If we can meme Donald Trump's inaugeration into being delayed by a day, then >He will be 7 decades, 7 months, 7 days of age at his inaugeration >His inaugeration will be on the 21st; 21 is divisible by 7 >His inaugeration will be on 2017-1-21; the digits add to 14 which is divisible by 7 >His inaugeration will be on the 23rd day of the 4th month of the year 5777 in the (((jewish))) calendar; those digits add to 35 which is divisible by 7
It is crucial that this coincide with inaugeration day. Inaugeration day is a ceremony/ritual; gods love that stuff. Inaugeration day is also the day of the transfer of power. It has to be special.
Point is, Lord Kek demands that we meme Trump's inaugeration into being delayed until the 21st.
Several protest groups planning large-scale demonstrations have permits in place and have already held organizational meetings, among them the collaborative DisruptJ20. “We’re planning a series of massive, direct actions that will shut down the inauguration ceremonies and any related celebrations,” the group says. “We’re also planning to paralyze the city.” We just have to make this go viral, get the SJWs and globalists to shut down the inaugeration on the 20th. In doing so, the globalists and their servants will be unwittingly enhancing Lord Kek's power in memetic chaos magick. Them shutting down the inaugeration will also give us political leverage against them.
DEUS KEK VULT!
If we pull this off, I will truly believe in Lord Kek.
Julian Hall
Whats the problem with that image?
Lucas Carter
> mmurican education in need of a next curiculum downgrade
Logan Brown
>bongistani education
Zachary Bell
yeah I'm not seeing it either,
Julian Myers
A^2 + B^2 =/= C^2
Benjamin Butler
This, I don't see the problem.
Julian Young
/ | 8 / | 5 / | /__| 2
>see it yet retards?
Lincoln Walker
It's still solvable even though one of the lengths is wrong.
Nathaniel Baker
....../| 8 ./_| 5 ../__| /___| 2
Tyler Long
92
Jace Diaz
>length A: 8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>length B: 5 + 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Tell me again how this is solvable.
John Smith
Anyone with half a brain knows the 5 should be sqrt(60). You don't even need that length to solve the problem. 12*5 + 2*8
Isaiah Sullivan
WOW 5 (you)s ?! Thats immense!
Screen capped this one for the scrap book :')
Mason James
12*sqrt(60) + 2*sqrt(60) *****
Nathaniel Baker
You killed the thread with your own image kek
Christian Flores
You're an idiot, he takes office Jan 21st as it is.
Jace Parker
((Top length + bottom length) /2) * height
Grayson Flores
>C.U.C.K.A.D.A. >doesn't see the problem
Oliver Murphy
Values are wrong, but it's still solvable with logic. >Cut off left triangle >Flip and move to right side >Becomes a 5x14 rectangle >5*14 = 70
Gavin Perez
Nothing says that the two base angles are congruent.
Jason Roberts
My equation comes agrees with your answer...two ways to skin the same cat.
William Barnes
...you know guys, there's also the normal calculation for a trapezoid if you're given the bases and height.
Jace Roberts
Don't even need to fuck around with triangles, guys. The two triangles on the sides are equal halves of a rectangle.
One rectangle is 12 x 5 The other is 2 x 5 The dotted line inherently signifies a right angle. The area is 70. It's that simple and this is a fair enough problem for kids.
What's the issue?
Nolan Brown
My bad, didn't mean to quote you, just clicked to replied and meant to delete.
Asher Bennett
which length is wrong and why?
Noah Walker
There's literally nothing wrong with this pic, goys. You're just assuming a right angle but it's not explicitly specified.
Alexander Torres
this, it doesnt say anything regarding to angles.
Anthony Martinez
>durr its ok to break mathematical rules of triangles when its a kids problem, they'll learn that when they're older and ready to accept the identities of triangles
Daniel Cooper
>the normal calculation for a trapezoid There cannot be such a trapezoid. But they didn't call it one. They called it an "object".
Jack Wilson
Additional: you know the angles are equal because the length of the hypotenuse is equal.
Austin Phillips
8*8 =/= 5*5 + 2*2. The length of 5 should be sqrt(60).
Levi Bailey
but if the c=d=8 and if the height is 5 then that trapezoid doesnt ensure common triangle equalities.
Andrew Anderson
morons detected
Mason Phillips
Considering this is probably 7th grade math it can be inferred that they most certainly are.
Xavier Murphy
this is actually an advanced non-euclidean geometry but since average Sup Forums are high school drop out, they thought because it doesn't comply with pythagorean, it must be wrong
t. Math Major
Adrian Clark
come on, the problem isn't immediatley apparent unless you actually start solving the problem.
William Lee
...
Jason Miller
meme magic attention
Cooper White
Teachers are dicks. I've seen plenty of them make misleading pictures in order to fool students into making incorrect assumptions.
Leo Russell
This, which is why you can easily solve the problem with the equation they're looking for. If it bothers you, you've already found the correct length. Dont be autistic about it.
Ryder Hill
The pic is wrong in every way you see it
If you assume it's an isoscele trapezium the base of the triangle is wrong
If you assume the the oblique sides are equal the two bases cannot be parallel therfore the height represented is wrong
Isaac Young
Oh, I see, you're criticizing that you can't possibly have a 2 x 5 x 8 right triangle. Yes, that is incorrect.
