The solution for the ragebait math problem

[ngannou]

@ngannou

"The creative part of the internet creation,

Was the pre-established code used to BUILD THE IDEA"

Like DUDE

If you compare with biology

mathematicians are those who found the concept of DNA

while engineers are those who use the concept of DNA to make medicine or surgery ...etc

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

mathematicians are those who found the concept of DNA

 

[ngannou]

You're not sentient

It is a perfect metaphor

 

[imontheloose]

i mean, correct me if im wrong but you used the straight line assumption incorrectly no? ∠ABC+∠ADC+∠DAE=180deg, but that doesnt mean B,C,D lie on one line or that you can simply flip ABC and ADE in the way you sketched. the condition “∠a+∠b+∠c=180deg” means those three angles around a common point sum to a straight angle but that doesnt force the three segments to become a single straight segment. in the diagram you drew, you appear to have forced some of those triangles to line up as if B-C-D became collinear or ∠BAC 180deg, etc. that just overwrites the real angles and ends up with different side relationships altogether no?

the only given sides are AB=80, CD=50, EA=25. once you start asserting "the line is 30cm" or "AD=96" youve created a different geometry than the one constrained by the problems angles. angle sums like alpha+beta+gamma=180deg dont force any sides to be 30cm. an angle sum of 180deg tells you those three angles fit around a line but it doesnt say the left over side is 30. the ratio 80:AD=25:30 just wasnt justified by the angle constrains imo. the problem doesnt say △ABC or △ADE are isosceles or similar to some (80, 25, 30) triangle. also you cant just merge two triangles into a new quadritlat. or a big new triangle, that usually breaks the angle constrains. the fact that ∠ABC+∠ADC+∠DAE=180deg doesnt mean you can line up all those points in a single straight segment. it means those three angles around the vertex A sum to 180deg, which is a different statement.

let me know what you think yourself but i think it is invalid personally

 

[ngannou]

View attachment 3517995View attachment 3517996View attachment 3517999

Bro It is a metaphor comparing

pure math and computer engineer

and pure biologist and a doctor,

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

Bro It is a metaphor comparing

pure math and computer engineer

and pure biologist and a doctor,

Literally non sentient zombie person

 

[ngannou]

i mean, correct me if im wrong but you used the straight line assumption incorrectly no? ∠ABC+∠ADC+∠DAE=180deg, but that doesnt mean B,C,D lie on one line or that you can simply flip ABC and ADE in the way you sketched. the condition “∠a+∠b+∠c=180deg” means those three angles around a common point sum to a straight angle but that doesnt force the three segments to become a single straight segment. in the diagram you drew, you appear to have forced some of those triangles to line up as if B-C-D became collinear or ∠BAC 180deg, etc. that just overwrites the real angles and ends up with different side relationships altogether no?

the only given sides are AB=80, CD=50, EA=25. once you start asserting "the line is 30cm" or "AD=96" youve created a different geometry than the one constrained by the problems angles. angle sums like alpha+beta+gamma=180deg dont force any sides to be 30cm. an angle sum of 180deg tells you those three angles fit around a line but it doesnt say the left over side is 30. the ratio 80:AD=25:30 just wasnt justified by the angle constrains imo. the problem doesnt say △ABC or △ADE are isosceles or similar to some (80, 25, 30) triangle. also you cant just merge two triangles into a new quadritlat. or a big new triangle, that usually breaks the angle constrains. the fact that ∠ABC+∠ADC+∠DAE=180deg doesnt mean you can line up all those points in a single straight segment. it means those three angles around the vertex A sum to 180deg, which is a different statement.

let me know what you think yourself but i think it is invalid personally

If a straight line has a 180 degree
then its reverse logic which if the angles coincide as 180 degree it becomes straight line.
The reverse also holds true.

180 Degree Angle - Shape, Examples | What is 180 Degree Angle?

The 180-degree angle is a straight angle and forms a straight line. It is exactly half of the full angle (360-degree angle). Learn about the 180-degree angle, its construction, properties in this article.

www.cuemath.com

It says "Whenever we construct a 180-degree angle, it always forms a straight line, that is why it is known as a straight angle."
The picture in the question is not drawn in perfect scale so even you flip it won't be straight

 

[ngannou]

Literally non sentient zombie person

A pure biologist who makes a concept of DNA and a Doctor who come up with cure using the concept of DNA

A pure mathematician who makes a concept of Calculus and a engineer who uses calculus to make certain robot.

