Comment

Nope. The value is “undefined”. You don’t have enough info to arrive at 135 - you are assuming that the bottom angle (sum of the angles that touch) is 180 degrees. Since there isn’t a datum saying the bottom “line” is straight, nor does it say the triangle on the right is an isosceles triangle, it is impossible to solve.

source

Sort:hotnew top

gedaliyah@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
I don’t see any indication that this is limited to the Euclidean plane either

source
- BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Haha, I love this.
  
  Also nothing indicates the numbers are Arabic numerals.
  
  source
  - gedaliyah@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    You can’t prove it’s not hexadecimal.
    
    source
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Image

source
Enkers@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
I think assuming 2 line segments which make up a larger straight line segment to be parallel is generally accepted practice, and that would trump the angles that are drawn inaccurately.

Of course, it’d be better to put a hash through them both to indicate they’re parallel, especially given the deceptively drawn most-likely-not-a-right-angle.

source