ποΈ π§΅ Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:02:05 UTC No. 16585839
You are smarter than your gf, right /sci/? I mean, you do have a gf, right?
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:49:04 UTC No. 16585873
123.456789^2
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:49:26 UTC No. 16585875
this isn't solvable
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:09:33 UTC No. 16585886
>>16585839
If the square is a^2 then the surface of the square is 1/2*((5+a)*(20+a))-(1/2*5a)-(1/2*20
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:42:05 UTC No. 16585904
>>16585886
if you say anything else than
>tan(a/5) = tan(20/a)
>a = 10
then you're not worthy of my seed
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:55:53 UTC No. 16585918
>>16585904
You're supposed to be solving for the area of the square. The area of the square is not 10.
Also the triangles are similar so really you just need
>x/5=20/x
>*5x *5x
>x^2=100=A
>overcomplicating a problem for 4th graders
>and getting it wrong
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 19:00:18 UTC No. 16585929
>>16585886
>a = 10
If you expand the dimensions you can see that the square is less than x
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 19:03:21 UTC No. 16585934
>>16585929
So a=-10. Who gives a shit?
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 19:05:01 UTC No. 16585935
>>16585934
No, a is more than 10 but you said 'if'
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 19:30:56 UTC No. 16585953
>>16585839
width = 5 + a
height = b + 20
system: 5/b = a/20 and a = b
solution: a = 10 and b = 10
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?
area(square) = a*b = 100 units^2
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 19:56:57 UTC No. 16585976
>>16585904
>tan(a/5) = tan(20/a)
no, no, the foregoing is confusion
a/5 = tan(theta) = 20/a
thus:
tan(a/5) = tan(tan(theta)) = tan(20/a)
and tan(tan(theta)) isn't needed
thus your gf is gonna dump you
and get a new bf
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:01:30 UTC No. 16585981
>>16585839
>you lack fundamental knowledge in a field you have zero interest in? that means you must be low IQ
Gurantee this faggot couldn't explain difference between arteries and veins to save his life if asked on the spot.
Area is 100, you need to know trig or triangle similiarity, which any smart person that has no use for math is likely to forget because it's a waste of their memory to remember. This is the equivalent of memorizing quirky harry potter factoids. No one gives a shit.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:08:55 UTC No. 16585988
>>16585839
>>16585873
>>16585875
>>16585886
>>16585904
>>16585918
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:11:00 UTC No. 16585989
>>16585918
Exactly this. Solved by this method in 30 seconds. Algebra is such a powerful tool in maths.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:37:19 UTC No. 16586016
>>16585988
This was a fun thread
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 01:19:41 UTC No. 16586222
>>16585839
phew, i accidentally solved it by trying to mirror the triangle after pythagoras didnt help. i didnt know i am so bad at math, took me 3-4 minutes
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 02:28:13 UTC No. 16586250
>>16585839
The area of every inscribed rectangle is a*b = 5*20 = 100 units^2.
Since b/5 = 20/a.
The implicit definitions of a and b are:
width(LT) = 5 + a
height(LT) = b + 20
LT = largest triangle
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 02:32:13 UTC No. 16586251
>>16585839
Law of sines. Similar triangles.
5/x = x/20
x^2 = 100
Done
.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 03:00:21 UTC No. 16586262
>>16586250
>The area of every inscribed rectangle is a*b = 5*20 = 100 units^2
Are you sure about that?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 03:08:14 UTC No. 16586266
>>16585875
At first I thought this, but then I realized that I cannot change the dimensions of the square without also changing some property of the attached triangles -- either the listed length/base would change OR the angle at the upper left of the square would change. This means the description for the square is sufficiently constrained by the listed dimensions and there is a solution. I can't be bothered to work it out though.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 04:14:42 UTC No. 16586302
>>16585953
Did you seriously need wolframalpha for that?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 09:56:55 UTC No. 16586489
>>16586251
>Similar triangles.
>5/x = x/20
>x^2 = 100
>Done
true
that's all there's to it
you get the gold medal
or the blue ribbon
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:26:21 UTC No. 16586497
>>16586262
>Are you sure about that?
Well you know, I didn't mean eevveerryy inscribed rectangle now, see?
I meant only those inscribed rectangles which have
one corner on the hypotenuse,
one corner on the width,
one corner on the height, and
one corner on the SE point.
And the implicit definitions of a and b imply this meaning.
Believe it or not, what you pointed out, occurred to me before I posted that post.
But I didn't want to be rigorous.
