I can't believe a bunch of retards that have the brain of a toddler have a phd let alone make more money, society is actually fucked
It was just very vague. I got it ig so
cope whats vague about itIt was just very vague. I got it ig so
shading two squares diagonally doesn't make a square and yes making a square in the middle would be where the unshaded region is a square, though there are other ways to do it thats not the only way.
It didn’t state whether or not the squares have to be equal, it also should’ve used shade 50% instead of half because half means it is equal on both sides. At least going by the definition.
"It didn't state whether or not the squares have to be equal".
Here, you would be shading 12 of those smaller squares.
Which is bigger than 8.
the question doesn't use the word equal at all.
What? You have a square, which is decomposed into 4 smaller squares, what do you not get in that moron?
This shading exceeds half of the total area of the four bigger squares. Therefore it is not a valid answer.
How do you know it exceeds half of the total area, it's not drawn to scale.
Your shading exceeds half of the total area. Stupid
how do you know?Your shading exceeds half of the total area. Stupid
I'd draw four squares on the Cartesian plane whose sides are of value x. And from then proceed with the calculations.
Are you keeping up with my argument? It used half and like I showed earlier, “half” means =, according to the first definition.
think about it like this, you shaded 3/4 of four squares, which means you divided the entire square into 16 units. 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 12 which means you created a 2x2 square with the remaining area which means you exceeded half of the initial square's area
Yeah it used half like this:
My drawing was not to scale, you would do something like this to show it is half of the area:
It didn’t mention area though, they have the same area but not the same size which means they’re not = to each other, I said this earlier. I was just trying to say how the question was too vague (which I proved), I think we’re extending this argument a bit too much.
"It didn't mention area"It didn’t mention area though, they have the same area but not the same shape which means they’re not = to each other, I said this earlier. I was just trying to say how the question was too vague (which I proved), I think we’re extending this argument a bit too much.
Your solution is wrong. Here you can see the proof that half of the area is less than your proposed shaded area. Mind you that 2x^2<3x^2 holds for any positive x.
If it is not intuitive yet, you can use the Pythagoras Theorem.
That's not my solution, you're the one assuming that the area I shaded encompasses 1
That's not my solution, you're the one assuming that the area I shaded encompasses all 12 squares, mine is right because it is possible to shade the area the way I did (not drawn to scale) such that you form an unshaded square in the middle of length root 2 on each side implying it has half of the total area.
Your answer is stupid ngl, then again the whole question is dumb.
Your just like her bud sorry to say.
Yeah I can tell why you're not intelligent, I asked you about commutative diagrams when bringing up the naturality condition to which you said "I don't know what that is".JFL You were the same guy who I talked with about those commutative diagrams kek
Maybe his answer is more intuitive to you, if mine is counterintuitive maybe I thought this one better? Either way it's an easy question.
im higher iq because i thought of another way
It can be solved in other ways, but his way is the simplest and fastest way you can solve this.
What mumbo jumbo did I do? He drew triangles while I drew a small square, what the hell?
Idk if this is right but I think it is
my answer is more nt
But it’s wrong, because you shaded each square 3/4ths instead of a half so it isn’t right
The method is right, but people took the drawing drawn to scale, I later redrew it such that the unshaded area is exactly half the area.
