[ 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, 588x388, hmwork.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4398037 No.4398037 [Reply] [Original]

I need help with this problem, i must find the value of a, b, c and d.

Any advice?

>> No.4398042

yeah, go screw yourself OP

>> No.4398040

There isn't enough information given. Is that a trapezoid? If it's a trapezoid it's answerable.

>> No.4398045

all you have to do is

>> No.4398047

>>4398040

Yeah, its a trapezoid. And all lines are parallel

>> No.4398049

people in this thread don't know their trapezoids from their paralellograms

>> No.4398086

>>4398049

Ups, yeah... this guy is right... is a paralellogram.

>> No.4398094

A = 18 because alt. int.s are congruent
I can at least tell you that

also not a trapezoid or everything wouldn't be parallel

>> No.4398113

>>4398094

Yeah... that is the only one i could determinate... but the rest is a headache...

I think it has something with "D + C = 180" but... i cant figure it out

>> No.4398131

Oh god. It's 6th grade geometry. Get Euler, Edros, and Newton in here for this shit.

>> No.4398140

>>4398131

But no one seems to have any answer... except for the A=18

>> No.4398143

Well, if any variable answers are allowed...
A=18
C=180-D
D=B+18
And I'm not sure what to do with B really. D-18 maybe

>> No.4398151

That better be a rhombus

>> No.4398154

>>4398143
That was bad and you should feel bad.

If it's a parallelogram, then A=B and they're both the same as the angle marked 18 degrees.

D is just 18+B, so 36
C must add with the other two angles, both 18 degrees, to give 180 so must be 144. You could also get that from doing 180-D.

>> No.4398153

>>4398143

Its suposed to have a answer without variables...

>> No.4398162

B+18=D

also assuming side lengths are equal A=B
hope it helps

>> No.4398161

>>4398154
Fail dude. You assumed a rhombus. Only in that case would line AB bisect the angle. Otherwise you are just making a WAG.

>> No.4398166

>>4398161
durr

>>4398047
>All lines are parallel
Therefore it's a parallelogram
Therefore A=B=C
Therefore kill yourself, or at least read the thread.

>> No.4398169

>>4398113
Not enough information.
18 what? Degrees?

>> No.4398170

>>4398154
Now that you mention it, I did go full retard mode there.
Shit, if I cant get this...

>> No.4398171

>>4398169


Yeah, they are degrees

>> No.4398172
File: 61 KB, 437x362, jack black.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4398172

>>4398166
>A=B=C
>not a rectangle

>> No.4398174

>>4398154
Are you an idiot, or what?
That's not true unless all sides are equal. You can't assume shit in mathematics, retard.

>> No.4398178

>>4398172
It can be whatever you want it to be if you just use your imagination.

Yeah, I meant A=B=180-C

>> No.4398179

A=18°
Because they are alt-int

B=18°
Because the diagonal of a parallelogram form two isosceles

C=144°
Because the total of the interior angles in a triangle is 180° (So 180-18*2)

D=36°
Because of corresponding angles

>> No.4398182

You know
A + B = D
A = 18
B + 18 + C= 180
A + B + 2C = 360

Assuming a parallelogram, that's four equations and four variables.

>> No.4398186
File: 752 KB, 300x225, lolno.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4398186

>>4398179
>B=18°
>Because the diagonal of a parallelogram form two isosceles

>> No.4398190

>>4398166
1/10

>> No.4398194

>>4398154
>>4398166
>>4398178
>>4398179
How did you retards pass high school?

>> No.4398195

>>4398186
AND because the diagonal of a parallelogram is also a bisector

>> No.4398200

>>4398182
Sorry. Meant A + B + C = 180.

>> No.4398204

>>4398195
That's not true unless all sides are equal.
Where do you guys keep getting this crap?

>> No.4398213
File: 6 KB, 1032x211, rectangle.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4398213

>>4398195
Exaggerated to show your stupidity.

>> No.4398221

>>4398213
Oh sorry, the true statement I want to provide is about rhombus and not parallelograms

>> No.4398229

>>4398221
Fair enough. But I believe

>>4398182
is pretty much the best way to do this.

>> No.4398233

>>4398200
Hm. But then that just simplifies and reduces the last equation to the third one.

Can anyone find a fourth equation?

>> No.4398238

>>4398233
Oh. Fucking duh.

C+D = 180.

>> No.4398267

Shit... i can balieve we cant resolve this

>> No.4398268

Assuming that the triangle is isosceles, A = 18, B = 18, C = 154

A was found assuming that this is an isosceles paralellogram, and angle B is congruent to the measure 18. Obviously the same would apply for the opposite side.

C involves various theorems not presently abailable on my tongue, but the two sides of that bottom triangle formed by the dotten line add to 26. since any triangle must add up to 180,

180 - 26 = 154

>> No.4398275

>>4398268
And just noticed D; the two angles add together to make 180 assuming it is a parallel line. So,

180 - 154 = 26
D = 26

>> No.4398284

>>4398275
>>4398268
/thread

>> No.4398305

Thanks to all!

>> No.4398321

>>4398284
How is that /thread samefag?
It's never stated anywhere that all sides are equal.

>> No.4398412

>>4398321
Because according to OP it is a parallelogram, which if you know the theorems of them that makes everything valid.

>> No.4398437

>>4398412
All your math is based on the assumption that angle A is equal to angle B. At no point did you prove the two are congruent. Ergo you are a retard.

>> No.4398504
File: 71 KB, 500x420, tumblr_llf8asHNQv1qa1jaxo1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4398504

>> No.4399080

>>4398437
Allow me to explain parallelogram theorems to you;

Opposite sides of a parallelogram are ALWAYS congruent
Opposite ANGLES of a parallelogram are always congruent
A bisecting line goes symmetrically through a polygon, which is the dotted line
^This is how you know the angles are equal to eachother. Did you drop out of highschool or something?

>> No.4399083

>>4398504

Medecine in God-Tier???

You best be shitting me son.

Pharmacology and Medicine gety to share mid tier with life sciences.

A bunch of other things about your list are dumb but those hurt the most. I woudn't go submitting that one for publication any time soon.

>> No.4399094 [DELETED] 

>>4398037

Niggerometry

>> No.4399105

>>4398437

Actually, all his math is based on the assumption that the quadrilateral was a parallelogram, in which case your objection follows very cleanly from the fact that there are 180 degrees in a line. Would you like me to prove that for you?