>I didn't pick shit, buddy yes you did. you chose the 4 equations which are immediately obvious ASSUMING there does not exist some potentially cryptic relation between the angles that would need to be constructed (circles and straight lines, the usual.) You missed my point. I provided the subset of linearly independent equations I found and proposed properties a 4th equation would require to make the system solvable.
From a clean, purely mathematical point of view we're not done. We'd have to prove that there exists more than one geometrically valid solution. "I don't see another equation" is not a valid argument, you gotta prove there is none.
Nicholas Edwards
>I plugged it in to demonstrate that it's insoluble Thanks for showing that the problem doesn't dissolve in water I guess?
Kevin Jackson
of course, not that I want or care to, I'm just saying that we can only assume it's not solvable, showing it would need an annoying amount of work or a good eye for that stuff.
Nathaniel Wright
Obviously it's not formally proven. To truly prove that would probably require machine verification, or else someone could always suggest the possibility of information that wasn't considered, as you are doing now (and rightly so).
That's part of the insidiousness of these types of problems. They require incredible rigor to prove their insidiousness, and by that point everyone who knows anything already agrees with you, and 99% of people are too stupid to follow along anyway.
What I'm saying is: here is the information that the problem clearly presents, and that information isn't enough to solve it. There's _probably_ no more information to be found, and if there is, it's very well hidden. If anyone can find it, fantastic. Otherwise, consider it impossible.
In any case, the statement "You should be able to solve this" is wrong.
"Soluble" has more than one accepted usage, kid. If you had just taken five seconds to google "define soluble" you could have avoided making an ass of yourself.
Angel Hall
>"Soluble" has more than one accepted usage, kid. Do you need me to awkwardly explain the joke and ruin any slight humor it may have delivered or are you good? >you could have avoided making an ass of yourself Sup kettle
Owen Reed
>I-I was just pretending to be retarded!
Silly me for assuming a serious tone in what was a fairly serious discussion up until this point. Not to mention how incredibly common it is for people to not know the alternative definition of soluble.
Your post came off as a correction, not a joke. Not my fault that you can't make it clear when something is a joke. Use a caret-nosed smiley or something next time, that would have made it pretty obvious.
Nathaniel Rivera
Not that I've found a solution yet, but your analysis is wrong. The figure clearly exists and there is noting contradictory about the angle given. I'm trying to find a system of equations that is linearly independent. The solution should be around 20'
Zachary Perry
>your analysis is wrong.
It's a pretty fucking straightforward analysis, it should be trivial to point out where I'm wrong, yet you aren't going to?
>The figure clearly exists and there is noting contradictory about the angle given.
Yes, and? I'll assume you just misread my analysis, go over it again please (or possibly revise your linear algebra).
>I'm trying to find a system of equations that is linearly independent.
That's the whole point of the discussion thus far - if a LI system exists, it's extremely well hidden.
If you want to make actual progress, find a geometry software package that can analyse it for you. This is 2016 after all.
Kayden Nguyen
>If you want to make actual progress, find a geometry software package that can analyse it for you. This is 2016 after all. No wonder you can't solve it. You rely on computers to think for you.
Isaiah Bell
let's see.. A triangle is uniquely defined up to similarity if for example all 3 angles are known. let's call the intersection of the lines AE and BD F as we can see for example in the triangles (ABD) and (ABE) are fully defined, as well as the triangles (ABF),(AFD)&(BEF) by extension. What remains is a quadrilateral (ECDF) of which we know it's 4 angles. Is that shape up to similarity uniquely defined? Because if we cut it into 2 triangles we'd need information worth 6 angles in total.