Simple metaphor

 

[Methylphenidate]

Literally non sentient zombie person

OP thinks using bigger font would make him seem intellectually superior to you

 

[ngannou]

OP thinks using bigger font would make him seem intellectually superior to you

It draws more focus and attention for the readers

 

[imontheloose]

If a straight line has a 180 degree
then its reverse logic which if the angles coincide as 180 degree it becomes straight line.

180 Degree Angle - Shape, Examples | What is 180 Degree Angle?

The 180-degree angle is a straight angle and forms a straight line. It is exactly half of the full angle (360-degree angle). Learn about the 180-degree angle, its construction, properties in this article.

www.cuemath.com

The picture in the question is not drawn in perfect scale

well yeah for Euclid geom, saying "the measure of a single angle is 180deg" corresponds to having a straight line but your error to me is assuming that automatically means that all three angles form one straight line.a single angle of 180deg means the two rays defining that angle lie on the same straight line so the angle is “flat". a sum of angles equaling 180deg can happen in many scenarios besides a single flat angle. just think for example, in a triangle, the three interior angles always sum to 180deg, but that does not mean the triangle is degenerate or that its vertices line up in a single line. the statement "∠ABC  +  ∠ADC  +  ∠DAE  =  180deg" means those three angles at vertex A (or around any configuration for that matter) sum to 180deg. that can enforce certain relationships (e.g., they fit around half a circle when viewed from A) but that doesnt mean “B,C,D,E must be on one straight line."

 

[ngannou]

well yeah for Euclid geom, saying "the measure of a single angle is 180deg" corresponds to having a straight line but your error to me is assuming that automatically means that all three angles form one straight line.a single angle of 180deg means the two rays defining that angle lie on the same straight line so the angle is “flat". a sum of angles equaling 180deg can happen in many scenarios besides a single flat angle. just think for example, in a triangle, the three interior angles always sum to 180deg, but that does not mean the triangle is degenerate or that its vertices line up in a single line. the statement "∠ABC  +  ∠ADC  +  ∠DAE  =  180deg" means those three angles at vertex A (or around any configuration for that matter) sum to 180deg. that can enforce certain relationships (e.g., they fit around half a circle when viewed from A) but that doesnt mean “B,C,D,E must be on one straight line."

It does make a straight line because its just same as splitting 180 degrees three angles and just making one again

because it meets at one point

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

A pure mathematician who makes a concept of Calculus and a engineer who uses calculus to make certain robot.

And once again, (retard)

IF AN ENGINEER DEVELOPS A NEW KIND OF ROBOT,

Is he not creative?

IS IT THE CREDIT OWED TO THE CREATOR OF CALCULUS ?

NO YOU FUCKING IDIOT HE MADE HIS OWN INVENTION, HE USED MATH TO DO IT

AND THUS

THE INVENTOR OF THE INTERNET DID NOT JUST BECOME CREATIVE, ONLY WHEN HE BEGAN TO CODE

THE IDEA ITSELF WAS CREATIVE,

God damn you are stupid

It is a tool used to execute an idea, in your own analogy

It doesn't mean the inventory of the robot, is not creative

Fucking idiot,

In your own analogy, THE MATH IS THE NON CREATIVE FACTOR,

THE TOOOOOL!!

HOLY FUCK FUCK FUCK

HOLY FUCK YOURE STUPID!

@Methylphenidate He did ragebait me indeed but not with the math problem

 

[ngannou]

And once again, (retard)

IF AN ENGINEER DEVELOPS A NEW KIND OF ROBOT,

Is he not creative?

IS IT THE CREDIT OWED TO THE CREATOR OF CALCULUS ?

NO YOU FUCKING IDIOT HE MADE HIS OWN INVENTION, HE USED MATH TO DO IT

AND THUS

THE INVENTOR OF THE INTERNET DID NOT JUST BECOME CREATIVE, ONLY WHEN HE BEGAN TO CODE

THE IDEA ITSELF WAS CREATIVE,

God damn you are stupid

It is a tool used to execute an idea, in your own analogy

It doesn't mean the inventory of the robot, is not creative

Fucking idiot,

In your own analogy, THE MATH IS THE NON CREATIVE FACTOR,

THE TOOOOOL!!

