is going to be some big huge "law of cosines" problem, huh.

>>736762785
there is literally no way to do a cosine with the information given

File: math solution.png (59KB, 644x474px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 644x474px

>>736757360
here you go now fuck off

>>736757360
It has to be 30 d

File: picard.jpg (90KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1440x1080px

>>736763049
>180-110=40
Impressive level of retardation on display there. Wrong answer too.

>>736763049
You're assuming an isosceles triangle

>>736760052
This is the correct solution. Thank you for thinking outside the box.

>>736763218
piss off it's 5am for me

>>736758391
THIS IS THE ONLY CORRECT MATHMATICAL SOLUTION.

>>736757651
No, he's saying the OP wants 70 d's.

>>736761902
You are wrong

>>736763049
Why are you assuming that it is an isosceles triangle? Protip: you can't

>>736764165
so you're gonna tell me im wrong without saying why? okay.

it's 30. Any other answer and you are retarded. I am a red seal machinist and do this all day long when I create drawings. I machine Hydraulic cylinders and engineer CnC Aircraft parts using mills, lathes, verticles, and boring mills.

>>736764809
go machine yourself a dildo.

File: (45).png (87KB, 965x399px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 965x399px

>>736764809

Mathematician here. The answer is X=30°
Thank me later.

draw the equilateral triangle and find 30

File: 1495477577303.jpg (41KB, 500x313px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x313px

Wow you guys are dumb. It's pretty obvious that it's 60, and if you didn't figure this out within like 5 min just kys.
Let me explain to you snowflakes why:
The whole thing is a rectangle, the sum of its angles therefore has to be 360. We got 80 in each top corner (50+30 and 60+20), now that leaves us with 160, 200 remaining. take the 200 and split it in 2, because if the other two are symmetric then the remaining ones have to be as well in order to logically connect as a rectangle. Now just take the angles we have already (instead of going for the ones in the centre as some of you autistic horses tried) meaning the left part of the top left corner (20) + the WHOLE bottom right corner (which is 100) gives you 120, and boom only 60 (=x) left to 180 (total sum in a triangle).

Get on my level faggots

File: 55.png (57KB, 528x443px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 528x443px

One true solution right here

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

>>736766268
Already been posted, faggot: >>736758681

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

24KB, 456x297px

>>736765916
>not even a single fucking angle is 90 degrees
>"rectangle"
kys, faggot

>>736765074
Fuck anon you beat me I was turning my pc to graph it on autocad too. This is the real answer.

>>736760052
This is correct. Congrats!

>>736760052
While you can mirror the one triangle to the lower-right, you have not shown it forms a straight line with the other line, so you can't assume the 3 angles sum to 180.

>>736765964
Can it be done without trigonometry?

File: c41ae792914cf5fc9f6acef48d6c077ce2ca9f0048eced59e59c859845a5072e.png (11KB, 500x590px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 500x590px

>>736766659
Do you look like this? If so then yes.

>>736765964
No

>>736766582
He didn't assume, he drew so it would be 180.

>be me, 13 yrs old
>parents honestly think i'm a fucking potato
>go to a weird building where a lady tells me that i'm going to take a test
>takes 4 fucking hours of puzzles and other stupid shit.
>this is just a fucking test to see how smart i am.
> areyoufuckingwithme.jpg
>tell test giver that my parents find me to be a potato but i always felt otherwise
>"no, anon! they don't think that low of you!"

fast forward a few days later
>results are in
>mom starts boasting about how smart i am finally
>i don't fucking care about the number
>"no, really, anon!" mom says, "it's really high!"
>i don't care about the number

years pass by, time to move out of house.
>check through my stuff and find that stupid IQ test bullshit.
>135
>a fucking number is all it took to prove to my mom and dad that i wasn't a fucking idiot
>they still treat me like an idiot
>the numbers never mattered in the first place.....

>>736757360
Tomato

X+Y(lower right) = 110, that much is known.
Except the shape has no room to change at all.
Every other angle is defined.
Giving it an arbitrary size of 10 at the left side(the shape, presumably, is scalable; it could have any real number as a measure) we delve further using trigonometry:
Applying the laws of sines and cosines we calculate the upper line, lower left diagonal, right line and finally lower right diagonal, all to scale, then the lower line.Finally, x equals (approximately) 29.977 degrees.
It's probably 30º then.
Prove me wrong(really, try other initial line sizes, higher precision, other methods).

