How would you find x? Not necessarily a value, but at least an

Anyone

>>8633098

I don't remember all of the theorems, but you know each side. AC is 4x and DC is 2x. that's at least more info.

>>8633112
Yeah, but not sure if that helps me without any angle information?

>>8633118
since there are no angle markings, you can't infer ANYTHING about the angles. the only way you could is if you could prove it was equilateral, but we've already disproven this. answer lies in the sides.

>>8633118
can you send the whole page? some context might help.

File: 2017-01-27-121403_338x71_scrot.png (27KB, 338x71px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 338x71px

Or does anyone know this other triangle problem? I know the incenter (intersection of bisectors) can draw equidistant perpendiculars to each side, but that doesn't seem to lead me anywhere

File: 2017-01-27-122308_355x150_scrot.png (60KB, 355x150px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 355x150px

>>8633124
>>8633120
Maybe they just forgot to say that angle ABD > angle DBC, because the problem right next to it is straightforward

>>8633131
Anyone/

x=3/2
think about the angles relation to the length of each side

>>8633185
look at the angle marking of the side above the on labeled "2x" . The two sides are equal, so the one above cannot be a hypotenuse. Your assumption in OP was correct.

>>8633390
one*

>>8633390
side markings* not angle markings

>>8633131
Prove that FGH has to be a triangle.
FH + HG > FG
FH != 0 GH !=0 or EFG is not a triangle

Just measure AD and solve for x

AAS

>>8633098
Why the fuck do you guys keep using the wrong level of maths for these problems?

Think of maths 'dimensionally'. There is 2-d/3-d/4-d maths.

Obviously to achieve the correct 'mathematical result' relies on what dimensional mathematica you ascribe to.

Pleb.

Oh, I have finally found someone like me in history: Euclid. I'VE OVERSHOT THE CUNT BY A FEW MILLENIA THOUGH.