10-year old question

>>8128664
the top is 44

I dont' know how to do the bottom unless that 2cm label is labeling the small vertical length. In which case the answer for the bottom one is also 44

>>8128664
First one is 44cm

Second one is also 44cm

[eqn]P=44[/eqn]

>>8128664
Both 44cm

I'm actually getting 43.84cm, did you guys use paint or a different program to measure the lines? I can put a ruler up to my screen if it will help.

t. every first year mech eng opening this thread

>>8128840
Pictures not drawn to scale. Use maths alone to figure it out.

>>8128941
I think you missed a bit of sarcasm there, kiddo

>>8128669
>>8128670
>>8128695
i didn't even know it was solvable :3

Not enough data for second shape

File: 1461945940478.jpg (32KB, 400x280px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x280px

>>8128664
you cant answer because the lengths of all the sides arent given

>>8129075
Yes there is

How do you work out the first one?
t. Brainlet

File: Screenshot_144.jpg (66KB, 710x788px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 710x788px

>>8128664
Even if it's not to scale, how are you supposed to solve this? I'm stumped.

>>8129110
Nevermind, thought it was area the question was asking for

These aren't solvable. I hope that's obvious..

>>8129115
For the first one, think about what the two unlabelled vertical lengths must add up to, likewise with the horizontal.

>>8129056
think what happens if you start moving the lines.

>>8129115
Vertical lines add up to 24 (12 + 12)
Horizonal lines add up to 20 (10 + 10)
Total, 44cm

>>8129119
whoops like this guy >>8129118
I thought it was asking area.

>>8129120
you cant know what the unlabeled sides are unless you measured them retard

>>8129128
As the title says, they're "rectilinear shapes" so the 2 unknown verticals will equal the known vertical, retard.

>>8129128
If all the angles are right angles, which they are obviously supposed to be, then you can.

Wouldn't the second one be 42?

>>8129138
You gotta add the 2cm twice dawg

>>8129146
You're right, I'm dumb.

>>8129135
>>8129135
wrong. the title didnt say that the lines are parrelel. try again kid.

File: Screenshot_2016-06-07-20-50-08_com.android.chrome.png (211KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1080x1920px

>>8129152
Pls don't bait

File: image.png (102KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 258x245px

>everyone assuming euclidean metric

Plebs get out!

>>8128664
i must apply monte carlo method and hope for the best

No matter how we cut rectilinear shape, we always get the same perimeter as it was full

File: 1.png (311KB, 615x751px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 615x751px

>>8129085
No

>>8128664
i didnt know so i wanted to read whole thread to learn how and im even more confused. fuck you 4chan. fuck you math

>>8128840
I know people who actually do this.
they disgust me

>>8129250
It's just 9 and 11 twice plus 2 twice for the extra bit

44

Literally primary school level

>>8129250
>>8129549
Oh yeah, the 2cm is the short vertical distance btw

Otherwise it is unsolvable but it's a children's question so it's not going to be that.

>>8128664
I didn't read the question correctly and tried to solve for area. . .

Am I retarded /sci/?