Sjmarf@sh.itjust.works to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 2 days agoThe value of xsh.itjust.worksimagemessage-square142fedilinkarrow-up11.13Karrow-down120
arrow-up11.11Karrow-down1imageThe value of xsh.itjust.worksSjmarf@sh.itjust.works to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 2 days agomessage-square142fedilink
minus-squarecelsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up15arrow-down2·24 hours agoThis is the geometry version of those stupid poorly written math equations. Engagement bait. The real answer is always “it’s unsolveable due to poor/missing notation”.
minus-squarePM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·edit-22 hours agoIt’s not unsolvable at all. The answer is x=135°. The triangles simply aren’t drawn to scale; The line between them isn’t a 90° angle, (even though it is drawn that way) because it is not specifically marked as 90° with a square angle mark.
minus-squarecucumber_sandwich@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·3 hours agoBut it’s not unsolvable, just a misleading drawing…
This is the geometry version of those stupid poorly written math equations. Engagement bait.
The real answer is always “it’s unsolveable due to poor/missing notation”.
It’s not unsolvable at all. The answer is x=135°. The triangles simply aren’t drawn to scale; The line between them isn’t a 90° angle, (even though it is drawn that way) because it is not specifically marked as 90° with a square angle mark.
But it’s not unsolvable, just a misleading drawing…