How smart is /b/?

AT THE BOTTOM KEK

>>737857089
kek

>>737856447
is it 20?

>>737857209
the 20 at the top is way bigger than x

>>737857344
good point it was a shot in the daek

File: 1499211288940.png (9KB, 334x676px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 334x676px

There is no answer , just that x+y=130°

x=40

x < 40
as long as the second angle is obviously convex, the x has to be less than 180 - (50+90) = 40 degrees

>>737858680
Shit wp m8

ok, i admit this took me longer to figure out and i had to do it on paper

its 70

>>737856447
after I finished high school I swore to myself I would never do this shitty things again

Its 15

>>737859116
kek

File: 1499210378528AA...jpg (40KB, 334x676px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 334x676px

>>737856447

File: 1490997390863.jpg (99KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 640x480px

>>>/x/

File: easy.png (25KB, 467x658px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 467x658px

plebs

Bottom right

>>737859222

The Truth has been spoken

>>737859245
fuck how did i not relise it was this simple i bow to thie

File: 1491356785933.jpg (3KB, 125x89px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x89px

>>737859333

praise be upon you

>>737859441
luln

File: x=20.png (21KB, 372x481px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 372x481px

>>737857209
correct

>>737858350
>there is no answer
x can only take one value, regardless of the size of the triangles

File: F6OR3gg.png (45KB, 1468x671px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1468x671px

I did it. X = 20

>>737858350
lol at your reasoning

>>737857928
it was a good shot, you were right

X=purple or some shit

File: IMG_20170704_185838.jpg (70KB, 334x676px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 334x676px

>>737856447

>>737859603
>>737859660

all data you have is angles, you can't assume then that this picture is precise in the case of these angles and also of length of edges, all you can do is simple maths on values of other angles, where is your logic, /b/?

>>737859660

This is the only way to solve this. It's unsolvable when you only use the angles, similar to the Snellius–Pothenot problem.

File: DANMARK.jpg (158KB, 940x510px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 940x510px

>>737859660
YESSS!

>>737860045
Wrong. Solving it only with basic geometry is just more challenging.

>>737860017

That's not what he did. He chose 1 length at a certain value, then used the sine rule to find the others and eliminate lengths again from the equation. It's also the only way to solve this without drawing it.

>>737860017
Never did I assume the picture was precise. In case it wasn't obvious from my picture, I did NOT measure the angles, I calculated them. You should be able to do the same.

All angles in a triangle sum to 180. The angles that I used the same colors on are identical because they are mirrored. From there, any 5th grader should be able to reach the same values for the angles that I did. THEN it gets a little harder, if you use the method I did on the left. If you still don't think this proves it, I'll make a video.

File: one-of-the-hard-tough-only-for-genius-excellent-math-puzzles-problems-with-answer-solution-Pics-Hard-Math-Riddles-with-answer-solution-Pics~2.jpg (46KB, 437x353px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 437x353px

Now try this one

>>737860216

I'm waiting for your drawing where you explain how to solve it by only using angles.

>>737860017
>>737860416
I just realized you were probably referring to the length that I assumed. It doesn't matter as long as it's consistent. The length of a side in a triangle has no effect on its angles as long as the sides are proportionally the same. I simply made an assumption that didn't change anything because it'd be impossible (with my limited knowledge) otherwise.

>>737860456
I'd fucking love to know how to do that. Is it possible with the info we're given? (Assuming you can't do sine / cosine calculations in your head / on paper)

>>737860730
Yes it is.

>>737860449
14
no matter what bullshit someone wrote up there

>>737860799
How?

>>737860730

I'm expanding the drawing right now, but I'm afraid I'll end up with x + y = 130° again, since that's how the puzzle seems to work.

>>737860449
143546

>>737860599

ahhh, my bad, but you shouldn't use constant number, instead use something like any letter from the alphabet, a variable, not simply making it "ten", and I know the result will be the same, but, for the glory of Mathematics, make it more intuitive and beautiful, the less constants the better

>>737861073
143547* sorry, typo

>>737861073
explain pls

>>737861121
I see what you mean. I definitely should have done that to make it "cleaner".

