• greyfox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    It also doesn’t say that the line on the bottom is straight, so we have no idea if that middle vertex adds up to 180 degrees. I would say it is unsolvable.

    • TheOakTree@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      23 hours ago

      This is what I was thinking. The image is not to scale, so it is risky to say that the angles at the bottom center add up to 180, despite looking that way. If a presented angle does not represent the real angle, then presented straight lines might not represent real lines.

      • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        Eh, I think @sag pretty well nailed it.

        Looks like an outer triangle with inner triangles so x = 180 - (180 - (40 + 60 + 35)) = 40 + 60 + 35 = 135

        • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Can you clarify what you mean? this doesn’t make sense to me. There isn’t an “outer” triangle. There’s one triangle (the left one) that has the angles 40, 60, 80. Both triangles are misleadingly drawn as they appear to be aligned at the bottom but they’re not (left triangle’s non-displayed angle is 80, not 90 degrees). So that means we can’t figure out the angles of the right triangle since we only have information of 1 angle (the other can’t be figured out since we can’t assume its actually aligned at the bottom since the graph is now obviously not to scale).