What the fuck guys. North Korea allying with South Korea in response to ISIS threatening both...

What the fuck guys. North Korea allying with South Korea in response to ISIS threatening both. Is ISIS trying to mastermind something here or are they just being their usual faggot selves? And is it true that ISIS is allying with Assad, and that Israel and the west are turning on each other? Something is fucking brewing

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem
keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1322718508
youtu.be/EEnoDhJ2D9k
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>And is it true that ISIS is allying with Assad

4x5+12x5=80

That is an accurate sentence. What is your point?

That's not possible
a = (16-12)/2 = 2
a^2 + 5^2 = 29
but 8^2 = 64
OP pic is fake and gay

We need some source please, not Wikipedia. A genuine think tank.

>ISIS allying with Assad
HOLY SHIT. If the Jews are trying to push this narrative they must be FUCKING DESPERATE.

Its 16X5. Complete the goddamn rectangle in your head, brainlet

Except there's no right triangle with sides 2,5,8.

Obviously not the process they want,

No shit, so you solve it as a rectangle.

They never said it was a right triangle, you just assumed that

fack, I didn't check the validity of the hypotenuses

that's just retarded if true

8^2 = 64
2^2 = 4
8^2 - 2^2 = 60
sqrt(60)>5
The Picture is still fake and gay

who the fuck would ever use a protractor for anything applicable in the real world, this question is absurd if they're not meant to be right triangles

You can't complete it to a rectangle unless the top and bottom sides are parallel and the length 5 thing which looks like the height is actually perpendicular. And that's just not possible. The figure is ill defined, could have any combination of angles, yielding different areas.

I don't care what the process they want.
The Height is sqrt(60). The area is
14*sqrt(60).
But 5

the fuck? it's implied that that dotted line is perpendicular to the base

>who the fuck would ever use a protractor for anything applicable in the real world,

architects and surveyors

...

...

...

This. pol always sucks at math. It usually takes 50+ posts until someone gets the problem right.

>meme professions
surveyors use gps coordinates and only work with squares, architects fart in cups and see who can chug the fastest

t. mech e

> d is clearly larger than c
> OP pic is completely different figure.
Nice try, fag

>brainlet
>not averaging the 16 and the 12 to get 14
It's 14x5=70

It takes about half a minute to figure out.
You guys are making me feel smart.

No it isn't =^)
What the hell is the point of your calculations?

bottom=16
side 1=8
top=12
side 2=8

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem

I cannot remember geometry at all.

...

On this figure, d is clearly larger than c. And c=12, d=8. Are you blind?

>leaf logic

This figure and OP pic are completely different.Are you blind?

Are you retarded?
keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1322718508

It's a generic pic.

Disregard that post. OP's picture is not representative of the actual shape.

The very first comment I made, which you replied to, was saying how it wasn't a right triangle.
56% and 56IQ

what?

the length of all 4 sides are defined in the op and which that calculator matches

Where does it say it's a right triangle =^)

If it's not a right triangle then solving it by "completing the rectangle" is fucking retarded

where did you get theta 1 and theta 2? the answer is 80 regardless of how you tards calculate it, my original answer still stands which assumes right triangles, which is impossible given the values presented in the op

They never said to do that either m8, just to find the area.

For the retards, the image used isn't right and will trick students in doing the wrong answer.

Pic related is the wrong process.

This problem is unsolvable unless you tell me how long side number 8 is.

It all comes down to whether or not you assume:

1. the trapezoid is isosceles
2. the dotted line is parallel
3. what 16 means (many possibilities)

Learned a lot of math tonight, thanks folks

70.
(16-2)x5 = 70
The 2 comes from (16-12)/2

was going to say something about how the true hypotenuse should be 6.403 something.

...

12 times 5 is 60
5 times 2 is 10 / 2 is 5
5 times 2 is 10 / 2 is 5
60 & 5 & 5 = 70

so 70 ?

This man knows what's up.

Yes it doesn't say anything about the angles, and it should. The point is you can't proceed without knowing anything about the angles, and the only reasonable assumption leads to an absurdity, so the question is broken on many levels. What is your point?

fug i actually am a brainlet it should be 5.38etc.

If the line of lenght 5 is perpendicular, yes. But that's just an assumption.

Notice that the problem never specifies that the object is a trapezoid.

...

Wouldn't it state that the pic is not to scale.
It would be possible to solve because there are no angles shown

The length of the line is greater than or equal to 5.

Common core still sucks no matter what

Nice work isis geometry shills

My point is that the shape isn't impossible, the problem is just unsolvable in it's current state.

Not if it isn't perpendicular.

The problem trains kids to think inside the box and/or disregard reality.

Right. Had a retard moment there.

Sadly true

Another way would be 5x12 = 60
60 + 2(0.5x 5x2) = 60+5x2 = 70.

