Quoted By: >>10871352 >>10871359

Quoted By:

in before spherical geometry fags

http://math.youngzones.org/Non-Egeometry/spherical2.html

http://math.youngzones.org/Non-Egeometry/spherical2.html

Quoted By:

WE'VE BEEN HAVING THIS SAME ARGUMENT SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME! EVERYBODY SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!

Quoted By: >>10871409 >>10871434 >>10871450

>>10871312

and you fail math.

see that right angle? that means the other 2 angles add up to.. wait for it.. 180. oh ya.. 19 and 19.. so they are equal. so.. wait for it...

its 19.

and you fail math.

see that right angle? that means the other 2 angles add up to.. wait for it.. 180. oh ya.. 19 and 19.. so they are equal. so.. wait for it...

its 19.

Quoted By:

Quoted By: >>10871458

>>10871377

So wait, you're telling me the sum of 2 internal angles of a triangle is 180?

So wait, you're telling me the sum of 2 internal angles of a triangle is 180?

Quoted By: >>10871558

It's impossible for a rectangular triangle to also be equilateral you bunch of retards.

Quoted By: >>10871532 >>10871568 >>10871630

Learn to fucking Phythagoras. I suck at math but I can still solve this. C=x

A²+B²=C²

19²+19²=C²

361+316=C²

722=C²

C=√722

C≈26.87 or C=26.87005769 to be precise

A²+B²=C²

19²+19²=C²

361+316=C²

722=C²

C=√722

C≈26.87 or C=26.87005769 to be precise

Quoted By: >>10871537 >>10871544 >>10871546 >>10871555

>>10871393

It's raining retards. WHAT DO THE LINES MEAN ON EACH SIDE? YOU SEE THAT? THAT MEANS EQUAL SIDES.

It's raining retards. WHAT DO THE LINES MEAN ON EACH SIDE? YOU SEE THAT? THAT MEANS EQUAL SIDES.

Quoted By: >>10871674

Quoted By:

>>10871514

I think it actually means "The side this mark is through is the number next to it length. What's the length of X next to this unsolved little mark?"

They're not even drawn to LOOK congruent. Just drop that.

I think it actually means "The side this mark is through is the number next to it length. What's the length of X next to this unsolved little mark?"

They're not even drawn to LOOK congruent. Just drop that.

Quoted By:

Quoted By: >>10871569 >>10871596

Americans don't learn what those marks mean in school, leave them alone.

Quoted By: >>10871586 >>10871594 >>10871614

>>10871514

...which is why the problem is fucking impossible. Right angle = Isosceles triangle.

...which is why the problem is fucking impossible. Right angle = Isosceles triangle.

Quoted By:

Quoted By: >>10871604 >>10872089

Quoted By: >>10871699

>>10871506

You are WRONG and I take pleasure it telling you that you are WRONG. I will not explain why so you can live in your WRONGFUL ignorance.

You are WRONG and I take pleasure it telling you that you are WRONG. I will not explain why so you can live in your WRONGFUL ignorance.

Quoted By: >>10871880

x=19, that is given. Now the question he was supposed to ask is, if the following triangle is drawn on the surface of a sphere, what is the radius of that sphere?

Quoted By: >>10871701

>>10871537

This is rich, a retard who doesn't know Euclidean geometry is telling me to go back to middle school.

This is rich, a retard who doesn't know Euclidean geometry is telling me to go back to middle school.

Quoted By: >>10871748

>>10871650

It WOULD, but the congruency marks are to be ignored, because it was obviously an error on the part of the teacher, who is just using them to as indicators. That's what the hard-headed twats in these threads always seem to have so much trouble with.

It WOULD, but the congruency marks are to be ignored, because it was obviously an error on the part of the teacher, who is just using them to as indicators. That's what the hard-headed twats in these threads always seem to have so much trouble with.

Quoted By: >>10871748

>>10871630

Well, I would be correct if those congruency marks are just arrows to indicate the value of those sides, which is actually retarded and wrong to do. But if those are congruency marks, the problem is unsolvable, even more so than devision by 0.

Well, I would be correct if those congruency marks are just arrows to indicate the value of those sides, which is actually retarded and wrong to do. But if those are congruency marks, the problem is unsolvable, even more so than devision by 0.

Quoted By:

>>10871674

There's going to be a remake of 'Casablanca', featuring Greek mathematicians. It's title?

Here's Looking At Euclid.

...I'll get my toga.

There's going to be a remake of 'Casablanca', featuring Greek mathematicians. It's title?

Here's Looking At Euclid.

...I'll get my toga.

Quoted By: >>10871748

It can't be both a rectangular triangle and a equilateral triangle, so the animu is the wrong one. Except if they don't know about congruency marks over at Japan, in which case x = 26,87.

Quoted By: >>10871746 >>10871817

>>10871670

>>10871665

I bet you think rewriting the questions on your math homework to make them easier for you to do makes it right.

THE MATH PROBLEM SAYS 1+1 BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT QUESTION SO I'LL JUST REWRITE IT TO 1*1 THERE PROBLEM SOLVED.

>>10871665

I bet you think rewriting the questions on your math homework to make them easier for you to do makes it right.

THE MATH PROBLEM SAYS 1+1 BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT QUESTION SO I'LL JUST REWRITE IT TO 1*1 THERE PROBLEM SOLVED.

Quoted By: >>10871780

>>10871705

Well, if the homework in question was something like WHAT IS 5 DIVIDED BY 0 then yes I would.

Well, if the homework in question was something like WHAT IS 5 DIVIDED BY 0 then yes I would.

Quoted By: >>10871775 >>10871815 >>10871826 >>10871828 >>10871830

>>10871702

>>10871699

>>10871698

Oh God tell me you guys are trolling.