It happens. We found errors in textbooks all the time in the 80s and 90s. It's standard.
Common core math seems retarded at first glance, but it's a lot closer to how we do math in our heads than the traditional methods.
Jayden Edwards
This
Maybe that was the real test?
Benjamin Ramirez
If you start including dimensions outside of flat planes, any numbers for a shape can be made to work somehow.
Jace Morgan
its the same as a rectangle of 14 x 5 = 70
Eli Bell
Fuck off to hell you incompetent fucking fucktard. You can't just fucking arbitrarily pick one piece of given information to disregard while taking the others as correct. Literally go and fucking hang yourself, dumbfuck.
Nolan Rivera
But the dotted line *does signify a right angle to the line to which it intersects. This is just an error, and is/has been a common thing in math textbooks.
Jace Baker
No it doesn't fucktard, right angles are denoted by a square in the corner. Also it doesn't say that the 12 and 16 lines are parallel. Fuck a sandnigger.
Luis Young
Fuck you, right angles are denoted with a circle on the corner.
Fucking imperial system subhumans.
Logan Morris
Why not ask him to? Tell him how significant that date is and tell him all he needs to do is put it off.
It would be ground breaking and cement his fame for all history even further
Hunter Bennett
No fuck you you faggot
Jason Carter
Using non-right angle auxiliary lines is a rare thing. They are right angles UNLESS they terminate at a point. If they intersect a line, assume right angle unless labeled with a Greek variable.
Brandon Anderson
Let's be honest here, while that is a possibility it is much probable that it was a simple mistake.
By the time non-euclidean stuff is taught, this type of question seems a little too simplistic to use.
Luke Lewis
People are just eager to rag on some "shady government program indoctrinatin' our kids!"
The numbers are silly, for sure, but they in no way stop you from answering the question. Break it up into one rectangle with dimensions of 12x5=60, and combine the two equivalent triangles remaining into a single rectangle with dimensions 2x5=10.
60 + 10 = 70. Who gives a shit if the triangles dont make pythagorean sense.
Blake Baker
You need to calm down and be less autistic.
Probably a pure math type instead of anybody who has any experience with having to work practically.
The dotted line would be completely meaningless if it were not at default at a right angle. You would not be able to derive any more information from its existence without that base assumption.
The problem is completely unsolvable without particular assumptions. If you took it with only the precise terminology you learned in school. If you don't assume parallel bases or a right angle to work with, you're left with 4 sides of a possibly irregular quadrilateral and a meaningless line through it.
It's just a non-standardized math question with an error in it.
Obviously, but people get really damn nitpicky. If you didn't have an asshole of a math teacher, you could just ask them to clarify the question a bit.
Ryder Thompson
Wait whats the actual problem? find the area of the triangle then double it because there are two then find the area of the square?
Robert Moore
when i was in highschool/primary school teachers just told that mistakes and misfits like these happen a lot so we shouldnt mind it and just solve the question as usual. so yeah, no reason to be nitpicky.
Connor Brown
...
Landon Roberts
If Kek is just another one of Satans tricks then why can't God give some evidence that something about the spiritual is real?
Does he really get such a god boner when us simpleton mortals put down all evidence (or lack there of) and 100% believe in him through Faith alone? I mean what the fuck?
Jeremiah Taylor
KEK aka Collective Consciousness is not a God, but a primal force of nature, just like electromagnetism.
Ethan Wright
Because the shape they're giving is literally impossible.
Aaron Gomez
autism
Ryder Brooks
Nice I keked on how stupid this test is
Nolan Davis
Are you fucking retarded? The area is clearly just 12*5+5*2=70 where the hell did you get those square roots from??
Angel Allen
I'm showing that the sides are impossible you retard.
The base of the trapezoid is 16 units, but if you draw the altitude lines to convert the trapezoid to two right triangles and a rectangle and apply the Pythagorean theorem, you find that the base of the trapezoid should be 12+2sqrt(39), but the image claims it's 16. Since those quantities aren't equal, the shape's impossible.
Jaxon Cooper
Why can't both answers be right?
Henry Perry
What answers?
Elijah Diaz
So what's the solution?
Matthew Nelson
I understand what you're saying but I think it still might be a possible shape if you make absolutely no assumptions about the shape. They never say it's a trapezoid or that any sides are parallel or specify any right angles. There may even be a single solution. My autism has been activated, I will return later with a thread describing possible solutions.
Charles Bailey
The goyim are also assuming parallel lines. You tell us. >I understand what you're saying but I think it still might be a possible shape if you make absolutely no assumptions about the shape. Correct. >They never say it's a trapezoid or that any sides are parallel or specify any right angles. Correct. >There may even be a single solution. Incorrect, even if you assume the shape to exist on a 2-dimensional Euclidian plane. If you don't have that assumption, then good fucking luck coming up with any range of solutions. >My autism has been activated, I will return later with a thread describing possible solutions. Do it faggot. I already know the solution range, I'll tell you if you are right.
Now let's meme Kek into manipulating SJWs into delaying the inaugeration.
Gabriel King
Kek wills that it will happen. Shadilay
Logan Gutierrez
It might be possible on a curved surface.
Mason Jackson
A: 14 times 5
Julian Rogers
Okay my autism isn't activated enough to care enough to fully solve but rough estimation: lower bound is ~31.75, and upper bound is more complicated but definitely less than 64.4... I think.