How smart is Sup Forums?

how smart is Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

steamcommunity.com/id/koalinda
youtube.com/watch?v=HQc-54hQ8kw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley’s_Adventitious_Angles
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

x=50

smart enough not to solve your homework

Or maybe x=30, i'm confused

Yeah x=30

60 degrees

Is bottom right a 50 or 60?

wait no it isnt, i thought the bottom one said 60

...

It's 30. I don't care to explain because I don't know exactly what the rule is called, but its used for proofs in geometry. Somethinf about reflex angles I believe.

Checked and kekked

I think I deserve Fallout 4 for saying x=30 first
steamcommunity.com/id/koalinda

Answer is 30

The answer is 30. needs a little construction but do able, only works though if the integral of the upper triangle is congruent. Wouldn't make sense if it wasn't though

want my fallout 4
steamcommunity.com/id/koalinda

X=60 (if bottom right is 50)
The rules i used to solve:
Opposite angles in a cyclic quadrilateral add to 180
(Add the two bottom left hand angles *20 & *60 = *80)
Then using that angle of 100 degrees we can work out that *X + *the angle next to it = *100. From there using rules such as *triangle sum = *180. We can solve that *X = 60 and the angle next to it is *40!

...

YOU NIGGERS! YOU DO THAT STUPID "Z" THING TO GET IT! X = 30

It's like I'm watching kids! Fuck bois!

ITT: High schoolers

x = 360 degrees

What the actual fuck am I even looking at here?

It makes sense you nigger! GO BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY!

Uhm... The answer?!

30°

I want my Fallout 4

4 angles produced by 2 crossimg lines, all with an different value... every 4th grader knows youre wrong.

How is the opposite angle of 70° 108°. Arent they supposed to be the same?

108? 42? are you fucking stupid?
Middle is a cross which angles add up to 360
across 70 should be 70
and that 120 should be 110 because 70+110=180=a straight line
add another straight line and you get 360 jesus christ youre a fucking retard

WORKS

Yes they are, he's just retarded

upper right corner

The answer is right, you know? The first step had to be missed in order for the next one to work, it balances itself out once you have the first corner

...

Dont know why it looks like shit... ill try again

x is 80 because that line used for angles mean that the angles that have 1 arc on them are congruent, so 20+60 is 80 and 50+30=80 and x has that same line on it so its 80 regardless of your shittily scaled image

boom shaka laka get fucked OP

Shit, the quality keeps going to shit but i dont care enough anymore. Easy 60°

WRONG

Right! only motherfucker here who saw past the ruse

...

x = 60

INNENWINKELSUMME EINES VIERECKS IST 360° DANN HAST DU ES GLEICH

>don't care to explain

Then you are wrong. Show working or you get 0 marks.

Sarrera mina korapiloko aintza kaosa argi hotzam 1 12 44 22 6 6 6

That was a good one. I spent ten minutes trying to solve the damn thing before giving up.

x can be any angle given that 0 < x

No it cant retard
The angles make for set crossing points, so the angle of x is set

Nope, with the given information as best you can get 4 equations that are not linearly independent, thus meaning that all we know is x + y + 70 = 180, meaning that x can be any angle 0 < x < 110

Yes, more difficult than expected. And not a single convincing solution by not.

x=30
50
80
50
70
110 110
70
20 30
60 50

x=30

X is 20 . I win !!!

fuck i had it all spaced perfect, fucking formatting

so how does the image look when x is nearly zero?

really tall

Lern 2 trifurs bruh

I see the 70/110/100/70 part. but how did you get the 20/30 part?

The drawing is irrelevant
Only thing that matters are the given angles
See pic

It cannot be really tall. The right triange has 60/80/40 degree. which means it is about as hight as wide.

...

mai hero

Fools, do not argue with Lecart, the God of simple geometrical problems. The answer is 20

20 30 is written on the pic

what's triforce?

So how does this give 60/50 then?

x=40.

the triangle is an isosceles and one of the angles is 70 (180 = 60 +50+n, therefore n=70)

>180 = 70+70+x
>x=40

Yw retards.

You can't calculate x as a single value - it can take a range of possible values. And you're going to go "yes you can", in an attempt to keep the chimps that inhabit this board banging at their keyboards rather than flinging their feces around the place. But nevertheless, you can't calculate x as a single value. Perhaps you'd like to get them trying to square the circle next?

youre stupid

>isosceles
The 70/60/50 triangle is obviously not a isosceles.

Why is no one acknowledging this?

So what is missing to get a unique answer?

x+y = 110 , if you don't understand why if you don't understand why kill yourself with fire.
We construct FG to be parallel with BC.
In triangle FAG you have the equation : x + (180-y) + 70 = 180. Thus x + 70 = y. Thus going back to the first equation x is 20 and y is 90.

X=top, right of center.

/thread
All hail Lecart , the God of simple geometrical problems

shouldn't at F (180-y) read y and vice versa?

First you say an angle is y, then the same angle is 180-y
Proof: other 2 corners in the triangle (FAG) are the same as the other 2 corners in the top triangle in the original pic

So basically the problem is " find FAG". We have a simple solution:

You guys are bunch of retards. Can't even do simple task

except angle BFG is not 180-y, it's simply y you fucking goon

But if y is 90 then y is the same with 180-y

FUCKING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING

question as a btard how many traps do u fap 2 daily?

ezpz

>how smart is Sup Forums?
To summarize the answers: Sup Forums is not smart enough to give a valid answer with a valid reasoning.

no, impossible, the drawing is just stupid

Sup Forums can solve this

>Says it's a right triangle.
>Says it doesn't have a 90 degree angle.
Which is it?

You both are fucking idiots, congratulations.

Assume a coordinate system and put the lower left point at (0,0) and the lower right point at (1,0).
Then the top corners will be at (0.9848077530122079, 0.1736481776669304)
and (1.3268278963378763, 0.7660444431189779).
This again results in x=30 degrees.

To calculate yourself use (1/(cot(a)+cot(b)), 1/(1+tan(a)/tan(b))).

Yes, this is probably the most complicated solution, but it proves that there is indeed a single correct answer and it is 30.

Easier solutions welcome. :)

both? you cant even quote right kys

That's also assuming the drawing is 100% to scale, and since the answer is 80, because the congruent angle arcs, it isn't.

The length of the lines do not matter. the angles stay the same. Just try the calculation with a different base size.

80 degrees makes no sense at all. that would mean that the left corner would be higher than the right one, which cannot be. - try to draw that. ;)

youtube.com/watch?v=HQc-54hQ8kw
solved

You're retarded that thing you show with the blue line only works with parallel lines.

Thanks. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley’s_Adventitious_Angles

Rescaling something doesn't just make the entire thing bigger or smaller, it can make any specific part bigger or smaller, so you are incorrect about it not changing how the angles appear. In this case scaling the image correctly would fuck it up a lot. It's possible to scale it correctly, it just changes the whole image and is way too much work.

You missed an x in your calculations bro

...

Found it!

30 degrees.

Hint: draw additional line segments to create some new isosceles triangles.

Your triangle to right totals 190 degrees, gj son

Boi, you forgot that all flat lines are 180 degrees so the interior angle of triangle x cannot be anything other than 70 degrees. Nice try and I do appreiate the effort you have put into this.

Finally, someone who knows what they are doing.

ok,
i am good in math and i don`t get any single solution, i checkt it 3 times and there were no mistakes found.
if you try to find a proper answer you will see that there is no single correct answer to the problem because there are to many variables