[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 44 KB, 753x451, 1697780535322426.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15836042 No.15836042 [Reply] [Original]

/pol/ is currently agonizing over this lol

>> No.15836044

thread in question if you want a laugh

>>>/pol/447277766

>> No.15836051

>>15836042
Not enough information.

>> No.15836054

>>15836042
>>15836044
>>>/pol/

>> No.15836068

>>15836042
Y is larger because Y is the 25th letter and X is the 24th

>> No.15836069

>>15836042
Both are equal, you retarded piece of shit.

>> No.15836072

>>15836069
prove it
hint: prove that the diagram is drawn to scale first

>> No.15836094

Indeterminate. The length of the first square can be changed without changing any of the defined variables (assuming it's not to scale), meaning the value of X is not well defined.

>> No.15836098

>>15836072
Why would scale matter when both clearly have a width of 2

>> No.15836099

>>15836098
Because you can't actually show that the one on the length has a width of 2 unless you're assuming it is, in fact, drawn to scale

>> No.15836105

>>15836099
you don't need to assume anything if they are defined as 2

>> No.15836112

>>15836105
I don't see anything defining the width of the one on the left as 2, only its height. Can you make an obnoxiously big circle over the part where its width is stated to be 2?

>> No.15836115

>>15836112
but if they are right angles that would make them squares, therefore if the length is 2, so will be the width

>> No.15836116

>>15836115
>what is a rectangle

>> No.15836117

>>15836042
It's two dumb kids who either are trolling or are just stupid getting it wrong. Everyone else in the thread are trying to explain it to them but they either can't understand or are (you) farming quite successfully.

>> No.15836119

>>15836115me
>>15836112
nvm, Im retarded, they could be rectangles

>> No.15836122

If this question was actually on an application [doubt] would they give thee person the job who said they are equal? It would be funny if they turn away the person who says there is not enough information, even though they are correct. We have the inmates running the asylum and the right answer is not the "correct" one.

>> No.15836166

>>15836116
>>15836119
They are squares. The right angles and shared vertexes show that all the vertical lines have a height of 2 and the two horizontal lines on the right have a width of 2. That proves that the figure on the right is a square at the very least. Both should be square. I can't think of a way to prove that the left side is a square too. Maybe by extending the lines somehow?

>> No.15836177

>>15836166
>Both should be square.
Why "should" that be the case?
> I can't think of a way to prove that the left side is a square too.
Because there's not enough information to support that being the case.

>> No.15836225

>>15836116
>>15836119
even if they are rectangles, doesnt x/y relate to the degree of angle? Therefore the angle will alwats be 45 degrees, even if the shapes were rectangle and not square

>> No.15836230

ITT pedantic autists

>> No.15836237

>>15836230
Pedantic isn't supposed to be an insult on a math forum.

>> No.15836240

>>15836099
According to your baseless speculations any angle there that is not explicitly stated as being equal to 90 degrees can be anything. In fact this problem has no solution unless the diagram describes two squares, demonstrating that you are a complete moron.

>> No.15836245

>>15836240
they don't have to be square when x and y are referring to the degree of the angle. see>>15836225

>> No.15836247

>>15836225
Completely false.
Since the opposite side of x is the same length as the opposite side of y, the angles are only of the same measure if one of the adjacent sides is the same length as its correspondent in the other triangle (which necessarily implies the third).
For example, if we assume that the width of the box with x is 3 instead of 2, we end up with x=atan(2/3) ~ 33.69 degrees

>> No.15836256

>>15836247
the value of 2 is meaningless and not needed to determine the value of x/y in this equation

>> No.15836261
File: 23 KB, 312x547, sus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15836261

>>15836245
If the left quadrilateral is not a square then the angle x can be anything above 0 and below 90 degrees, and the question is malformed.

>> No.15836267

>>15836256
How do you suggest you figure out the ratio x/y without using trigonometry, which would require knowing a side from the left triangles that's not given?

>> No.15836269

>>15836240
is there a reason you're calling me a complete moron when you're agreeing with the statement that there's not enough information to solve

>> No.15836310

>>15836267
yeah, i guess you're right then. the conclusion remains: not enough information.