>>737861159
Digits 1 and 2: a * b
Digits 3 and 4: a * c
Digits 5 and 6: a * b + a * c - b

File: Screenshot_2017-07-05-02-15-14-592_com.android.chrome.png (168KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1080x1920px

>>737861159

>>737861370
Too slow

>>737861360
>>737861370
dank u wel

>>737861439
Sorry

Bunch of fucking idiots
Extend the triangle downward.
X=10

File: far as i got.png (17KB, 810x676px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 810x676px

feeling pretty close, but cannot prove that bottom triangle is equilateral

File: file.png (30KB, 342x866px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 342x866px

>>737856447
Not possible without the inclusion of y

File: IMG_20170704_202154.jpg (246KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 2560x1440px

>>737860456
Moron

>>737856447
y

>>737859660
very clever. Assign an arbitrary length to one side then back solve. gj

>>737860823
This and nothing else

>>737861876

>can't solve 180-160
>calls other people morons

We must be on /b/

>>737861876
You're the idiot here. The bottom is not 30 degrees. Ask yourself what the sum of every triangles 3 angles is. Then do the fucking math. You have 2*80. 180 - 2*80 = 20. It's 20, which I already proved.
>>737859660

>>737862537

I gave it some thought and it's literally impossible to solve by relying on angles because it's impossible to find a triangle or quadrilateral where you can write x without y.

>>737862537
>>737861876
Look at the triangle. You have a 70 a 60 and a 20. 180 - 150=30. But that's only a piece of the bottom.

>>737862932
Wrong.

>>737863179

Wrong.

>>737863171
there's a 10, too

>>737863389
Prove it.

>>737863523

I told you why it's impossible. Now I'll wait for you to draw another sketch so sloppy you can't even find angles everybody else already found.

>>737863486
I know. Just pulling out the big triangle from the whole problem tho.

>>737863686
I'm not >>737861876, dumbass. And you haven't proven that it's impossible, you've merely stated that it is.

>>737863883
look again, consult a calculator if you need to.

The 10 is part of the big triangle.

>>737856447

https://www.duckware.com/tech/worldshardesteasygeometryproblem.html

So smart I can use google.

>>737856447
math teacher here the answer is

>>737864341
math professor here, can confirm the correct answer is

>>737864341
Go back to the Loli thread mr. Pedo we're trying changing the world here

X=40°

>>737856447
nah thanks, i'm good.

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

51KB, 482x377px

>>737858350
>>737860045
>>737860456
>>737861852
>>737862932
>>737863389
>>737863686
>I'm too dumb to solve it, therefore it's impossible
Fucking retards

>>737865835
My answer is 30 (I m the guy who posted the pic

>>737859660
>>737860045
>>737860094
>>737862092
>>737862537

You dont have any vertical angle to work with trig. numbers and you cant create one, as you dont know any of the lengths. All you can do is work with the sums of angles for each triangle and the sum of angles for crossing lines, only to be led in 3 triangles giving you the final equation: x+y=130 (the other unknown being the other angle in the small triangle).

File: 14992176050911682120441.jpg (1MB, 2160x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2160x2160px

>>737865191
Show its not impossible with angles given otherwise you're dumber than us

>>737866521
The solution has already been posted, you illiterate fuck: >>737864300

>>737866360
yes, but assigning a value to one side allows you to get two sides and one angle of the last "x,y,50" triangle. Then you can solve back from side length to angle.
If you still don't get it, maybe someone else will be kind enough to draw you a simpler diagram.

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

153KB, 1632x798px

>>737866521

>>737866684
Tfw you were to stupid to try work it out on your own :')

>>737866845
>to stupid
>to
kek

>>737866360
We can still assume the length of one side and still get number for the others can't we? For example say the top line is 10 and work from there?

>>737866820
Kel. You fucking got me.

Elegant solution though

It's been over two hours and no one has been able to solve it by hand yet?

>>737866820
The angles there are different from the angles in OP's image, though.

>>737866360
You dont need a vertical angle to use trigonometry. Use the x and y coordinates of a circle and that will "make" any right angled triangle with cos(x),sin(x) as its coordinates.

(Considering i dont speak english that probably sounded fucking retarded. What im trying to say is that both Sin and Cos theorems work without using the right angled definition of sin and cos)

>>737867548
All these problems are solvable the exact same way. No recursive sine and cosine bullshit. Just advanticious triangles

>>737867736
No they aren't. It's true that both OP's figure and the figure in >>737866820 can be solved without resorting to the laws of sines and cosines, but the solutions aren't exactly the same. The solution in >>737866820 wouldn't work for OP's figure, just try it.

>>737856447
This shit is unsolvable, as the values make no sense. It's impossible for suck figure with those values to exist.