HOLY FUCK FUCK FUCK

HOLY FUCK YOURE STUPID!

@Methylphenidate He did ragebait me indeed but not with the math problem

They are both creative

but you said mathematicians are not.

If coming up of concept of calculus is not creative then what it is then??

Calculus is considered one of the most creative and fundamental concept

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

OP thinks using bigger font would make him seem intellectually superior to you

Him and the notorious faggot @Xangsane

I have "gay" in my name and somehow he's still a more notorious faggot than me! Impressive

And like all fags they need attention, and thus... the font

@ngannou would you care to confirm? This is the third time I've asked

Are you desperate for attention because you're a faggot? Or something else?

 

[ngannou]

well yeah for Euclid geom, saying "the measure of a single angle is 180deg" corresponds to having a straight line but your error to me is assuming that automatically means that all three angles form one straight line.a single angle of 180deg means the two rays defining that angle lie on the same straight line so the angle is “flat". a sum of angles equaling 180deg can happen in many scenarios besides a single flat angle. just think for example, in a triangle, the three interior angles always sum to 180deg, but that does not mean the triangle is degenerate or that its vertices line up in a single line. the statement "∠ABC  +  ∠ADC  +  ∠DAE  =  180deg" means those three angles at vertex A (or around any configuration for that matter) sum to 180deg. that can enforce certain relationships (e.g., they fit around half a circle when viewed from A) but that doesnt mean “B,C,D,E must be on one straight line."

Are you talking about non-euclidian geometry?? This is obviously euclidian

geometry it doesn't mention it is on a sphere it is just plain 2d space.

So yeah it becomes a straight line.

More questions?

 

[imontheloose]

It does make a straight line because its just same as splitting 180 degrees three angles and just making one again

because it meets at one point

youre getting mixed up.

you need to distinguish between two cases.

1. a single angle that measures 180deg which is indeed a straight angle (two rays lying on exactly the same line)
2. several angles that add up to 180deg but are located at different places or with different vertices involved

theyre not the same. in case 1, a single angle of 180deg at a point A means the two rays of that one angle extend in opposite directions along a single straight line. in case 2, if three angles alpha,beta,gamma at or around a point add to 180deg, that does not force them to lie along the same line. each angle might be formed by a different pair of rays

like i said, a nice example is any non degenerate triangle. its three interior angles add to 180deg, yet clearly the sides do not all lie on one line.

if you want a TLDR, "a single angle equals 180deg" does mean “we have a straight line” but “alpha+beta+gamma=180deg" does not automatically produce one straight angle. they are fundamentally different statements

Are you talking about non-euclidian geometry?? This is obviously euclidian

geometry it doesn't mention it is on a sphere it is just plain 2d space.

So yeah it becomes a straight line.

More questions?

im talking about Euclid, i specified "in Euclid geom"

 

[imontheloose]

Him and the notorious faggot @Xangsane

I have "gay" in my name and somehow he's still a more notorious faggot than me! Impressive

And like all fags they need attention, and thus... the font

@ngannou would you care to confirm? This is the third time I've asked

Are you desperate for attention because you're a faggot? Or something else?

why jfl at me nigger, couldve gave a thumbs up. bastard straight laughed at me for no reason

 

[ngannou]

youre getting mixed up.

you need to distinguish between two cases.

1. a single angle that measures 180deg which is indeed a straight angle (two rays lying on exactly the same line)
2. several angles that add up to 180deg but are located at different places or with different vertices involved

theyre not the same. in case 1, a single angle of 180deg at a point A means the two rays of that one angle extend in opposite directions along a single straight line. in case 2, if three angles alpha,beta,gamma at or around a point add to 180deg, that does not force them to lie along the same line. each angle might be formed by a different pair of rays

like i said, a nice example is any non degenerate triangle. its three interior angles add to 180deg, yet clearly the sides do not all lie on one line.

if you want a TLDR, "a single angle equals 180deg" does mean “we have a straight line” but “alpha+beta+gamma=180deg" does not automatically produce one straight angle. they are fundamentally different statements


im talking about Euclid, i specified "in Euclid geom"

No they do in this case because it all conincides in one point.

 

[ngannou]

youre getting mixed up.

you need to distinguish between two cases.

