How smart is Sup Forums?

How smart is Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

duckware.com/tech/worldshardesteasygeometryproblem.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

AT THE BOTTOM KEK

kek

is it 20?

the 20 at the top is way bigger than x

...

good point it was a shot in the daek

There is no answer , just that x+y=130°

x=40

x < 40
as long as the second angle is obviously convex, the x has to be less than 180 - (50+90) = 40 degrees

Shit wp m8

ok, i admit this took me longer to figure out and i had to do it on paper

its 70

after I finished high school I swore to myself I would never do this shitty things again

Its 15

kek

...

...

plebs

Bottom right

The Truth has been spoken

fuck how did i not relise it was this simple i bow to thie

praise be upon you

luln

correct

>there is no answer
x can only take one value, regardless of the size of the triangles

I did it. X = 20

lol at your reasoning

it was a good shot, you were right

X=purple or some shit

...

all data you have is angles, you can't assume then that this picture is precise in the case of these angles and also of length of edges, all you can do is simple maths on values of other angles, where is your logic, Sup Forums?

This is the only way to solve this. It's unsolvable when you only use the angles, similar to the Snellius–Pothenot problem.

YESSS!

Wrong. Solving it only with basic geometry is just more challenging.

That's not what he did. He chose 1 length at a certain value, then used the sine rule to find the others and eliminate lengths again from the equation. It's also the only way to solve this without drawing it.

Never did I assume the picture was precise. In case it wasn't obvious from my picture, I did NOT measure the angles, I calculated them. You should be able to do the same.

All angles in a triangle sum to 180. The angles that I used the same colors on are identical because they are mirrored. From there, any 5th grader should be able to reach the same values for the angles that I did. THEN it gets a little harder, if you use the method I did on the left. If you still don't think this proves it, I'll make a video.

Now try this one

I'm waiting for your drawing where you explain how to solve it by only using angles.

I just realized you were probably referring to the length that I assumed. It doesn't matter as long as it's consistent. The length of a side in a triangle has no effect on its angles as long as the sides are proportionally the same. I simply made an assumption that didn't change anything because it'd be impossible (with my limited knowledge) otherwise.

I'd fucking love to know how to do that. Is it possible with the info we're given? (Assuming you can't do sine / cosine calculations in your head / on paper)

Yes it is.

14
no matter what bullshit someone wrote up there

How?

I'm expanding the drawing right now, but I'm afraid I'll end up with x + y = 130° again, since that's how the puzzle seems to work.

143546

ahhh, my bad, but you shouldn't use constant number, instead use something like any letter from the alphabet, a variable, not simply making it "ten", and I know the result will be the same, but, for the glory of Mathematics, make it more intuitive and beautiful, the less constants the better

143547* sorry, typo

explain pls

I see what you mean. I definitely should have done that to make it "cleaner".

Digits 1 and 2: a * b
Digits 3 and 4: a * c
Digits 5 and 6: a * b + a * c - b

...

Too slow

dank u wel

Sorry

Bunch of fucking idiots
Extend the triangle downward.
X=10

feeling pretty close, but cannot prove that bottom triangle is equilateral

Not possible without the inclusion of y

Moron

y

very clever. Assign an arbitrary length to one side then back solve. gj

This and nothing else

>can't solve 180-160
>calls other people morons

We must be on Sup Forums

You're the idiot here. The bottom is not 30 degrees. Ask yourself what the sum of every triangles 3 angles is. Then do the fucking math. You have 2*80. 180 - 2*80 = 20. It's 20, which I already proved.

I gave it some thought and it's literally impossible to solve by relying on angles because it's impossible to find a triangle or quadrilateral where you can write x without y.

Look at the triangle. You have a 70 a 60 and a 20. 180 - 150=30. But that's only a piece of the bottom.

Wrong.

Wrong.

there's a 10, too

Prove it.

I told you why it's impossible. Now I'll wait for you to draw another sketch so sloppy you can't even find angles everybody else already found.

I know. Just pulling out the big triangle from the whole problem tho.

I'm not , dumbass. And you haven't proven that it's impossible, you've merely stated that it is.

look again, consult a calculator if you need to.

The 10 is part of the big triangle.

duckware.com/tech/worldshardesteasygeometryproblem.html

So smart I can use google.

math teacher here the answer is

math professor here, can confirm the correct answer is

Go back to the Loli thread mr. Pedo we're trying changing the world here

X=40°

nah thanks, i'm good.

>I'm too dumb to solve it, therefore it's impossible
Fucking retards

...

My answer is 30 (I m the guy who posted the pic

You dont have any vertical angle to work with trig. numbers and you cant create one, as you dont know any of the lengths. All you can do is work with the sums of angles for each triangle and the sum of angles for crossing lines, only to be led in 3 triangles giving you the final equation: x+y=130 (the other unknown being the other angle in the small triangle).

Show its not impossible with angles given otherwise you're dumber than us

The solution has already been posted, you illiterate fuck:

yes, but assigning a value to one side allows you to get two sides and one angle of the last "x,y,50" triangle. Then you can solve back from side length to angle.
If you still don't get it, maybe someone else will be kind enough to draw you a simpler diagram.

...

Tfw you were to stupid to try work it out on your own :')

>to stupid
>to
kek

We can still assume the length of one side and still get number for the others can't we? For example say the top line is 10 and work from there?

Kel. You fucking got me.

Elegant solution though

It's been over two hours and no one has been able to solve it by hand yet?

The angles there are different from the angles in OP's image, though.

You dont need a vertical angle to use trigonometry. Use the x and y coordinates of a circle and that will "make" any right angled triangle with cos(x),sin(x) as its coordinates.

(Considering i dont speak english that probably sounded fucking retarded. What im trying to say is that both Sin and Cos theorems work without using the right angled definition of sin and cos)

All these problems are solvable the exact same way. No recursive sine and cosine bullshit. Just advanticious triangles

No they aren't. It's true that both OP's figure and the figure in can be solved without resorting to the laws of sines and cosines, but the solutions aren't exactly the same. The solution in wouldn't work for OP's figure, just try it.

This shit is unsolvable, as the values make no sense. It's impossible for suck figure with those values to exist.

You suck.

Read the thread, faggot