How smart is Sup Forums?

How smart is Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

math.bd.psu.edu/~jpp4/finitemath/4x4solver.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

no fuck you nigger find it yourself.

Smart enough not to do your homework, underage faggot

i'm not smart you fucking faggot why don't you stroke your fucking SAT cock elsewhere

20 degrees, but OP is still an underage fag

this is like grade 11 trig. are you fucking stupid?

There it is

Also, dat roll, bitch.

I accept cash.

Easy

We're not doing your homework for you

There's not enough information to find x

This

x = 30 ez / överläkarson
proof coming soon

rudimentary calculus says you're wrong but okay

yes there fucking is . jesus christ

No there is...I solved this before but fucking deleted it off my desktop last weekend!

You just continue the lines above the arrow and work out the angles from a 180 degree straight line, the angles of a triangle and then of a 4 cornered shape.

Lol. You must be OP

20°

here is proof. you're welcome for help with homework. btw hell seger /överläkarson

Your first line is a mistake you retard. Try again.

65

It's not though, you retard

where even is OP. I need some gratification for my proof
/överläkarson

It is. I'm not writing it out to show you. You should be able to see that it's wrong if you're a full functioning human being

You extending the line and saying that's 140 is fine, but you're a fucking idiot if you believe that removing 40 from that will give you Z

Lmao that second one isn't 40 degrees you dingus

...

z=180-40


You did the subtraction in your mind, and then wrote it down and did it again.

w and y are the same angle you fucking idiot hahahaha

doesn't change the fact that you're fucking wrong

Are you contemplating suicide yet? Now we all know ovalakarsen is a retard

since apparently you guys are fucking retarded I had to point it out to you twice

I found 3.

>3 x's
>xxx
>OP was requesting porn
okey dokey, I guess this is a porn thread now.

kys

...

...

...

fucking thank
/ovelekersan

Found it, it's near the arc, on the bottom of the drawing.

If you meant find the VALUE of x, in degrees, then I'm pretty sure we lack data to compute it.

fuck, no

Oh, really ? So how do you pull that 100° angle ? Is it out of your ass ?

I agree with anons having posted the 40° angle above it, and them finding 140° for the complement (when extending the line), however, how do you go from 140° to 100 ?

That's not a demonstration, son.

7th grade geometry. Any triangle as a total of 180 degrees. The angle next to x is 30 deg. Take it from there

how'd you get 100 degrees there? couldn't it just as well be 99?

Where did you pull that 100 from?

Yeah, been there, done that. I got that 50° for the "top" angle of the little triangle having angle x, but I'm pretty sure we lack one bit of data, here.

The OTHER, non-50°, non-x angle, or the length of a segment.

That would make x=31 deg, which would make the left triangle equal to 181 deg, which is NOT a triangle

...

X is in 2 triangles and neither of them is clearly "left".

Since one of them exists entirely inside of the other, I will call them Large and Small.

In the Small one, that would make the degrees 50+99+31, which is correctly 180.

In the large one, that would make the angles 31+(99+40)+10, which is also 180.

Now, maybe you are talking about the other large triangle pointing up and to the left. In that case, the angles would be 20+99+(30+31). Which, again, is 180.

Changing that angle by one keeps all of the triangles consistent.

Fucking look at

this is the real proof, morons.

not sure if bait

This is as far as I got

All that does it make another assumption.

In that one, he takes the 140 and subtracts 40. Where did he get that second 40 from?

We know where the top 40 came from, but in the new lower triangle he created by extending the lines, he assumes another 40. Where does that second 40 come from?

> His ass. That's where he pulled it from.

Op this is 8th grade homework come on now.

But we do have enough info to write 4 equations with the 4 unknown angles and then cheat at doing the math.

math.bd.psu.edu/~jpp4/finitemath/4x4solver.html

don't know how you got it but this is right. Trial and error?

>math.bd.psu.edu/~jpp4/finitemath/4x4solver.html

We only know some angles. If lengths were also given, then yes, there would be a single solution. Right now, however, I'd say there are an infinity.

There is only a single solution, retard

This is mathematical proof of how stupid i am.

Why is z 100° ? No proof given, here, it's just said by that troll.

I could have written that z is 95°, and calculated "x" from that, but it wouldn't be proof either.

Look at .

Do you disagree with anything in that diagram? If not, then notice that there are 3 unlabeled angles and with X, that makes 4.

So stick w,y,z on those angles and create 4 equations to solve.

If we sat w is the angle adjacent to x and y is the missing angle in the smallest triangle with x, and finally z is the unlabeled far right triangle, then we can write some equations.

x+50+y=180
20+w+z=180
40+y+z=180
(x+w)+20+10=180
x+y+50=180

4 variables, 4 (or more) equations. You can solve that.

Look up circle theorems.

this is hard

The diagram you show is fine.

As for the equations, agree with the ones you give, too. I'll try and solve that.

are you being retarded on purpose?

its 30 btw

Yes, because it is a linear algebra problem disguised as a geometry problem.

Most people have never used the Guassian method, so it's no surprise they don't know how.

or use the page I linked. type in numbers, let computer do dull work.

kek, never gets old

Then what's the answer?

>x+50+y=180
>20+w+z=180
>40+y+z=180
>(x+w)+20+10=180
>x+y+50=180

As you might have noticed, though, your first and last equations say the same thing. No additional info, here. So, only 4 useful lines.