180 = x + y + 70
110 = x + y
110 - y = x

180 = 30 + (40 + x) + y
150 - y = (40 + x)
110 - y = x

180 = x + (y + 50) + 20
160 - x = (y + 50)
110 - x = y

Anyone who gives an actual answer that's not
>>736757899
or
>>736758391
Goofed real bad.

30 degrees. I'm too far from school for cute tricks, so I used:

1) Basic triangle properties to get all the angles except x and 110-x
2) Law of sines to get all the sides except the bottom line
3) Law of cosines to get the bottom side
4) Law of sines to get x and 110-x

X=30 degrees

>>736768035
except the problem did not give you a side you faggot

>>736768035

Same, maths proven, at least we don't need software and rulers huh?

>>736768230
The length of the first side is irrelevant if all you need to deliver is the angles. Set the top line equal to 1, figure everything based on that. The angles remain the same regardless of the actual value.

Learn math.

File: idiot.jpg (62KB, 600x386px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x386px

>>736767935
>>736768230
Retards

File: 1491082595972.gif (511KB, 352x232px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 352x232px

>>736767894
Nice.

>>736767894
I didn't see your post, I used the same methods (more or less) and got exactly 30 degrees.

>>736768585
Nevermind, I can't assume an angle of 90º in E is continuous with the bottom line of the rectangle. 30º is likely correct instead.

>>736768917
You had more errors than just that. Y is 80 degrees by the way you set up E, and tells you nothing about x or Z.

File: tez.png (42KB, 887x513px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 887x513px

was this supposed to be hard???

>>736769299
If you (a) want an exact answer and (b) can't assume that the drawing is accurately drawn wrt to angles, then it is tedious but not hard. Otherwise you can do as you did and give a program the question and accept the approximate answer, which is easy.

>>736769269
Did I invert Y and Z when I gave the values? Because otherwise, while the assumption was strictly an assumption, and hence not a solution at all, WITHIN the assumption the value of Y was already given as 80º, and tells me about Z, and consequently X, because within the assumption Z+Y+50º=180º.

It is exactly because Z+Y+50º does not necessarily translate to 180º there that it is wrong and merely an assumption, but that does mean it is not a further error, but merely a logical extension of that one.

>>736769881
Draw it and post, showing Y and Z explicitly, and we can talk coherently.

>>736766888
Check'd

>>736768721
Yeah, I have this cheap calculator and lost some part of whatever I got along the way because sines.

I feel like a thread like this is a good way to get your homework solved

>>736757360
80 per the arcs indicating congruence.

Without knowing a couple of side lengths, this can't be solved. The bottom two angles depend on the lengths of the left and right sides of the shape, so there are infinite possibilities given the information we have. Obviously you could measure it yourself, but that's not the point of the exercise, and things like this aren't always drawn to scale to prevent that kind of solution. Anyone saying otherwise is wrong.

>>736770546
There is no congruence indicated.

>>736770603
Wrong. All you need is one side, and it can be arbitrarily selected since the angles are not explicitly dependent on it - all the triangles scale linearly the same.

The Law of Sines says that if you have 2 angles and 1 opposing side, you can figure out the other opposing side, and you can repeat for the 3rd side if you have the 3rd angle. You can solve all the triangles except the bottom one this way.

The Law of Cosines says that if you know any 3 of the 3 angles and any 1 side, you can solve for the unknown. If you know the top angle of the bottom triangle and the 2 sides shared by the side triangles you can solve for the bottom side.

Then use the Law of Sines again for the remaining angles.

Easy.

>>736771062
Sorry, when I said a couple I didn't literally mean 2. This is correct.

File: Drawing.png (73KB, 1695x924px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1695x924px

>>736770282

>>736771330
Your error wasn't in assuming that you needed any particular number of the sides, your error was in thinking that the angle x was actually dependent on the actual value of any of the sides.

>>736760052
This is the correct answer.

>>736771776
Obviously it isn't dependent if they're all scaled together, but what I was trying to point out was that if the left and right side lengths were changed while the top length remained the same, the angle would vary correspondingly. I never said it was dependent on the scale of the image.

>>736771522
I see. Yes, your math presumed that the top and bottom lines were parallel, possible if the drawing was poorly rendered, but if that WAS true then the answer could be had by inspection. Plus, the assumption was false. But yes, you had only the one big error that you then propagated.