If I had a blog, then everything on my blog would be rigorous.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:48:21 UTC No. 16586514
>>16586302
>Did you seriously need wolframalpha for that?
no, i didn't
it was "overkill"
i posted that post too hastily
plus i always run to "my djinni / genie / jinni" wolframalpha.com
it's a habit by now
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 11:44:41 UTC No. 16586546
>>16585839
Sine Rule
>>16586251
Shit you beat me to it.
I'm uploading the proof anyway since I took the time to make it.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:31:43 UTC No. 16586572
I tried solving it graphically, got an area of 99.9999898002.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:13:41 UTC No. 16586602
The area is ? it even says so in the problem dedcription.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:15:05 UTC No. 16586603
>>16585839
>right angle triangle
>ok its some 1.5 type shit I remember that before I droppes out of school
>ok big side is 30 minus 20 so 10
>ok bottom side is 5 plus 10 because squares are the same on all sides
>ok 10 times 10 is 100
>answer 100
I merely based retard'd my way through this
95 asvab 8th grade education reporting in
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:23:33 UTC No. 16586614
>>16586603
>big side is 30 minus 20 so 10
Where in the picture does it say that?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:29:00 UTC No. 16586616
>>16586614
Its implied by the top triangle section
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:44:12 UTC No. 16586632
>>16586614
>>16586616
Honestly there are multiple ways to eatablish a value of 10 on the square by just using common sense
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:05:52 UTC No. 16586652
>>16585839
Why would I ever want to date a woman dumber than I am? What advantage is there to that?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:22:22 UTC No. 16586754
I tried to solve it like this, because from school I only remembered Pythagoras:
(20+x)^2 + (5+x)^2 = (y+z)^2
y and z being the hypothenuse of the two small triangles, adding up together to the hypothenuse of the big triangle.
then
5^2 + x^2 = y^2
20^2 + x^2 = z^2
take root and insert into equation above,
returns -10 and 10,
only 10 logical because can't have negative length of a side of a square, so the answer is 10^2 = 100
Now if I should get reincarnated as woman do I fulfill the minimum requirement for /sci/ eugenics program?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:37:40 UTC No. 16586776
>>16585929
>10*10 != 20*5
you are retarded
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:40:00 UTC No. 16586778
>>16585839
100
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:40:45 UTC No. 16586783
>>16586776
oh also you don't need trig to solve this.
both triangles have the same angles, so one is just a scaled version of the other.
this means the sides have to have the same ratio, so we have 5 / x = x / 20, or 5:x:20, the only possible answer is that x = 10 and the ratio is 1:2
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:42:15 UTC No. 16586785
>>16585839
ngmi
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:45:55 UTC No. 16586844
>>16586783
>oh also you don't need trig to solve this.
Triangle similarity is still technically trig, just a special case of it.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:52:10 UTC No. 16586853
>>16585839
tan(alpha)=a/5=20/a
a^2=A=100
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:53:57 UTC No. 16586856
>>16586844
>Triangle similarity is still technically trig
No. It's just geometry. Trig specifically deals with trigonometric functions. You do not need to bring trigonometric functions into triangle similarity.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:15:26 UTC No. 16586876
>>16585839
ask me how I know there's a jeet behind this account
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:28:19 UTC No. 16586889
>>16586876
How?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:40:28 UTC No. 16586903
>>16585839
Are we assuming this is a right triangle? It's not explicit.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:52:21 UTC No. 16586918
>>16586903
It is explicit because we know the green shape is a square.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:16:40 UTC No. 16586996
>>16586918
That still doesn't technically make it explicit. It's entirely possible that the outer shape has 4-6 sides and simply is really close to a triangle.
Don't get me wrong, I would assume that anyone giving me this problem is simply shit at writing problems, but *technically* the problem is formally unsolvable without more information.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:34:56 UTC No. 16587027
>>16586996
>It's entirely possible that the outer shape has 4-6 sides and simply is really close to a triangle.
Not really, you can only argue that the corners are circular sectors, but even then you can at the very least approximate the area with very high accuracy. You won't weasel your way out of missing critical information with me, I know your type. Just admit you didn't think about it and be on your way.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:32:55 UTC No. 16587130
how's the similarity of the triangles known without direct measurement of angles?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:37:55 UTC No. 16587136
>>16587027
>Not really
Yes really, we aren't told any of the lines are parallel or perpendicular outside of the square. There's a famous math puzzle entirely built around a fake triangle, ffs.
>You won't weasel your way out of missing critical information with me, I know your type. Just admit you didn't think about it and be on your way.