70

And I gave 5 when you only need 4, so the fact that I typed one twice doesn't change anything.

no it's not you fucking moron, i already posted the answer and it's name. this problem is solved by creating new triangles. it's a well known problem because it's one of those where simple geometry doesn't immediately give a useful set of solutions. you have to cleverly make your own.

Manage to "simplify" the system to this:
x=130-y
y+z=140
w=20+y
x+w=150

However, lines 1 and 4 basically say the same, if you replace w by 20+y, in the 4th.

So, I stand by my previous evaluation, which is that we do not have enough information to conclude on ONE solution.

15

Sure, let's play a game: Find X

X + Y = 100
X + Y + 5 = 105
X = 100 - Y

Two unknowns, I gave you 3 equations. Find X !

Your previous evaluation remains dogshit

I agree with this faggot

we have one degree of freedom so infinitely many solutions

then solve the system, faggot. With mathematical proof, and NOT by pulling numbers out of your ass.

You don't have to solve the problem to know that it has only one solution, moron. You can spot that in two seconds if you're not retarded.

again, that's not proof. That's either (poor) trolling, or plain old stupid lack of mathematical reasoning.

You're the one who clearly lacks mathematical reasoning if you cannot instantly spot that this problem has only one solution. The "proof" is that the whole figure is obviously completely defined by the four angles whose values are given. You can't change the value of x without changing at least one of those four angles. Therefore, there is only one possible value for x.

It's drawn with a given segment length, but the segment's lengths are NOT specified. Which means you might draw it with different lengths, and get another figure, still using the same angles nearly everywhere, except at angle x and the other "unknown" angle.

No, because the sides of the triangles are not set, it means there is an unknown variable that allows for an infinite set of solutions. If the length of the sides was set, a single specific solution could be computed.

This is proven by the fact that there are 4 unknown angles and only 3 equations (from gauss jordan solving of the equation matrix).

Thanks for confirming that you have absolutely no understanding of geometry. Try drawing a version of the figure with a different value for x, then. You can't.

The sides of the triangles *are* set relative to each other. You can set any one side to an arbitrary length and then compute all the other sides. You haven't proven shit.

If you know how to solve it, you would be able to prove it. remember that the length of any of the sides is unknown, therefore there is an infinite number of solutions where the known angle values remain the same but the lengths change accordingly.

Still waiting for you to draw that version of the figure with a different value for x.

What SEEMS to be true, on a drawing, is not necessarily true "mathematically", as you would know if you had listened to your math teacher from high school (or even earlier)

It's not that it *seems* to be true that the lengths are set relative to each other. It's that the whole figure is completely defined by the four angles whose values are given, as I explained in . Perhaps you should try to actually read the shit I write before attempting to refute it, retard.

imagine using your minds eye the bottom triangle. We know through principles of geometry that the top angle is 50deg. The other two angles, X and (lets call it) Y, are unknown, and unknowable. It is a fact that X + Y = 130deg, but it is possible for their values to vary from ~0deg to ~130 while all other known values remain the same, where the lengths of the sides adjust for it.

This is undeniable.

Now, if you want to measure the lengths of the sides of that figure, we can compute an exact angle for X, because there will be only 1 possible value for X and Y each for the set rigid lengths of the sides.

I'll ask you a third time, draw a version of the figure with a different value for x, then. If what you say is true, you should have no problem drawing one version of the figure where x is 10 degrees, and another where x is 110 degrees.

i don't have a problem imagining it, but I will not waste my time on paintbrush guesstimating the required side lengths to depict an accurate drawing to match any value for X. it would look wildly different from the OP image, but would still be true. However it seems you do not have the brain power to understand this concept or visualize the relationship between the lengths of the lines and the possible range of values for X, so it is useless to continue this exchange after people above already provided a mathematical proof of this fact, which you also did not grasp.

Seriously, lrn2geometry. I'm tired (4am, here, in France), and generally lazy (I'm an engineer in computer programming, choose that job line because I make computers do the actual work for me, you know).

So, this thread was a nice "neurons wake-up call", and I had fun finding the angles, much like doing a sudoku. It's kinda relaxing.

Now, when finding that there isn't a SINGLE solution, I tried to educate Sup Forums, as the other fellow Sup Forums tard (the one posting ) tries to do, too.

But I sure ain't going to open MS Paint or whatever just so your ignorant ass, which might or might not be trolling, can see for itself. The equations should have been proof enough, just as well as your inability to finish calculating those angles, whereas it was so damn easy to do with all the others.

My question still stands: How do YOU prove that this is the only solution.

>protip: you can't, any SINGLE solution you'd provide would use a logical fallacy, or have a calculus mistake somewhere.

Yeah, that's what I thought. You cannot draw a different version of the figure as you describe, because it's impossible.

>Those digits
Return them retard.

I have already proven that there is only one solution: The figure is completely defined by the four angles given, and the value of x cannot be changed without changing at least one of those four angles. Until someone provides a drawing of a version of the figure in which the four provided angles remain the same but where x is different, my proof stands.

to be honest, mathfag, I have difficulty seeing what it would look like, too, in my mind's eye. Did the calculations in my mind, for those other angles, but trying to imagine what would move, or what wouldn't, is not that easy.

You may doubt all you want, but you still cannot provide a proof for the "solution" you claim is unique. How come ?

The reason you have difficulty seeing what it would look like is because it's impossible.