• PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      71
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      It pisses me off to no end that what is CLEARLY shown as a 90degree angle is not in fact 90deg, I hate it when they do that.

      Also I will sadly admit this can teach people lessons about verifying the information themselves.

      GrumbleGrumbleGrumble…

      • yannic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I get you, but it doesn’t clearly indicate the angle in the middle at the base as much as it suggestively waggles its eyebrows towards 90⁰, it could just as easily be 89.9999999999999⁰, although upon zooming in, you can see the line does shift one pixel over on its way up. You simply can’t trust any of the angles as 90⁰ unless it’s got the ∟ symbol (that’s the official unicode) or you’ve measured them yourself, and with that one pixel off-set, it’s decidedly not 90⁰. That’s why you have to do the math.

        • Denjin@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          The internal angles of a triangle always add up to 180⁰, therefore the one pixel offset is irrelevant because the unlabelled angle is, despite what the image suggests, 60 80⁰.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 days ago

            Assuming you’re talking about the triangle on the left, it’s 80⁰: 180 - 60 - 40 = 80. The other two unlabeled angles are 100⁰ and 45⁰ respectively. None of the unlabelled angles are 60⁰.

      • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Another way to look at it is that it is simply a representation of an object. We don’t need to visualize the angles, as the values to the other asks are given. We just need the geometry of the object represented so we can calculate the value of the unlabeled angle. Given that the geometry of the objects is represented as triangles, we can infer that all sides are straight lines, regardless of the type of space the object occupies.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Actually, it might be a 90 degree angle, but the shape on the left might be a quadrilateral instead of a triangle.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Even if they are straight lines, if that’s a 2d projection of something on a non-flat 3d surface, it can also change the way the angles fit together.

      • Dragon "Rider"(drag)@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        If these aren’t straight lines, drag has no idea what the answer is and thinks it might be impossible to tell.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Nah, the angle isn’t specified as a right angle. We can’t assume it’s 90° just because it’s drawn that way, because it isn’t drawn to scale.

      Left triangle has 180° total. 60+40=100, which means that middle line is actually 80°, not 90. And since the opposite side is the inverse, we know it is 100° on the other side.

      100+35=135. We know the right triangle also has 180° total, so to find the top corner we do 180-135=45. So that top corner of the right triangle is 45°, meaning x must be 135° on the opposite side.

  • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    This is the geometry version of those stupid poorly written math equations. Engagement bait.

    The real answer is always “it’s unsolveable due to poor/missing notation”.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      It’s not unsolvable at all. The answer is x=135°. The triangles simply aren’t drawn to scale; The line between them isn’t a 90° angle, (even though it is drawn that way) because it is not specifically marked as 90° with a square angle mark.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      The triangles aren’t drawn to scale. The middle line isn’t a 90° angle, because it isn’t specifically marked with a square angle in the corner. Triangles always add up to 180°, so the angle in the left triangle is actually 80°, not 90°.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Nah, the imagery tricks you. 180 degrees to a line. 180 degrees inside a triangle.

      So you can gather the inside unlabeled angle on the triangle on the left is only 80 degrees: (180-[60+40])

      So you then know it’s 100 on the right side of that +35 leaves you with 45 degrees left for the top of the right one.

      180-45=. 135 degrees

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        Also if you add up all visible angles you get 135, so I’m sold on that alone. No no no, I won’t hear any rebuttals.

  • TheOakTree@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    For the love of dog, you can’t solve this problem without making assumptions that fundamentally change the answer. People are too quick to spot the first error and then make assumptions that are conveniently consistent with the correction.

    • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      The only assumption needed to solve the problem is that the bottom line is indeed straight. Generally it will never be assumed in these types of learning practices that a straight line is a lie, because at that point you can never do a single problem ever. However an undefined angle can be cheesed.

      Though it still bugs me on a fundamental level they will cheese the angle to bait a person into a wrong answer, it can teach a valuable lesson about verifying information.

      We can solve this issue of a straight line being guaranteed by doing this. This actually is probably a really good practice considering the exacting nature of certain disabilities such as ADHD and Autism. However if you live in the US you need to just accept things like this because we will NEVER fund public education properly let alone consider accessibility beyond things mandated by the ADA

  • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Someone used “x” to mean the variable x on a podcast the other day and it made me wonder if Gen Z is happy to call eX-Twitter “X” and if they calls Tweets “posts”.

    Annoying change for eX-Twitter

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    220
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    What a deviously misleading diagram.

    The triangle on the left isn’t actually a right angle triangle, as the other angles add to 100°, meaning the final one is actually 80°, not 90°.

    Therefore the triangle on the right also isn’t a right angle triangle. That corner is 100°.

    100+35=135°. 180-135=45°. So that’s 45° for the top angle.

    X = the straight line of the joined triangles (180°) - the top angle of the right triangle (45°). 180-45=135°

    X is 135°, not the 125° it initially appears to be.

    • greyfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      It also doesn’t say that the line on the bottom is straight, so we have no idea if that middle vertex adds up to 180 degrees. I would say it is unsolvable.

      • TheOakTree@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        This is what I was thinking. The image is not to scale, so it is risky to say that the angles at the bottom center add up to 180, despite looking that way. If a presented angle does not represent the real angle, then presented straight lines might not represent real lines.

        • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Eh, I think @sag pretty well nailed it.

          Looks like an outer triangle with inner triangles so x = 180 - (180 - (40 + 60 + 35)) = 40 + 60 + 35 = 135

          • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Can you clarify what you mean? this doesn’t make sense to me. There isn’t an “outer” triangle. There’s one triangle (the left one) that has the angles 40, 60, 80. Both triangles are misleadingly drawn as they appear to be aligned at the bottom but they’re not (left triangle’s non-displayed angle is 80, not 90 degrees). So that means we can’t figure out the angles of the right triangle since we only have information of 1 angle (the other can’t be figured out since we can’t assume its actually aligned at the bottom since the graph is now obviously not to scale).

            • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              I mean to me it looks like there are two connected triangles with an implied 3rd where x is the degree measure of its apex. IFF that is true, them you can assume 180 degree totals for each triangle individually and one for the “outer triangle”.

              I totally get it if you take the perspective that none of it is to scale, but it seems unreasonable to me that a straight line is not a straight line connecting the two triangles shown. Either it’s unsolvable from that premise, or you can assume 3 triangles that compose one larger triangle and solve directly. And it seems weird to share something that is patently unsolvable.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      7 days ago

      I used to have teacher who deliberately made disproportionate diagrams. His reasoning was that people trust too much what their eyes see and not enough what the numbers tell them. He would’ve loved that diagram.