I'm not even the person you were talking to initially.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:45:16 UTC No. 16587156
>>16587130
It follows naturally if you assume the outer shape is a triangle because then they all have to be right triangles, giving you 1 angle common to all three and the larger triangle then shares a 2nd angle with the 2 smaller triangles, forcing the 3rd angles to match too since any angle of a triangle can be written as 180-the other two.
Admittedly assuming something and knowing it aren't the same the same thing, but I digress.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 00:27:38 UTC No. 16587399
>>16585839
NEW QUESTION: Why wasn't Desmos able to solve for x in pic-related?
I got the equation:
[math](20+x)^2+(5+x)^2=(sqrt(5^2+x^
from the Pythagorean Theorem.
Then I plugged it into Desmos, which usually can solve for x even with complex equations like this. But it didn't show an answer, which usually means there is no solution.
So I split the equation onto two lines to basically turn it into a system. It looked like the graphs touched, but normally when two graphs intersect, Desmos lets you click the point where they intersect to see the solution. But again, Desmos wouldn't do it, which normally means that the lines come close to touching but don't actually touch.
Finally I just put them into tables and got x=10 which means the area is 100.
But why did Desmos fail here? I don't think Desmos has ever failed to find a solution for me before.
>>16585918
Yeah, I realized after I worked out the above equation that they were just similar triangles, but my first instinct was Pythagorean Theorem.
>>16585981
>trig or triangle similarity
triangle similarity is not hard and any smart person should know it (I just didn't initially think of it here, but it is easy to do and quite intuitive). Also, you can do it with the Pythagorean Theorem (pic-rel) it just takes a bit of work, and would have taken a lot longer if I didn't use a calculator.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 00:29:28 UTC No. 16587400
>>16587399
>triangle similarity is not hard and any smart person should know it
Difference between veins and arteries, right now, no looking up.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 00:33:47 UTC No. 16587404
>>16587400
arteries carry blood from the heart, veins carry blood too the heart.
That's actually fairly basic trivia, but it's still trivia and I wouldn't put it on the same level as knowing that similar triangles have the same ratios between corresponding sides. Not knowing a trivial fact is not the same as not knowing how to think and reason.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 02:47:53 UTC No. 16587515
>>16587399
>I got the equation:
omg he wrote: h3^2 = (h1 + h2)^2
i wrote: h1 + h2 = h3
which corresponds to the geometry of the situation more closely
>But why did Desmos fail here?
because WolframAlpha didn't?
>they were just similar triangles, but my first instinct was Pythagorean Theorem.
omg that was his first instinct?
my first instinct was similar triangles
i barely thought of either the Pythagorean theorem or trigonometry
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 03:28:43 UTC No. 16587543
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 04:10:43 UTC No. 16587566
>>16586546
Does this mean if two triangles that shares sides with a square can be deducted like this? and it only takes 1 equation- 'what length would make these 2 triangles proportional?' so 5length+10height would be proportional to 10length + 20height since it's a perfect square
Or is there something I'm missing that makes it take all that extra math
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 05:47:13 UTC No. 16587612
>>16587566
>two triangles that shares sides with a square can be deducted like this?
It's not just that they share sides with a square, but their hypotenuses are sections of the same line. So you have two parallel straight lines intersecting a third straight line, which always produces identical angles at the intersections.
>what length would make these 2 triangles proportional?
Yes, lengths of similar triangles will have the same ratios.
>is there something I'm missing that makes it take all that extra math
You don't *need* an algebraic proof, but it's easier to see the principle if you have one. Also teachers/examiners cannot dispute whether you "showed your working".
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 05:55:45 UTC No. 16587613
>>16587612
Ok that makes sense! I wasn't familiar with this proof and that explains it. thanks
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 12:23:11 UTC No. 16587812
>>16586632
>>16586616
You're making assumptions. See >>16587136
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 12:35:01 UTC No. 16587823
>>16587812
Nope
Works with any values so long as the square is really a square and the triangles are really right triangles, you have low IQ
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 12:53:47 UTC No. 16587831
>>16587823
>and the triangles are really right triangles
Which we aren't told because we aren't told the angles of either of the 2 smaller triangles or that the largest shape is a triangle at all.
