• TheOakTree@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I ask you to consider the following picture:

    I tell you that the triangles are not to scale. We can definitively say that h = 80° and k = 90°. Note that h + k != 180°. Despite the strange and inconsistent scaling, this meets all requirements of triangles.

    Now let me take away the defined 50° angle:

    Once again, the triangles are not to scale. They are visually the same triangles. You might assume that h + k = 180°, yielding 40° for the missing angle above k. However, if I reveal to you that the missing angle is indeed 50° or 60° or ANY ANGLE (excl. 40°) such that the sum of angles can still be 180°, you and your assumption are suddenly wrong.

    Perhaps consider nurturing your brain further before making such condescending remarks.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Following your logic, there is no evidence that these are triangles and it is never stated, therefore none of these lines might be straight and the discussion is irrelevant.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        There is also no evidence that these are lines at all and not just unconnected points that are offset on a subpixel scale. Or indeed there is no evidence that they are using base 10 numbers or aren’t asking a completely different question in an invented language that just happens to look like English but has totally different semantics.

        The people claiming it is unsolvable because one 110/80 degree pair of angles looks like a 90/90 one are ridiculous.