>>736771998
If "the left and right side lengths were changed while the top length remained the same" the given angles would also change and the question would become invalid. If the given angles are accurate, then the sides must ALL scale identically.

>>736772259
I very specifically mentioned that diagrams like these aren't necessarily to scale... If the diagram were perfect, it could always be simply measured and would defeat the purpose. I'm not saying it's not accurate, but I'm saying images like these don't have to be.

File: 1498273428220.jpg (34KB, 309x442px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 309x442px

as far as I could get

>>736772573
And I am saying that none of this is dependent on the drawing being to scale.

Ignore the drawing that we are actually given and consider the actual shape we are analyzing, drawn correctly. If the topmost side is held constant and the lengths of the sides of the bottom triangle are allowed to vary then the angles enumerated at the top of the image must also vary.

Put another way, the ratio of ANY two sides on this image are set by the angles given. If the angles remain constant then all the sides scale identically. This has nothing to do with how the image has been drawn, just basic geometry.

>>736772573
In simpler terms: since the sides aren't labeled, they could be of any length. You're assuming they need to scale together for the image to be correct, but since the lengths are unknown anyway, the angles are unknown, and so your premise is invalid.

>>736758522
you can set up a second equation using the quadralateral where the sum of all the corner angles is 360, two equations two unknowns. You dont even need to do that though.

>>736773149
You misunderstood me. I'm not talking about the lengths of the sides of the bottom triangle. I'm talking about the far left and far right sides of the entire shape. And yes, changing those lengths would change the angle x. But this could be done without changing any of the provided angles. That's all I'm getting at here. Providing only one side would lock us into one angle x, regardless of the length. I was suggesting that hypothetically the side lengths of the shape could be changed arbitrarily, changing the result. I was trying to show that the problem has no answer as currently provided.

>>736773346
"In simpler terms: since the sides aren't labeled, they could be of any length."

Yes.

"You're assuming they need to scale together for the image to be correct"

Yes, but it isn't an assumption. Look up "similar triangles" - if the angles are fixed, the sides all vary by the same factor.

"since the lengths are unknown anyway, the angles are unknown."

Patently false. The absolute lengths are unknown and irrelevant, but the relative lengths are constant if the angles are constant. And the angles provided are adequate to exactly calculate those that are not.

Good luck, I'm out.

>>736773744
Didn't you see >>736770810 ? Give it up mate, the guy is clearly trolling, no one is this retarded. And if he is this retarded, you're wasting your time trying to explain anything to him.

>>736773805
it's not bait, there is a legitimate way to solve this, i'm searching archives to try and find the image with the answer. I didn't save it sadly.

>>736773704
False.

Let's say you extended the right most side, adjacent to the indicated 20 degree angle. Extending that would move the bottom right intersection, changing the angle labelled as 50 degrees and invalidating the problem.

>>736773704
Are you retarded? Changing the far left and far left sides of the shape would change ALL FOUR of the provided angles. The only thing that would remain the same is that the sum of each pair would still add up to 80 degrees each.

>>736773905
It has already been given on this thread. X=30. Do the math, it checks out.

>>736773905
The fact that there are legitimate ways to solve this supports the fact that it's bait: He claims there is no legitimate solution.

File: TheAnswer.jpg (640KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 1200x1600px

>>736774061
I know that it equals 30 but no one gave the correct and proper solution. I found the image after scouring the archives.

>>736774159
The YouTube video that was posted twice is also a correct and proper solution.

File: answer.jpg (24KB, 309x442px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 309x442px

>>736757360
Did I get it?

>>736773744
The angles could be misleadingly drawn, such that it is, in fact, an impossible picture given the angles listed.

It doesn't seem that way, though, as if you draw the two descending sides all the way down, the picture as a whole forms an 80 80 20 triangle.

>>736774159
So it does require trigonometry.

>>736774159
This is the solution using an arbitrary length of one side and the application of the Laws of Sines and Cosines. This has been given by at least 2 posters here already. They are the same solution, just like

A × B + A × C = D
A × (B + C) = D

Are also the same solution.

>>736774619
I imagine there is a solution using strictly geometric arguments.

Say does anyone know how much trig was in Euclid's Elements?