Whether it's a reasonable assumption or not, you are making an assumption.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 12:58:08 UTC No. 16587836
Given a square that reaches the slope of a triangle you will have only one possible angle of slope and therefore only one possible proportionality
Bing bang boom I didn't go to highschool and did nothing but smoke weed and drink for 15 years this shit is EASY
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 12:59:09 UTC No. 16587839
>>16587831
the square is a square(we are told this), which implies right triangles
You are low IQ
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:03:49 UTC No. 16587844
>>16587839
>which implies right triangles
The known triangles aren't part of the square. No, it does not.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:06:28 UTC No. 16587847
>>16587844
See
>>16587836
Sorry about your brain, bud
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:57:41 UTC No. 16588061
>>16587847
Okay, I see
>>16587836
And they assume the square is reaching the slope of a triangle and not the corner of a quadrilateral.
The identity of the outer shape isn't known. It is not referenced in the problem. Are you seriously going to tell me you know this is a triangle without being told?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:12:34 UTC No. 16588082
>>16588061
Proportionality is all you eed, numbnuts
>muh you dont KNOW for sure where the black lines match up
You are pathetic, you chose such a pathetic hill, you are nothing.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:24:50 UTC No. 16588096
>>16588082
>Proportionality is all you eed, numbnuts
You don't have proportionality unless you first establish the outer shape is a triangle.
For all you know this shit
>>16588061
is a pentagon or a hexagon made up by a square and 2 triangles.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:50:51 UTC No. 16588138
>>16585839
>formal education is intelligence
As always, thank god is women who select who to breed and not the opposite, of course natural selection would've produced the best way.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:24:42 UTC No. 16588308
>>16588096
The angle does that because the square and the outer line touch each other you nigger brain
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:12:35 UTC No. 16588387
>>16587136
The line from bottom left to top right was copy and pasted in PowerPoint. Indeed, upon observation we see the slope of the hypotenuse of the red square is 3/8 = 0.375 whereas the slope of the blue triangle is 2/5 = 0.4. You're led to believe the slope of the entire triangle is 5/13 = ~0.385. So the red triangle undershoots the expected area and the blue triangle overshoots the expected area. The red triangle is bigger so the undershoot wins. When you flip the triangles, the missing square's area is now inside the triangle. I'm too lazy to do the actual calculation atm
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:14:09 UTC No. 16588390
>>16587136
>Yes really, we aren't told any of the lines are parallel or perpendicular outside of the square
attention brainlet: if the square has perpendicular sides then the triangle is a right triangle, and it's clearly a triangle via three connecting line segments. the law of sines automatically applies.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:26:00 UTC No. 16588404
>>16585904
>Overcomplicating a problem a 5th-grader can solve with only fractions
>20/(20+x) = x/(x+5)
You are equally a droid, an empty head that runs on the latest update installed. You are no different than the totally useless drones that cannot even come up with a solution. Your only difference is that you run mecanically on some predefined settings that you cannot conceptualize nor reason. You are a sophisticated hash table whose depth has only given rise to an infinite ego.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:40:27 UTC No. 16588422
>>16585981
based
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:44:40 UTC No. 16588425
>>16586876
ragebait engagement farming, placing value on (relatively) obscure book knowledge instead of intuition
the modern western education curriculum is dogshit, i wouldn't judge somebody for not being able to solve this
i'd judge their ability to understand the solution when it's explained to them
ban twitter screencap threads
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:47:13 UTC No. 16588429
>>16586876
fucking hell
https://x.com/LifeMathMoney/status/
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 21:46:53 UTC No. 16588485
>>16588387
area(red triangle) = 8*3/2 = 12
area(yellow region) = 2*2 + 3*1 = 7
area(green region) = 2*1 + 3*2 = 8
area(blue triangle) = 5*2/2 = 5
area(colored regions) = 12 + 7 + 8 + 5 = 32
area(underlying white rectangle) = 13*5 = 65
65/2 β 32 = 1/2
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:01:13 UTC No. 16588493
>>16585839
20/X = X/5
100/X = X
X = 100
sqrt(X) = 10
ez.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:03:46 UTC No. 16588497
>>16588493
shit. I mistyped it.
I meant X^2 = 100 and X = 10.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:10:00 UTC No. 16588500
Imagine breaking up with your girlfriend because some random internet Indian with an exam question said so.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:39:12 UTC No. 16588523
>>16588390
>if the square has perpendicular sides then the triangle is a right triangle
If it's a triangle
>and it's clearly a triangle via three connecting line segments
Except they could be upwards of 6 connected line segments since the angles of the interior triangles against the square aren't given and no line segments are identified.