1. a single angle that measures 180deg which is indeed a straight angle (two rays lying on exactly the same line)
2. several angles that add up to 180deg but are located at different places or with different vertices involved

theyre not the same. in case 1, a single angle of 180deg at a point A means the two rays of that one angle extend in opposite directions along a single straight line. in case 2, if three angles alpha,beta,gamma at or around a point add to 180deg, that does not force them to lie along the same line. each angle might be formed by a different pair of rays

like i said, a nice example is any non degenerate triangle. its three interior angles add to 180deg, yet clearly the sides do not all lie on one line.

if you want a TLDR, "a single angle equals 180deg" does mean “we have a straight line” but “alpha+beta+gamma=180deg" does not automatically produce one straight angle. they are fundamentally different statements


im talking about Euclid, i specified "in Euclid geom"

Saying three interior angle add to 180 degree is not a example to refute

because the angles do no meet at one point I clearly mentioned I flipped it to

make all the points to conincide together so it becomes a straight line.

 

[ngannou]

youre getting mixed up.

you need to distinguish between two cases.

1. a single angle that measures 180deg which is indeed a straight angle (two rays lying on exactly the same line)
2. several angles that add up to 180deg but are located at different places or with different vertices involved

theyre not the same. in case 1, a single angle of 180deg at a point A means the two rays of that one angle extend in opposite directions along a single straight line. in case 2, if three angles alpha,beta,gamma at or around a point add to 180deg, that does not force them to lie along the same line. each angle might be formed by a different pair of rays

like i said, a nice example is any non degenerate triangle. its three interior angles add to 180deg, yet clearly the sides do not all lie on one line.

if you want a TLDR, "a single angle equals 180deg" does mean “we have a straight line” but “alpha+beta+gamma=180deg" does not automatically produce one straight angle. they are fundamentally different statements


im talking about Euclid, i specified "in Euclid geom"

For more clearl understanding

it is similar as proving the sum of the three angles of the triangle is 180 degree

by making making a parellel line to make all three angles coincide at one point thus becoming 180 degrees

which shows coinciding three angle at one point creates a straight line

It is the similar logic used below making all angles coincide at one point

 

[ngannou]

youre getting mixed up.

you need to distinguish between two cases.

1. a single angle that measures 180deg which is indeed a straight angle (two rays lying on exactly the same line)
2. several angles that add up to 180deg but are located at different places or with different vertices involved

theyre not the same. in case 1, a single angle of 180deg at a point A means the two rays of that one angle extend in opposite directions along a single straight line. in case 2, if three angles alpha,beta,gamma at or around a point add to 180deg, that does not force them to lie along the same line. each angle might be formed by a different pair of rays

like i said, a nice example is any non degenerate triangle. its three interior angles add to 180deg, yet clearly the sides do not all lie on one line.

if you want a TLDR, "a single angle equals 180deg" does mean “we have a straight line” but “alpha+beta+gamma=180deg" does not automatically produce one straight angle. they are fundamentally different statements


im talking about Euclid, i specified "in Euclid geom"

Does above explanation help you?

 

[imontheloose]

No they do in this case because it all conincides in one point

having three angles at the same vertex that sum to 180deg does not force them to lie on one single straight line. it simply means those three angles together fill up a “half plane” around that vertex. each angle is formed by its own pair of rays, so they remain distinct angles, even though they share the same vertex.

ill give you a more concise example. imagine a point A okay? and three rays, AX, AY, AZ with angles ∠XAY,∠YAZ,∠ZAX. if ∠XAY+∠YAZ+∠ZAX=180deg, it means those three angles together “span” a straight half plane around A. but that does not merge them into a single 180deg angle with just two rays. even though they share the point A, there are three distinct pairs of rays. in a typical triangle around A, the internal angles also sum to deg yet the three sides are certainly not one straight line.

coinciding in one point (sharing the same vertex) does not turn them into one “straight angle”, it just means they fit together around that point to form 180deg in total, the same way three angles of a triangle around one vertex sum to some portion of 180deg.

Saying three interior angle add to 180 degree is not a example to refute

because the angles do no meet at one point I clearly mentioned I flipped it to

make all the points to conincide together so it becomes a straight line.