Unless you're telling me this isn't intended to be a trapezoid (i.e. giving me a random segment labeled '5' is just a big trick), no that shape can't exist.

If OP's shape is an isosceles trapezoid, the base of each triangle is (16-12)/2=2. The perpendicular line would be 7.7, which means that the dotted line must be greater than 7.7.

The problem is clearly impossible without bringing the appearance of the shapes far outside of what is shown. We generally don't accept that a shape with those values that actually has angles within that are acute or obtuse as shown can exist. If there was no picture, and just "sides and height and top and bottom," at x y z etc length, it would be a high school math problem. This is for children under 13, and is obviously just fucked up.

You're sucking the fun out of it.

Totally agreed.

If you’re too smart you won’t get it right.

this

>Is rectangle not trapezoid
>Thanks common core

It's 70 right?

81 according to the calculator.

How? Am I retarded

>70
There's no correct answer. Bunch of bozos in this thread.

Going by the length of top and bottom and the height, you don't need any complicated math. The rectangle in the middle is 12x5=60, and if you take that out, you're left with triangle 5 tall and 4 wide, so 5X4/2=10, with a total of 60+10=70.

However, an equilateral triangle 5 tall and 4 wide would have two sloped sides sqrt(41) long (about 6.4). With the sides being 8 units long, no line 5 units long could reach from the top to the bottom.

That's why it's "Thanks, Common Core!"

China planned this
Q PREDICTED IT
Chinese are not primitive!!!
>facial recognition in every major city
>95% of population on the internet
Even though it's massively censored

>They are awash in DATA
THEY USE this data to grow and build their advanced AI!!!

>Skynet is here
In the movie a nigger was responsible for building the death AI... in our world in the CHINK!!!


youtu.be/EEnoDhJ2D9k

So if you throw out the 8, it's simple and 70, and if you throw out the 5, it's just a little more complicated (pythagorean theorem) and it's 28*sqrt(15) or ~108. If you don't catch the contradiction, you can get different answers by mixing contradictory information.

Im in fucking vector calc and idk how to do this.

Would you just move the traingle over and make it a rectangle? Basically 14 * 5?

Ay hol up

its A = ((a +b)/2)*h
So A = ((12 +16)/2)*5
then A = 70

Its impossible for the a triangles to be formed....two sides added together must be greater than or equal to the third. 8 > 5+2.
It's impossible to solve this figure without some angles given, and the 5 is meaningless.

92

2 triangles + 1 square you tard.

The 5 doesn't have to be meaningless. If it were marked as being at a right angle to the bottom, that would give a single answer, since that lets you cut it into 3 triangles with known lengths for all sides by using the pythagorean theorem. Then you can apply Heron's formula to each and sum the results for the total area.

However, since the 5 isn't marked as a right-angle line to the base, there is no correct answer. We can't assume that it is just because it appears to be, because the top and bottom also look parallel, and if that were true, no line 5 units long would reach from top to bottom.

Except you cant form right triangles like picture implies retard.

>16

You mean 14, right?

True...but would a grade schooler, who this problem was meant for know that? I think OP's point is that the problem is not properly constructed for how they would expect the student to solve it, and whoever wrote the assignment is not qualified and just throwing out numbers.

You people are all literally retarded. Ffs, you have two triangles of base=2, h=5. This gives ten units. The remaining rectangle is 5X12. The area is 60 units. Goddamn fuck!!!

>you have two triangles of base=2, h=5
...and hypotenuse 8. Think about that a bit, and you'll see the problem.

Fuck me, the answer is 70. My rant was longer and I erased the 70 part of it so ... my punishment for being an ass I guess. I don't care, I can't believe all of the comments. Fuck me.

I was ranting about the ridiculous answers and fucked up. I had originally typed 70 in a longer post but felt guilty and erased the actual answer along with the rest. Again, I guess I was being a dick and it backfired.

super easy to solve in v graphite

And, yes, the 8 is ridiculous. I just assumed it was a typo and did the area of the polygon since there are no two squares that equal 64.

No, I understand your frustration. I haven't read anything in the thread, but in looking at OP's pic, I was like, what the fuck does this have to do with common core? I could not figure out how the area would be insoluble. It looks like any other geometry problem I remember from junior high long before common core existed (which actually has nothing to do with how anything is taught).

I actually think the answer's 80, though. Just combine the two triangles into a rectangle attached to the larger rectangle, and you get 16 x 5 = 80 for the area of the rectangle.

who cares the answer is 70 move on

Yes, but the two triangles together make a rectangle of 2x5 = 10 and the remaining rectangle is 5x12 = 60. Tot = 70. Or have I really lost my mind?

quick solve

>find area of square
>find area of triangle WITHOUT halving it
>add together
>>answer