>>16588308
Each outer "line" could be 2 outer lines. We aren't told any segments are parallel except for the paired sides of the square itself.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:40:51 UTC No. 16588524
>>16588308
>The angle does that because the square and the outer line touch each other you nigger brain
The square and the outer "line" touching does not force the outer shape to be a triangle because it could be a quadrilateral with 2 sides nearly parallel
Or, again, a pentagon or hexagon.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:42:23 UTC No. 16588571
>>16586876
his avatar is an indian mathematician
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 01:02:06 UTC No. 16588622
>>16588524
>>16588523
wE DoNt KNoW iF Its A sTRaiGHt LiNe
shut the fuck up
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 01:35:57 UTC No. 16588638
>>16588524
People make remarks like this thinking they're being smart, when actually they're being incredibly midwittted.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:11:44 UTC No. 16588654
>>16588638
You know, I was perfectly content with just assuming the question asker was a fuckwit and they meant for it to be a triangle (and in fact I treated it as such in one of the early posts), but then someone simply asked for clarification and then some other fuckwit jumped in and said the outer shape HAS to be a right triangle because of the square.
And that's just fucking wrong. The square doesn't tell you jack shit about the shape around it except for one of the angles.
And then motherfuckers challenged me on that so I dug my fucking heels in. You all have shitty post hoc justifications for assuming it's a triangle and it isn't formally established in the problem. I'm technically correct and you can suck a cock if you say otherwise.
You wanna know why all you fuckers really think it's a triangle? Because it looks close to a triangle and the problem wouldn't be solvable otherwise. You don't have a single *actual* fucking reason for it being a triangle beyond just vibes. In a formal setting the problem legitimately wouldn't be solvable with the information given and you god damn know it. If I'm a midwit, you're a fucking planarian.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:15:31 UTC No. 16588658
>>16588654
Low IQ
Take your L, loser.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:19:55 UTC No. 16588662
>>16588658
Shut up, worm. Any rebuttal that isn't a formal proof the shape has to be a triangle without further assumptions is just so much butthurt from a dipshit that got called out on their bullshit.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:27:51 UTC No. 16588669
>>16588662
You called nothing out, you refuted nothing, when YOU were refuted, you suggested it wasn't a triangle. We know that it is. You are the lowest form of life and your ego can't take it.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:36:12 UTC No. 16588673
>>16585875
assuming right angles, this is what you know
A^2 + 20^2 = H2^2
A^2 + 5^2 = H1^2
(A+5)^2 + (A+20)^2 = (H1+H2)^2
3 equations, 3 unknowns. Ill let someone else solve it.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:39:12 UTC No. 16588675
Extend lines where arrows are pointing and then connect them with a line that intersects the yellow mark
This ONLY produces a triangle. Not just any triangle either. The angle and proportionality are dictated by the square corner intersection.
Simple as.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:56:00 UTC No. 16588687
>>16588669
>when YOU were refuted
?
>We know that it is
How? Answer without vibes please.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:57:28 UTC No. 16588689
>>16588687
Enjoy
>>16588675
You are inferior
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:06:20 UTC No. 16588701
>>16588675
>>16588689
At no point does the problem state the line segments on either side of the corners of the square constitute a single straight line.
Fuck off with your vibes bullshit, worm.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:11:42 UTC No. 16588707
>>16588701
>he draws 2 lines instead of 1 line
Absolute cope
Nobody on this board is as pathetic as you
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:15:08 UTC No. 16588710
>>16588701
>he even refuses to make the lines straight
Broski I haven't seen this level of pathetic in a long time
Your ego must be DEVASTATED
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:15:38 UTC No. 16588711
>>16586266
We don't have enough information to assume the triangles are similar triangles.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 05:43:22 UTC No. 16588833
>>16585839
it's 100 units squared
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 07:08:07 UTC No. 16588898
>>16588497
>and X = 10
or sqrt(X^2) = 10
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 07:23:22 UTC No. 16588902
>>16588387
Regarding the picture on the left:
The area of the white region,
which is above the diagonal,
is 32 + 1/2.
The area of the colored region
is 32.
The area of the white region,
which is below the diagonal,
is 1/2.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 07:34:14 UTC No. 16588904
>>16588673
>I[']ll let someone else solve it.
someone already did:
>>16587515
>>16587486
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 07:48:25 UTC No. 16588912
>>16588833
If your graph paper were composed of squares, instead of rectangles, then your triangle would be of the correct shape.
Since (6 + 12)/(3 + 6) = (10 + 20)/(5 + 10).
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:05:11 UTC No. 16588932
>>16586996
>It's entirely possible that the outer shape has 4-6 sides and simply is really close to a triangle.