Even if you physically flip or slide triangles so that three angles “share” the same vertex, having

∠a+∠b+∠c  =  180deg does not merge them into one straight angle. they remain three distinct angles (each formed by its own pair of rays). a single angle of measure 180deg is literally a straight angle, with just two rays going off in exact opposite directions. having three angles at a common vertex add up to 180deg means they jointly occupy a “half plane” around that vertex. but that still involves more than two rays. in a diagram, you might have rays AX,AY,AZ,AW all emanating from A, forming angles ∠XAY,∠YAZ,∠ZAW
their sum could be 180deg, meaning they fill half the space around A. that does not transform them into one straight angle with just two rays. saying “i flipped the triangles so that all three angles meet at one point” only ensures the vertex is shared. it does not collapse their distinct rays into a single line. think of a pizza sliced into three slices around a center point A. if those slices (angles) at A add to 180deg, you have half a pizza. theyre all at the same center point, but you clearly have three edges (rays) dividing that half pizza. its not one big slice with two edges. it’s three slices, each with its own pair of edges. their distinct angles regardless of however you wanna arrange them to have a common vertex.

For more clearl understanding

it is similar as proving the sum of the three angles of the triangle is 180 degree

by making making a parellel line to make all three angles coincide at one point thus becoming 180 degrees
View attachment 3518035
View attachment 3518036

It is the similar logic used below making all angles coincide at one point

right, listen, its important to note that in the standard proof of "the angles of a triangle sum to 180deg" using a parallel line, we do "cut out" or "slide" the three corner angles until they abut one another in a straight line thus visually showing their measures add to 180deg, but that demonstration does not say that in the original triangle all three angles literally merge into one straight angle. it means, we have a triangle ABC, we draw a line through A parallel to BC. this shows ∠ABC and ∠ACB can be "transposed" alongside ∠BAC, lining up to form a straight line of 180deg. this cut and rearrange step is just a convenient way to show "the three angles together total 180deg". it does not alter the original triangle into a degenerate shape and it does not claim that ∠ABC+∠ACB+∠BAC=180deg forces one single angle inside the original figure which is what you assumed. likewise, in your pentagon scenario, saying "∠ABC+∠ADC+∠DAE=180deg"
does not automatically make B,C,D,E collinear or produce one single 180deg angle in the original pentagon. one can similarly imagine "cutting out" those three angles and sliding them around so they lie in a straight line, but that is only a demonstration that their measures sum to 180deg it does not collapse them into one angle within the pentagon itself.

so yeah the parallel line proof of the triangle angle sum is indeed a nice visual tool for adding angles to 180deg. but, it does not imply that whenever several angles sum to 180deg, they must coincide as a single straight angle in the original figure. they are still separate angles in that original shape which is what you seem to have got wrong

 

[ngannou]

having three angles at the same vertex that sum to 180deg does not force them to lie on one single straight line. it simply means those three angles together fill up a “half plane” around that vertex. each angle is formed by its own pair of rays, so they remain distinct angles, even though they share the same vertex.

ill give you a more concise example. imagine a point A okay? and three rays, AX, AY, AZ with angles ∠XAY,∠YAZ,∠ZAX. if ∠XAY+∠YAZ+∠ZAX=180deg, it means those three angles together “span” a straight half plane around A. but that does not merge them into a single 180deg angle with just two rays. even though they share the point A, there are three distinct pairs of rays. in a typical triangle around A, the internal angles also sum to deg yet the three sides are certainly not one straight line.

coinciding in one point (sharing the same vertex) does not turn them into one “straight angle”, it just means they fit together around that point to form 180deg in total, the same way three angles of a triangle around one vertex sum to some portion of 180deg.

Even if you physically flip or slide triangles so that three angles “share” the same vertex, having

∠a+∠b+∠c  =  180deg does not merge them into one straight angle. they remain three distinct angles (each formed by its own pair of rays). a single angle of measure 180deg is literally a straight angle, with just two rays going off in exact opposite directions. having three angles at a common vertex add up to 180deg means they jointly occupy a “half plane” around that vertex. but that still involves more than two rays. in a diagram, you might have rays AX,AY,AZ,AW all emanating from A, forming angles ∠XAY,∠YAZ,∠ZAW
their sum could be 180deg, meaning they fill half the space around A. that does not transform them into one straight angle with just two rays. saying “i flipped the triangles so that all three angles meet at one point” only ensures the vertex is shared. it does not collapse their distinct rays into a single line. think of a pizza sliced into three slices around a center point A. if those slices (angles) at A add to 180deg, you have half a pizza. theyre all at the same center point, but you clearly have three edges (rays) dividing that half pizza. its not one big slice with two edges. it’s three slices, each with its own pair of edges. their distinct angles regardless of however you wanna arrange them to have a common vertex.


