• expatriado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      correct, just commenting the 100/80 intersection looks like 90/90, i think it was intentionally misleading, classic trying to get you problem

      • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes I originally thought 90 but then noticed the absence of a right angle sign. Also 60+40=100 which means the last angle should be 80. Making that perpendicular 100/80

      • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        What a bunch of bullshit. Just draw it way off 90 if you don’t want people to use a protractor. I calculated 125° because of this (but I’m happy I still got the right wrong answer, if that makes sense)

          • jdeath@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            this is a meme tho. i wanted to treat it like a “real life” problem where if i saw those obviously 90 degree corners, i would just say it’s 90 because nowhere else in all my life outside of stupid schoolwork trick questions would that happen. which meant i got to the answer in a few seconds, which is a handy skill in real life.

            • Glemek@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              You could potentially run into this or something very similar in cad when your sketches aren’t fully defined yet. I’ve definitely ran into models that are slightly off square because someone missed a constraint much earlier in the timeline.

    • slaacaa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Yes, simple doodle below for anyone wondering.

      You start from left, and calculate them 1 by 1, based on the angles that you already know. It is quite simple actually, you just have to know they always add up to 180 (within triangle, and when you “split” the space over a straight line).

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Nope. The value is “undefined”. You don’t have enough info to arrive at 135 - you are assuming that the bottom angle (sum of the angles that touch) is 180 degrees. Since there isn’t a datum saying the bottom “line” is straight, nor does it say the triangle on the right is an isosceles triangle, it is impossible to solve.

        • Wugmeister@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Oh shit you’re right. The left triangles unmarked angle is 80, meaning the right triangles internal angles are 100, 35, and 45. This means X is 135

        • shastaxc@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Even if it was a right angle, I think a second assumption is that the top left and bottom lines are equal length, which is also not stated.

          I think there’s just not enough information in this picture to calculate the angle, and it can only be determined by measuring. But the image also does not specify that it is drawn to scale.

  • Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    I hated pictures like this in school. The numbers are just slapped on an inaccurate image and somehow they expect people to ignore the obvious right triangles and just focus on the math part of it.

    • CaptainBasculin@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Fun fact: In Turkey’s university admittance exam, all angles have to be absolutely accurate, and measurements have to be scaled down perfectly to the visible shape in a geometry question.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        all angles have to be absolutely accurate

        To what tolerance, though? Writing math exams has now become an engineering problem.

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      If it was to scale you could just use a protractor and skip the whole math part, which is the entire part of the lesson…

      • Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t see that as a downside as long as these two questions are also included.

        How many degrees make up the inner angles of a triangle?

        How many degrees make up one side of a straight line?

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Big assumption that the bottom line is straight / not two lines connecting at a different angle

      • elxeno@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Then they could use decimals so it’s unlikely to get it right without calculating, 60.17°, 40.29°, 35.43°

      • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        And what’s wrong with that. Utilizing real world solutions to problems is a life skill. Not some obscure formula that you will forget anyway.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      If the student eventually does geometry for money, they’ll discover that customer CAD files invariably have some bizarre error like this.

  • wieson@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s even easier than going the triangle route.

    A four-corner shape always has 360° internally.

    So the internal angle of corner X is 360-(60+40+35).

    The exterior angle therefore is 360-360-(60+40+35) = 60+40+35 = 135

    • brown567@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s based on the assumption that the two angles in the middle add up to 180, which can’t be assumed by inspection alone as demonstrated by the visibly square 80° angle

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        No, you should completely ignore the bottom half of the center line. You end up with a shape with four turns. Those four internal angles always add to 360.

        • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          He is saying your shape might have 5 turns instead of 4 if the bottom line is not actually a line. Though if that was the case, the problem would not be solvable, so I doubt it.