>> No.15836312
File: 57 KB, 525x503, qman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15836312

>>15836042
Even if we have the length of the top side of the left quadrilateral the problem is still malformed because we need to assume the other angles are also 90 degrees. They could be 90 - e, and 90 + e, where e is an angle small enough to not be clearly visible in the diagram.

>> No.15836323

>>15836312
Yes, if you ignore the part where that would imply that the triangles making it up were right triangles with equal leg length, and so they'd necessarily be 45-45-90, so either of the unknown angles of the right box would be 45+45=90 degrees and it would have to be square

>> No.15836325

>>15836323
>right box
meant the left box
don't worry, I'm not retarded, just schizophrenic

>> No.15836432

>>15836230
>pedantic autists
>on /sci/
yes water is wet

>> No.15836483

>>15836237
There's a difference between rigour and pedantry (akshually), and pedantry is le bad

>> No.15836487

the answer is tkd

>> No.15836505
File: 115 KB, 1270x1240, no.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15836505

I'm glad that the people hiring me will do so based on my published research and not based on some "math" question derived by a 50yo HR cat lady whose only difficulty lies in its ambiguous nature.

>> No.15836549

>>15836177
>Why "should" that be the case?
Because the little drawing in the corner of each triangle is a universal marker for a 90 degree angle.

>> No.15836570

>>15836549
That tells you both are rectangular and nothing more.

>> No.15836578

>>15836570
No it doesn't. The height of the right square must be 2 or the diagram is lying.

>> No.15836581

>>15836578
Nobody is disputing that both rectangles are 2 units high.
But please, do point out where it is stated that the left rectangle is 2 units wide. Make sure to use as obnoxiously apparent a red circle as possible, because many of us have missed it

>> No.15836583

>>15836581
Show me one possible scenario where the left square is larger than the right square without deleting part of the drawing's angle markings.

>> No.15836588

I have no reason to believe the two rectangles are actually squares.

>> No.15836590
File: 62 KB, 753x451, 4u.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15836590

>>15836583
find the contradiction faget

>> No.15836595

>>15836590
You added an extra rule to the drawing.

>> No.15836598

>>15836595
Yes?
You wanted me to show you a possible scenario where the left box was wider than the right box.
I showed you one such scenario by assuming an unstated length. (Which you assumed the length of yourself, and in fact your "challenge" was directly in response to me asking you to demonstrate how you knew its length.)
What the fuck did you want me to do?

>> No.15836600
File: 14 KB, 765x376, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15836600

i think you guys were way too quick to assume that the straight bits are collinear.

>>15836595
lol

>> No.15836623

>>15836598
>You wanted me to show you a possible scenario where the left box was wider than the right box.
Within the rules of the original diagram. You added an extra rule to make your scenario possible.

>> No.15836625

>>15836623
So did you.
Unless, again, you can point out where on the diagram it says that that width is actually 2

>> No.15836626
File: 61 KB, 512x512, scipepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15836626

>>15836600
True and real. If we can't assume both quadrilaterals are squares then we can't assume the other angles are exactly 90 degrees.

>> No.15836627

>>15836623
>You added an extra rule to make your scenario possible.
the scenario where that line has length 3 was always possible within the original constraints.

>> No.15836638

>>15836627
It requires the text (not to scale) to be added to the drawing.

>> No.15836641

>>15836638
the original never specified it was to scale
I just wanted to make that apparent to everyone

>> No.15836643

>>15836638
i think youre trolling.

>> No.15836644

>>15836641
The original picture is drawn to scale though. That's implicit in the figure, unless you want to assume the author is lying in which case none of the rules matter.

>> No.15836645

>>15836644
troll or not, don't you dare "the proof is trivial" at me

>> No.15836646

>>15836645
It's only rational to be offended when you're shown something you got wrong. I forgive you.

>> No.15836647

>>15836644
>unless you want to assume the author is lying
Or just sucks at drawing lmao

>> No.15836660

>>15836644
I just counted the number of pixels in width and height in paint. Left isn't a square.
Soz kiddo

>> No.15836723

>>15836042
not enough information

>> No.15836730

Since the right triangle defines the top left corner of itself as right, that means the 2 angles made up by the triangle of the left hitting the corner must equal 180, since the angle of a straight line is 180. We know the line is straight because both triangles have 90° angles ascribing them to be overlapping and equal.