right, listen, its important to note that in the standard proof of "the angles of a triangle sum to 180deg" using a parallel line, we do "cut out" or "slide" the three corner angles until they abut one another in a straight line thus visually showing their measures add to 180deg, but that demonstration does not say that in the original triangle all three angles literally merge into one straight angle. it means, we have a triangle ABC, we draw a line through A parallel to BC. this shows ∠ABC and ∠ACB can be "transposed" alongside ∠BAC, lining up to form a straight line of 180deg. this cut and rearrange step is just a convenient way to show "the three angles together total 180deg". it does not alter the original triangle into a degenerate shape and it does not claim that ∠ABC+∠ACB+∠BAC=180deg forces one single angle inside the original figure which is what you assumed. likewise, in your pentagon scenario, saying "∠ABC+∠ADC+∠DAE=180deg"
does not automatically make B,C,D,E collinear or produce one single 180deg angle in the original pentagon. one can similarly imagine "cutting out" those three angles and sliding them around so they lie in a straight line, but that is only a demonstration that their measures sum to 180deg it does not collapse them into one angle within the pentagon itself.

so yeah the parallel line proof of the triangle angle sum is indeed a nice visual tool for adding angles to 180deg. but, it does not imply that whenever several angles sum to 180deg, they must coincide as a single straight angle in the original figure. they are still separate angles in that original shape which is what you seem to have got wrong

I clearly mentioned when it’s coincides at one point it becomes a straight line but why are you keep showing examples when it is not coinciding at one point?
Plus this ain’t only my solution it is from the officials so it can’t be wrong.
Draw me any example where three angles coincide at one point but does not become a straight line

 

[imontheloose]

I clearly mentioned when it’s coincides at one point it becomes a straight line but why are you keeping examples when it is not coinciding at one point?

even when you bring three angles together so they share a common vertex, it still does not turn them into a single straight angle. they remain three distinct angles (each formed by its own pair of rays) that happen to abut one another around that point.

a single 180deg angle has exactly two rays in opposite directions. yet three angles summing to 180deg, even if they "coincide at one point" have at least four rays involved (since each angle is defined by a different pair of rays).

so physically placing (or “sliding”/“flipping”) three separate angles around so that they meet at one vertex can make them together span a “flat” region of 180deg in total, but that is still three angles pressed side by side, not a single straight angle. this is exactly like the classic triangle angle sum proof where you "cut out" the three corners of a triangle and line them up in a row so they form 180deg. you do indeed make them meet at one line but each corner remains a separate angle. they are contiguous, not fused into one is my point

 

[ngannou]

even when you bring three angles together so they share a common vertex, it still does not turn them into a single straight angle. they remain three distinct angles (each formed by its own pair of rays) that happen to abut one another around that point.

a single 180deg angle has exactly two rays in opposite directions. yet three angles summing to 180deg, even if they "coincide at one point" have at least four rays involved (since each angle is defined by a different pair of rays).

so physically placing (or “sliding”/“flipping”) three separate angles around so that they meet at one vertex can make them together span a “flat” region of 180deg in total, but that is still three angles pressed side by side, not a single straight angle. this is exactly like the classic triangle angle sum proof where you "cut out" the three corners of a triangle and line them up in a row so they form 180deg. you do indeed make them meet at one line but each corner remains a separate angle. they are contiguous, not fused into one is my point

Just draw me the contradictory situation I can’t be wrong because this is the official solution

 

[snowbunnypolice]

This some good autism

 

[snowbunnypolice]

also

NGANNOU

 

[ngannou]

even when you bring three angles together so they share a common vertex, it still does not turn them into a single straight angle. they remain three distinct angles (each formed by its own pair of rays) that happen to abut one another around that point.

a single 180deg angle has exactly two rays in opposite directions. yet three angles summing to 180deg, even if they "coincide at one point" have at least four rays involved (since each angle is defined by a different pair of rays).

so physically placing (or “sliding”/“flipping”) three separate angles around so that they meet at one vertex can make them together span a “flat” region of 180deg in total, but that is still three angles pressed side by side, not a single straight angle. this is exactly like the classic triangle angle sum proof where you "cut out" the three corners of a triangle and line them up in a row so they form 180deg. you do indeed make them meet at one line but each corner remains a separate angle. they are contiguous, not fused into one is my point

You should make a video explaining it. I can't keep scrolling up and down because I only have an iPhone.