>>736774638
i know now there are other solutions, i just saw this one posted by two separate people in in separate threads

>>736774555
The accuracy of the drawing has nothing to do with the solution, there is a single solution described by the general shape and given angles. Arguing that the drawing could be so far off that the question is invalid (for example, by changing the number of intersections and triangles) is utterly pointless.

>>736774756
about 5 trig, or maybe it was 8 im not sure

>>736774848
It is all the same solution, it is just a small reordering of the steps.

File: 1450211521970.jpg (47KB, 483x611px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 483x611px

So this is what STEMlords do for fun...

I think I'll stick with saving the world, please.

>or should I say: you're welcome

>>736774911
wut

File: niggerProveMeWrong.jpg (26KB, 309x442px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 309x442px

PROVE ME WRONG NIGGERS.

X = 40

File: 30-fucking-degrees.gif (153KB, 1632x798px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1632x798px

>>736757360
Here's the real fucking solution

>>736774756
You could probably solve it geometrically by the exact same method, substituting the trigonometric terms with the ratios they represent, but I'm not going to write it all out to be sure.

>>736774877
This is why I figured out it was an 80 80 20 triangle if you extended the figure downward. My first effort was to make sure the two upper angles did not exceed 180.

I can't rule out deeper issues along those lines though. My next step, if I weren't so lazy, would be to double-check the drawing by recreating it using a protractor and ruler to make sure you got a figure similar to what is shown, precisely to verify that what you say is true.

>>736774998
this bait???

>>736775115
That is a solution such as Archimedes would have derived, and is dependent on the given angles having a precise relationship, whereas the trigonometric solution requires only that the shape be consistent and that the values of at least those 4 angles are given (or some other set). But it is elegant.

File: file.png (927B, 44x21px) Image search: [Google]

927B, 44x21px

>>736775083
I'm still waiting on someone to prove me wrong. You don't need a long drawn out formula for any of this. There are 9 triangles that have to make 180°. If you look at my solution, you'll see my superior solution is correct and proper.

>>736775211
Your suggested next step might be valid if the problem as presented was unsolvable... But it is solvable with minimal difficulty.

>>736775635
If it weren't2:00am I would bro. Good night

>>736775635
The bottom triangle is not isosceles. The 70 degree opposite angles are correct, but the other 70 degree angle is incorrect. It is actually 80 degrees, and x is 30 degrees. Several posts here explain why these must be the right values. It can be done in a pretty straightforward manner using the law of cosines, but it can also be solved using elementary methods in a more convoluted fashion as shown in the video.

>>736775635
You're an idiot. Your left most triangle (with 30 degrees at the apex) would have 30+70+40+40=190 degrees. And the 70 appears arbitrary in your method.

>>736776004
>Your left most triangle (with 30 degrees at the apex) would have 30+70+40+40=190 degrees.
Check your math, bro. His solution is wrong, but your explanation is worse.

>>736776004

Do you know how I can tell you're a nigger?

>>736776114
Yep. My bad. Apparently too tired to math any longer.

>>736757360
x=40

No single solution. All x's in the interval ]0°; 110°[ work as solutions.

File: sdsdf.jpg (779KB, 4000x1876px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 4000x1876px

>>736757360
show me my mistake

>>736778445
You're using side lengths when there are none to use.

File: Cs-4XAeUAAAS8V3.jpg-large.jpg (311KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1536x2048px

>>736778445
you overcomplicated things you retorted fucktart idiot cuck

>>736778633
i set one of the side lengths to 1 and standardized everything. no prob

>>736778633
He's just setting the left side equal to 1. There's nothing wrong with that. You can pick any unit you like.

The actual mistake is hard to find because I can't read his cramped, faint pencil writing in that out-of-focus image.

>>736778445
shit i found an error. i used the pythagorean theorem instead of the law of cosine. Real answer should be arcsin(sin(40)*sin(20)/(sin(110)*sin(60))*(1/(sqrt((sin(30)/sin(110))^2+(sin(40)*sin(20)/(sin(110)*sin(60)))^2-2(sin(30)/sin(110))(sin(40)*sin(20)/(sin(110)*sin(60)))cos(70))))*sin(70)) which equals 30 degrees.

fuuuuuck me

sfsfdsdf

File: langley adventitious angles.png (91KB, 650x915px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 650x915px

You don't need any trig, just some imagination.

>>736782572
yeah, or google

Call y other angle in triangle with x (lowest triangle). There are infinite solutions as 110=x+y is found to be the only constraint.