So basically "I don't understand it so the teacher must be wrong"? Seriously what?

>>10871699

>>10871698

Oh God tell me you guys are trolling.

So basically "I don't understand it so the teacher must be wrong"? Seriously what?

Quoted By: >>10871845

>>10871748

No, we're not trolling. It's impossible to have an equilateral right triangle. Teacher screwed up.

No, we're not trolling. It's impossible to have an equilateral right triangle. Teacher screwed up.

Quoted By:

>>10871746

Wait wut? So instead of writing undefined which is the answer you'd write 5*0 and lol all the way to school?

Wait wut? So instead of writing undefined which is the answer you'd write 5*0 and lol all the way to school?

Quoted By:

DON'T BE FUCKING RETARDED

LOOK AT THAT FUCKING RIGHT ANGLE. LOOK AT IT, THAT MEANS THE FUCKING TRIANGLE IN QUESTION IS A RECTANGULAR TRIANGLE. BUT WAIT, THERE ARE ALSO CONGRUENCY MARKS SO THAT MEANS THE SIDES ARE ALL EQUAL. BUT LETS JUST DO THAT. I'M FUCKING DOING THIS RIGHT NOW

GET A FUCKING PAPER, A PEN AND A RULER. NOW DRAW A TRIANGLE WITH A RIGHT ANGLE AND TWO 19 CM SIDES. NOW TRY TO DRAW THE OTHER SIDE WITH 19CM. TRY IT YOU FUCK

LOOK AT THAT FUCKING RIGHT ANGLE. LOOK AT IT, THAT MEANS THE FUCKING TRIANGLE IN QUESTION IS A RECTANGULAR TRIANGLE. BUT WAIT, THERE ARE ALSO CONGRUENCY MARKS SO THAT MEANS THE SIDES ARE ALL EQUAL. BUT LETS JUST DO THAT. I'M FUCKING DOING THIS RIGHT NOW

GET A FUCKING PAPER, A PEN AND A RULER. NOW DRAW A TRIANGLE WITH A RIGHT ANGLE AND TWO 19 CM SIDES. NOW TRY TO DRAW THE OTHER SIDE WITH 19CM. TRY IT YOU FUCK

Quoted By:

I don't understand why people create such a firestorm over an obvious blunder. If you're going by congruency marks, the triangle is written wrong and is unsolvable. You have to remove the right angle in that case, making x=19.

If those lines are meant to just point out the values, and it's a right triangle, the answer ~26.8.

If those lines are meant to just point out the values, and it's a right triangle, the answer ~26.8.

Quoted By:

>>10871748

The 3 angles of a triangle MUST add up to 180 degrees. If there is a right angle, there will be no fucking three-sided congruency.

The 3 angles of a triangle MUST add up to 180 degrees. If there is a right angle, there will be no fucking three-sided congruency.

Quoted By: >>10871887

>>10871748

You're the troll. This is obviously some 6th grade shit and he's trying to get them to use the most very basic Pythagorean equation to find the hypotenuse. Of course they're not congruency marks. It's already been established that if he wanted you to do this bullshit "triangle on a spherical plane" that he would've asked for radius of the damn sphere and not "solve for x."

Hurrrrr.

You're the troll. This is obviously some 6th grade shit and he's trying to get them to use the most very basic Pythagorean equation to find the hypotenuse. Of course they're not congruency marks. It's already been established that if he wanted you to do this bullshit "triangle on a spherical plane" that he would've asked for radius of the damn sphere and not "solve for x."

Hurrrrr.

Quoted By:

>>10871748

Yes. Congruency marks indicates that the triangle is supposed to be an equilateral triangle. However, the existence of the right angle automatically disproves this, therefore prompting the use of the pythagoras theory.

If we eliminate the congruency marks, the problem would be solved. it is impossible anyways for an equilateral triangle to have a 90-degree angle.

Yes. Congruency marks indicates that the triangle is supposed to be an equilateral triangle. However, the existence of the right angle automatically disproves this, therefore prompting the use of the pythagoras theory.

If we eliminate the congruency marks, the problem would be solved. it is impossible anyways for an equilateral triangle to have a 90-degree angle.

Quoted By:

>>10871748

Once I got a maths problem asking me to draw a graph of the contour lines of a function of 3 variables. I just ignored it.

Once I got a maths problem asking me to draw a graph of the contour lines of a function of 3 variables. I just ignored it.

Quoted By:

Quoted By: >>10872023

>>10871666

>x=19, that is given. Now the question he was supposed to ask is, if the following triangle is drawn on the surface of a sphere, what is the radius of that sphere?

r = 4*19/(2*pi)

>x=19, that is given. Now the question he was supposed to ask is, if the following triangle is drawn on the surface of a sphere, what is the radius of that sphere?

r = 4*19/(2*pi)

Quoted By:

>>10871826

This isn't an actual screen shot so it being 6th grade shit because of it's context.

The whole HE ASKED FOR X NOT A RADIUS !!!1111 bullshit is you just grasping for straws and trying to cover up your own stupidity.

This isn't an actual screen shot so it being 6th grade shit because of it's context.

The whole HE ASKED FOR X NOT A RADIUS !!!1111 bullshit is you just grasping for straws and trying to cover up your own stupidity.

Quoted By:

>>10871880

Wow, I didn't expect an answer. I'd check it, but it's a Saturday and I can't be bothered doing even a simple line integral to check.

Wow, I didn't expect an answer. I'd check it, but it's a Saturday and I can't be bothered doing even a simple line integral to check.

Quoted By: >>10872405

Quoted By:

>>10872251

maybe not but it was to illustrate that a equilateral triangle is well within the definition of a isosceles one.

maybe not but it was to illustrate that a equilateral triangle is well within the definition of a isosceles one.

Quoted By:

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769

x = 26.87005769