Thread died right after I solved it. Let's see if you can get it.
Thread died right after I solved it. Let's see if you can get it
Alexander Baker
Other urls found in this thread:
mathcentral.uregina.ca
twitter.com
Cooper Cox
too many squares and triangles for me to give a shit
Nicholas Thomas
14.7
Blake Mitchell
36 cm2?
Carson Williams
32, of course
Logan Lopez
Blue
Mason Bennett
Nice! I have the same answer. Show me how you got it.
Oliver Cook
...
Charles Peterson
different guy who also got 32. Look at the 16cm one. notice that the borders arent symmetrical. If you do make them symmetrical, they will both be 24cm. also it will be appearant that they are half the area of the square. 24x2=48-16=32.
Benjamin Jones
? = C + D
Also: 2A + 2B + C + D = 16 + 20 + 28 = 64
Thus: ? = 64 - 2A - 2B
Notice that A + B = 16
Thus B = 16 - A
Substitute:
? = 64 - 2A - 2(16 - A)
? = 64 - 2A - 32 + 2A
? = 32
Gabriel Davis
so you are telling me that the sides of the square are 9.79795897?
Zachary Thomas
Yes the total area is 64 + 32 = 96 so the sides are sqrt(96)
Hunter Cruz
Very simple to solve.
If each section starts at the middle of each side, and all for sections meet at any point inside the square, then the sum of the areas of the opposing sections will be equal.
16 + x = 20 + 28
x = 48 - 16 = 32
Sebastian Scott
From the diagram:
a + b = 16
b + c = 20
a + d = 28
c + d = ?
trivially:
a + b + c + d = a + b + c + d
now substitute:
16 + ? = a + d + b + c
16 + ? = 28 + 20
? = 48 - 16 = 32
Chase Cooper
10/10
Aiden Jenkins
How are you getting 2x on anything? A and the other A are clearly different sizes, same with b,c,d
Matthew Brooks
also, im not saying your answer is wrong, just your math assumptions.
Samuel Jackson
>being this autistic
Jeremiah Parker
32
Andrew Sanchez
A and A are equal. They are two triangles with the same base and the same height.
Jonathan Parker
the total area must be a perfect square
defined areas add to 64
next two perfect squares are 81 and 100
81-64=17 area, which would be too small
100-64=36 area, which looks about right
next highest would be 121, too big
Aaron Hernandez
Nobody said the sides have to be whole numbers, therefore the area doesn't have to be a perfect square
Jack Turner
No you idiot, the total area does not have to be a perfect square
Levi Martin
Isnt this a lot of extra steps?
Imagine this square is equally cubed. All 4 cubes would be equivalent. Now leave the outside attachments in place and move the center + of the cube anywhere... as it moves you are subtracting area from one spot and adding it to another. So anywhere you move this spot the diagonals should always be equal to each other, right?
So you can just set them equal and solve, super easy.
28+20=16+x
32=x
William Nelson
32
20-16 = 4
28+ 4 = 32
im fucking drunk bruh
Landon Taylor
Yes, I thought the = sides was only that quadrant, not the entire drawing, makes sense now
Jeremiah Ramirez
It's not trivially clear that the area you subtract on one side will equal the area added to the other side - you need to prove that part first