>>736782928
>confidently asserting that the question is impossible without even reading the thread

>>736783095
never said impossible. You fail linear algebra?

>>736782572
false, with your solution the sum of the angle of the triangle with X is egal to 170° instead of 180°

>>736783513

No, you didn't add the 10 degrees between the blue and the 50

>>736783513
It is not.

>>736782928
this is correct

>>736783675
Some dude called me out saying I didn't even read the thread, but if you look at many of the possible solutions proposed in the thread they are in agreement with my statement. Thanks.

Come on OP atleast include some side lengths

File: langley adventitious angles.png (86KB, 650x915px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 650x915px

>>736783513

here, I made it a little clearer

>>736784097
Not the full answer. It is only one of many.

>>736759651
Nice, you got it

>>736784332
Once again, no. 30 is not the answer.

>>736784317

No, it's not. You can solve it the pain-in-the-ass way with trig, but this "infinite solutions" thing is fucking retarded.

Not smart enough.

>>736784456
I see you don't seem to understand math. Try again.

>>736757360
X=40

>>736757360

180 - 2 = 178 because there are 360 degrees and - 2 is the same as the other part that x isn't. QED.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz3St5ywbuU

It takes some determined retardation to claim that there are infinite solutions. Anyone with the slightest bit of mathematical intuition can spot in two seconds that the figure is completely defined by the four angles given and that it therefore has no room to change. Hence, x can only have one value.

>>736784508

Then post another valid answer

>>736784674
Try again. Wrongo

>>736784686
Already posted all of them.

>>736784718
Prove it, faggot

>>736784760
I think that's your job, or are your jimmies rustled?

>>736784855
I rest my case.

>>736784896
Rustled lel.

There is only one solution and it is 60.
Everyone who says otherwise is a retard and porbably didn't even finish high school.

its 30

>>736785204
Wrong bud. Try again.

>>736785254
Wrong meng. You close tho.

File: but is off by 5 tho.png (682KB, 1440x2392px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 1440x2392px

>>736763049
Sorry for bad draw
Try plug in and complete 360°\180°

>>736773055
180-80=100
100-50=50
x+70+50=180
x=60

Why are people still arguing about this? The correct solution was posted as early as >>736758681.

>>736785392
Wrong.

>>736785258
Do I need to show you?

>>736785459
How so?

>>736785372
Wrong.

>>736780050
See
>>736785283

>>736785470
No, for you are wrong.

>>736785372
Try plug in to complete 360° on all angles

File: ney.png (1MB, 1440x2392px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x2392px

>>736785372

>>736785204
See
>>736785875
Try plug in to complete 360°

>>736785608
it seems correct?

>>736785978
100+100+80+80=360

>>736783239
>never said impossible. You fail linear algebra?
Have you gone back and read the thread yet to realize your error?
x = 30° is the only solution.

>>736786147
It is not, try again.

110 is not 120

>>736786185
I don't know if you're trolling, but if somehow you're not, you do understand that triangles are not only constrained by the sum of angles property, right?

I mean for fuck's sake . . .

Definitely looks like 30 just from looking at the other 30

Or let me put it another way. Show me how you can alter the measures of x and the adjacent undetermined angle in the diagram without altering any other angle. Don't just type some condescending piece of shit response, draw a picture.

>>736785479
Note that I never got an answer to this. Because obviously the video posted is correct.

>>736757360
Those two angles down there need to add up to 180 degrees. Neither of those angles are 90. Even if it's not drawn to scale, it's clear that it was made by some cunt to cause confusion and arguments.

Go somewhere else.

>>736786467
I really think math is not your strong suit. Try harder and maybe you will see.

>>736785986
>>736786095
Nevermind

>>736782928
This goy right, any # plug in will work.

>>736786579
Note that I try not to talk to autists.

>>736786532
>>736786147
>>736785459
>>736785279
See
>>736786689

>>736765916
>what's a trapezoid
kys

>>736786532
The side lengths are not fully constrained. Learn math think about pulling the corners with x and y. Think damn you.

>>736786945
Yes they are. See >>736773996

A triangle can only be 180 degrees

File: 1498273428220.jpg (34KB, 309x442px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 309x442px

>>736757360
Infinite solutions 0 < x < 110º, such as x + y = 110.

E.g.
x = 30
y = 80

x = 40
y = 70

etc.

Stupid people.