>>16588387
The "outer shape",
in the picture on the left,
has 4 sides.
>>16588701
The "outer shape",
in this picture,
has 6 sides.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:48:56 UTC No. 16589067
>>16585839
>side that is 20 elephants or something isn't 4 times longer than the side that is 5 elephants
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:37:37 UTC No. 16589181
>>16588932
It's a triangle you fucking loser
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 13:18:20 UTC No. 16589216
>>16585839
>meanwhile low IQ people continue to reproduce while smartasses have come to the intelligent conclusion that having no children is somehow better for earth as if it matters
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 13:34:21 UTC No. 16589225
no one likes you
>>16589181
>you fucking loser
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 13:35:57 UTC No. 16589227
>>16589225
Stay mad, it's obviously a triangle, you lost
ποΈ Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 13:55:02 UTC No. 16589233
>>16589227
>Stay mad, it's obviously a triangle, you lost
Don't get mad, because I just reported your post!
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:05:25 UTC No. 16589238
>>16589233
Imagine seething this hard because you're stupid
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:15:16 UTC No. 16589241
>>16585839
(20 + x) / (5+x) = x / 5
Solve to get x^2 = 100.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:26:42 UTC No. 16589246
>>16589241
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:28:18 UTC No. 16589247
>>16586889
>>16588425
>>16588429
>>16588571
anyone who LOVES middle school maths/geometry is either indian or chinese, HOWEVER
chinese people suck at english, and they tend to underinflect words because their language doesn't inflect anything, and when they write emotionally, they put relevant words in their approximate spots without worrying about grammar
indian people are better at english because it's their second language, and when they write emotionally, they write elaborate mind scenes
therefore it's indian
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 15:05:11 UTC No. 16589272
no
>>16589238
>you're
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:04:41 UTC No. 16589397
>>16589247
>anyone who LOVES middle school maths/geometry is either indian or chinese
very true, why? do they spend more time in school focusing on it?
in the west we focus more on history and social dynamics to prevent domestic terrorism, the only people that actually learn math beyond basic algebra tend to be future STEM students who need the prerequisite courses for university
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:13:41 UTC No. 16589402
>>16585839
You have 3 right triangles now you can definitely make enough equations to solve.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:21:25 UTC No. 16589742
>>16588387
Regarding the picture on the right:
The area of the white region,
which is below the diagonal,
is 1.
The area of the colored region
is 32.
The area of the white region,
which is above the diagonal,
is 32.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:36:14 UTC No. 16589754
>>16585839
x/5=20/x
x^2=100
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:37:36 UTC No. 16589868
>>16585839
using pixels we get 103.71
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:18:38 UTC No. 16589958
>>16589397
yes exactly, that's the case with all countries near their development level
they want money, and stem pays, and you need to know math for stem, so they learn math
in richer countries people can live adequate lives with any other career, and in poorer countries people are too busy surviving to care about education
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:34:22 UTC No. 16590057
>>16585839
5*r = 20/r = l
r = 2
l = 10
area = 100
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:49:12 UTC No. 16590074
>>16589868
103.656...
lowercasesage !!4DQphUM8gee at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:07:41 UTC No. 16590088
>>16585839
Hmm. Let's say that side of a square is x. It's easy to notice (angles are identical) that two small triangles are similar, therefore 20/x = x/5. So x^2 = 100.
PS: If your solution uses a function tangent somewhere, then you're overthinking it a bit
lowercasesage !!4DQphUM8gee at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:10:18 UTC No. 16590090
>>16590088
PSPS: If your solution uses a Pythagoras theorem for three right triangles, you're overthinking it a lot.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:15:26 UTC No. 16590097
>>16590090
pythagoras is needed to set the conditions for the 3x3 system though... or is there a simpler solution?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:36:11 UTC No. 16590114
>>16590097
Ooh now I see it.
Similar triangles.
A = 100. Boom.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:35:33 UTC No. 16590168
>>16590090
>PSPS
you mean PPS
PS = postscript
PPS = postpostscript
PSPS is incorrect
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:05:16 UTC No. 16590192
>>16589868
this pixel way reminds me of the following proportion
EF:MF = WNF:SNF
where
E = electric
M = magnetic
WN = weak nuclear
SN = strong nuclear
F = force
and the NFs correspond to the pixels
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:28:48 UTC No. 16590363
>>16585904
>tan(a/5) = tan (20/a)
It's literally not. Thank god there are no women worthy of your seed anon.
It's tan(ΠΆ) = a/5 = 20/a