this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
1122 points (98.2% liked)

People Twitter

5393 readers
462 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Habahnow 64 points 2 months ago (7 children)

All these people saying its 135 are making big assumptions that I think is incorrect. There’s one triangle (the left one) that has the angles 40, 60, 80. The 80 degrees is calculated based on the other angles. What's very important is the fact that these triangles appear to have a shared 90 degree corner, but that is not the case based on what we just calculated. This means the image is not to scale and we must not make any visual assumptions. 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).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 2 months ago (3 children)

135 is correct. Bottom intersection is 80/100, 180-35-100 = 45 for the top of the second triangle. 180 - 45 = 135

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Mathematician here; I second this as a valid answer. (It's what I got as well.)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Random guy who didn't sleep in middle school here: I also got the same answer.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

Random woman who didn't sleep very well last night. I got a different answer, then thought about it for 10 more seconds and then got 135.

(No I didn't assume the right angle, my mistake was even dumber. I need a nap.)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're making the assumption that the straight line consisting of the bottom edge of both triangles is made of supplementary angles. This is not defined due to the nature of the image not being to scale.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Unless there are lines that are not straight in the image (which would make the calculation of x literally impossible), the third angle of the triangle in the left has to be 80°, making the angle to its right to be 100°, making the angle above it to be 45°, making the angle above it to be 135°. This is basic trigonometry.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

which would make the calculation of x literally impossible

Yes.

But that doesn't mean that line must be straight. It just means if it isn't, you can't derive x.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

When you're finding the outside angle along the line of a triangle you don't need the inside angle tied to that outside angle if you have the other two inside angles since both straight lines and triangles total to 180 degrees.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 months ago

This is a standard way to draw geometric proofs, it's not at all unreasonable to assume straight lines alongside unrepresentative angles. It's certainly still an assumption, but a conventional one.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I mean, the assumption shouldn't be anything about scale. It should be that we're looking at straight lines. And if we can't assume that, then what are we even doing.

But, assuming straight lines, given straight lines you find the other side of an intersecting line because of complements.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And if we can't assume that, then what are we even doing

That's exactly what the other user is saying. We can't assume straight lines because the given angles don't make any sense and thus this graph is literally impossible to make. We're arguing over literal click bait is what we're doing.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Why do the labeled angles prevent us from assuming straight lines?

[–] starman2112 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because the angles aren't represented accurately. It could be that the two angles that look like they're 90° add up to 180°, but they could also not

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 3 points 2 months ago

That's technically possible, but that's also an irrational take. The rational take is to assume the problem is solvable given the available information, which means assuming that the lines are straight.

Yes, two angles appear to be 90⁰, but they're obviously not with the given information. Math conventions nearly always label right angles, so not having the right angle there implies that the angle should not be assumed to be 90⁰. Math conventions in trigonometry also generally assume straight lines unless there's a visual indicator that they're not, and those tend to be exaggerated so it's obvious.

So the rational answer here is that the bottom line is straight and therefore the problem is solvable. Saying otherwise is irrational, because that's so far away from math conventions.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago

Because the apparently straight lines contradict the labels. As drawn, the unlabeled bottom vertices are clearly 90°, not 80° and 100°. We must either conclude that the labels are incorrect, or that the figure is not drawn to scale. Either way, it's insoluble.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

We can't assume that the straight line across the bottom is a straight line because the angles in the drawing are not to scale. Who's to say that the "right angle" of the right side triangle isn't 144°?

If the scale is not consistent with euclidian planar geometry, one could argue that the scale is consistent within itself, thus the right triangle's "right angle" might also be 80°, which is not a supplement to the known 80° angle.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

thx for the compliment

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Stupid stuff like this is why kids hate math class. Unless the problem says calculate all unmarked angles, those visually 90 degree angles are 90 degrees. It works that way in any non engineering job that uses angles because it's common sense.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

...what? I get that this drawing is very dysfunctional, but are you going to argue that a triangle within a plane can have a sum of angles of 190°?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nope I'm not saying that. I'm saying this is a gotcha question that demotivates learners.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

I see. I agree completely. The only place this belongs is as a thought experiment on making assumptions in geometry.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The sum of the angles of a triangle are always 180°

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Yes, I believe I implied this by suggesting that the sum of angles being 190° is absurd.

[–] starman2112 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, they're saying that unless you're already good at this stuff, it's easy to assume that a visually 90° angle is actually 90° even when it's not

[–] taladar 1 points 2 months ago

Especially if you are bad at this stuff you know that drawing anything like that accurately is a real pain and nobody who can avoid it will ever do it to represent anything accurately. That is what labels are for.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

I'd argue that the bottom line is indeed one continuous line regardless of how many other lines intersect on it, because there's nothing indicating that the line is broken at the intersection.

Now the only reason I think the lines are straight at all is use of the angular notations at the ends, which would be horribly misleading to put at the end of curves or broken lines.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

You're making the assumption that they are triangles.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Your assumption is that it's a Cartesian coordinate system with 90° angles. But that's not necessarily the case. You can apply a sheer transformation to correct for the unusual appearance. When you do that, the angles change, but straight lines stay straight and parallels stay parallel. There's a mathematical term for that, which I can't remember right now.