>>736786689
>>736786872
Actually, any number less than 110

>>736787119
Wrong.

>>736787016
Bud, I know I am right. Think about moving the bottom right corner out. The 40 degrees in the triangle above this corner is fixed. So are all the other known angles. The two bottom unknowns, angles x and y, are free to change as length varies. Read a book.

>>736787119
I said this a while ago. People don't get spatial maths.

>>736787169
He is right tard.

>>736787251
Hope you're trolling. Moving the bottom right corner would obviously change the 20 degree angle.

>>736787312
Wrong again.

>>736787251
Why don't you DRAW A GODDAMN PICTURE if it's that easy? As I said, drop your shitty air of superiority and actually show what you claim is obvious. Give two different pictures in which all the angles except the two unknown angles are the same, but those two unknowns are different.

While you're at it, why don't you find the flaw in the reasoning of the professor of mathematics explaining the unique answer to this famous geometry problem?

The 30 angl and 20 angle share the same arc so they would have to be the same angle. It's not possible

>>736785392
>Why are people still arguing about this?
You must be new here.

>>736786945
>The side lengths are not fully constrained.
Of course not. There is one degree of freedom. You can scale all the side lengths by any factor without changing any of the angles. What you can't do is change the length of any one side by a different factor than any other.

>>736757360
The answer is 15 because it looks slightly bigger than the other one

>>736787251
Wtf are you talking about? There is no 40 degree angle in the triangle above the bottom right corner.

>>736787415
Because my logic is stated in the thread. I don't need to repeat myself swine. Learn to read.

>>736787775
Meant left. My apologizes.

>>736787829
Troll confirmed.

For those who still think there is more than one solution, consider moving the bottom right corner. If you don't move it along the line of the diagonal, then either the 50 or 30 degree angle in the upper left will change. If you don't move it along the line of the right side, the 20 degree angle will change. Because the diagonal and right side cannot be colinear, and because they lie in a Euclidean plane, the lines they lie on can intersect only once. Therefore there is no other point at which the bottom right corner can lie without changing one of the stated angles.

>>736787925
Moving the bottom left corner also necessitates changing at least one of the four given angles. If you move it by extending or shortening the line that splits the top right corner, then you change the 30 degree angle. If you instead move it by extending or shortening the far left side of the figure, then you change both the 60 and 20 degree angles. Any other kind of movement, and you change all three of those angles.

>>736788220
False, try again. I know math can be tough, but is it really that tough for you?

>>736788440
Explain how it's false

>>736788476
I already did...are you capable of reading?

>>736763369
then don't fucking answer

Here's the Wikipedia article on this famous problem, for those interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley%E2%80%99s_Adventitious_Angles

>>736765964
it's 30 you stupid fuck

>>736774756
you can, all you need to do is construct reflections and go on from there

>>736788547
Where?

File: triangles.png (109KB, 1547x915px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1547x915px

it only looks like there are infinite solutions because the second constraint is not obvious

>>736789414
It only looks like there are infinite solutions to retards who don't know shit about math.

>>736758969
you can't assume that the angles are equal

>>736788735
Congrats, you appear to have shut up all the "infinite solutions" morons and trolls.

>>736789677
Lol took you retards long enough to explicate the obvious fallacy. All these tards just screaming "prove it." I love watching you guys get your jimmies rustled.

>>736789637
Although the argument is hard to follow from that illustration, he is constructing isosceles triangles and using the property that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. The youtube video above gives a step-by-step explanation.

File: retarded.png (331KB, 600x1081px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 600x1081px

kek, lots of low level trolling in this thread

>>736789074
No response. Guess he lied about having already explained it.

>>736767935
the anwser will be x+y everytime
the brackets ,() or how the these things are called, have no effect , because they are worthless when adding only

File: sol.webm (911KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

911KB, 1280x720px

The answer is 30 degrees

Only 40 makes sense

Mfw tards fighting over there no specification on if drawn to scale and for the civil engineer give me the name of who and where you work so I can never step foot in or on anything you have touched

File: act.jpg (1MB, 680x1671px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 680x1671px

>>736789798
>claimed in tons of posts to have the only correct solution
>now that solution is an "obvious fallacy"
Also, "explicate". kys

>>736790856
Rustled

I'll just leave this here:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/interior-angles-polygons.html

Im a nigger https://youtu.be/v9cLR7FHon4