All of this reasoning makes X 45° flat.
The same reasoning can be used for the bottom angle of the left cube. Which means Y is also 45.

X = y.

>> No.15836733

>>15836730
proof that the triangles on the left are not, say, 30-60-90 instead of 45-45-90?

>> No.15836738

>>15836166
>>They are squares.
Prove it.

>> No.15836740

>>15836644
>The original picture is drawn to scale though. That's implicit
Not how geometry works.

>> No.15836798

>>15836740
That is how geometry works, but geometry problems by convention don't do this and abstract from the actual geometry presented. So you're right, but this is an implicit convention to people used to that style of problem presentation.

>> No.15836890

>>15836798
In geometry, that which isn't explicitly stated, or is provable from what is, cannot be assumed.

>> No.15836929

>>15836738
proof: god declared it true

>> No.15836933

>>15836740
geometry is generally drawn to scale otherwise you get dipshits like yourself drawing rectangles that look like squares

you should have paid attention in preschool

>> No.15836942

>>15836933
pretty sure every geometry problem I've ever seen that relied on two lengths being the same put little notches on them to explicitly indicate that they were the same length, regardless of scaling issues

>> No.15836945

>>15836942
sometimes people forget, oops

>> No.15836946

>>15836945
you mean like how they forgot to label the part where it's not to scale? :)

>> No.15836950

>>15836946
it generally is to scale, see my previous post >>15836933

>> No.15836952

>>15836950
and it generally is labelled when sides are congruent, see my post >>15836942

>> No.15836955

>>15836952
agreed, glad we solved it

>> No.15836956

>>15836955
So where's the label?
Because there's just as much proof that they forgot that as there is that they forgot to draw it to scale

>> No.15836958

>>15836956
no idea, might want to ask the person who drew it.

>> No.15836959

>>15836958
DM me their phone number and I'll fax them for clarification

>> No.15836993

>ackchually each squares height and width can be a few pixels larger or smaller than-
just round it

>> No.15837130

>>15836042
>/pol/ are retards
You just discovered this now?

>> No.15837164

>>15837130
Posting about /pol/ is basically circlejerking. It's how people of low self esteem get to feel good about themselves by pitching out a commonly agreed upon feeling to get lots of people telling them that they're correct. In school, these were the unpopular kids who would get into school spirit heavily because that was one thing they could do that the other kids would react positively to. On here, it's invoking /pol/ for no reason other than to gain some positive feelings. For a board like /biz/ where emotional marketing is lauded, it's a reasonable approach to take. On /sci/, it's antithetical to the purpose of the board, typically used by posters with weak positions trying to shore up support with cheap rhetorical tactics. In your case, it appears you were just looking for some easy self-esteem points. You'd be better off doing something constructive to gain those points instead of circlejerking here.

>> No.15837179

>>15837164
Nobody asked you fucking dickmonger, be a faggot elsewhere.

>> No.15837216

>>15837130
/sci/ are also retards. In fact any board on 4chan will be filled with retards.

>> No.15837298

You can't assume the x square has width of 2
You can't assume the diagonals are perfectly aligned with the vertices.
You can't assume either of those are perfect rectangles.
The question should be given in the form of written statements. Visuals should only be meant to make it easier to understand the context.

>> No.15837492
File: 26 KB, 607x330, anglesprob.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15837492

>> No.15837518

>>15836051
This.

>> No.15837657

>>15836600
kek

>> No.15838384
File: 21 KB, 177x229, 1683614517835197.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15838384

>>15837492
>pic related
you know two right angles like this implicitly means you got two parallel lines anon

>> No.15838394

>>15836115
You must've been top of your fucking class

>> No.15838400

>>15836595
Faggot

>> No.15838658
File: 47 KB, 800x800, 1680841020259549.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15838658

>>15836042
>>15836044
>OP cries "/POL/ BTFO, THEY CAN'T SOLVE THIS LMAO"
>/sci/ is also incapable of solving it