Overall a good question and i learnt alot from it
Thanks

Bros help him to understand that three angle coinciding becomes a straight line.

In ideal geometry problem the thickness of a line is not considered obviously so you don’t have to concern about squeezing. It’s common sense

 

[imontheloose]

Just draw me the contradictory situation I can’t be wrong because this is the official solution

start with a point A somewhere in the middle of your paper. draw four distinct rays out of A, label them AX,  AY,  AZ,  AW.
mark the three angles around A as follows: ∠XAY, ∠YAZ, ∠ZAW. now suppose you measure or label them so that ∠XAY=50deg,∠YAZ=60deg,∠ZAW=70deg, obviously 60+70+50=180 hence all three add up to 180. they arent one straight angle. when you try merge them into a single angle, you need to collapse rays so only two rays remain which isnt what we have in the pic. the triangle proof is just to show that the size of those angles indeed sums to 180deg, that doesnt mean the actual geometry of those angles in the original shape is a straight line. this is my point

 

[ngannou]

start with a point A somewhere in the middle of your paper. draw four distinct rays out of A, label them AX,  AY,  AZ,  AW.
mark the three angles around A as follows: ∠XAY, ∠YAZ, ∠ZAW. now suppose you measure or label them so that ∠XAY=50deg,∠YAZ=60deg,∠ZAW=70deg, obviously 60+70+50=180 hence all three add up to 180. they arent one straight angle. when you try merge them into a single angle, you need to collapse rays so only two rays remain which isnt what we have in the pic. the triangle proof is just to show that the size of those angles indeed sums to 180deg, that doesnt mean the actual geometry of those angles in the original shape is a straight line. this is my point

The thickness of the line is never considered in

ideal geometry question it is common sense it perfectly overlaps

 

[imontheloose]

The thickness of the line is never considered in

ideal geometry question it is common sense it perfectly overlaps

what? when did i mention thickness? are you a native english speaker?

in euclid geom obviously we dont consider thickness but i never mentioned thickness once. the issue is about a single 180deg angle has exactly two rays that extend in opposite directions from one vertex, but three angles summing to 180deg, even if you make them "coincide at one point" still involve more than two rays. even if these lines "perfectly overlap" in some segments, you still have a different starting/ending pair for each angle. to truly get a single straight angle, you must be left with exactly two unique rays in opposite directions, which is not the situation when you have three separate angles. hence, thinness of lines is not the core issue. even in an ideal no thickness geometry world, "three angles summing to 180deg" doesntt collapse them into a single 180deg angle unless you literally remove all but two rays at which point they wouldn’t be three angles anymore

 

[ngannou]

what? when did i mention thickness? are you a native english speaker?

in euclid geom obviously we dont consider thickness but i never mentioned thickness once. the issue is about a single 180deg angle has exactly two rays that extend in opposite directions from one vertex, but three angles summing to 180deg, even if you make them "coincide at one point" still involve more than two rays. even if these lines "perfectly overlap" in some segments, you still have a different starting/ending pair for each angle. to truly get a single straight angle, you must be left with exactly two unique rays in opposite directions, which is not the situation when you have three separate angles. hence, thinness of lines is not the core issue. even in an ideal no thickness geometry world, "three angles summing to 180deg" doesntt collapse them into a single 180deg angle unless you literally remove all but two rays at which point they wouldn’t be three angles anymore

Bro in ideal geometry situation since the thickness is not considered it overlaps perfectly

 

[imontheloose]

Bro in ideal geometry situation since the thickness is not considered it overlaps perfectly

read what i said again, i never mentioned thickness in the first place and said it overlapped perfectly. youre 100% a non-english speaker lmfao

 

[ngannou]

read what i said again, i never mentioned thickness in the first place and said it overlapped perfectly. youre 100% a non-english speaker lmfao

What I am saying is your concern of not overlapping is only possible when there is thickness

 

[imontheloose]

What I am saying is your concern of not overlapping is only possible when there is thickness

not true, youre not understanding the english. theres no point me arguing this if you cant understand english lmao

 

[ngannou]

not true, youre not understanding the english. theres no point me arguing this if you cant understand english lmao

You are just yapping around because you know that you wrong

 

[imontheloose]

You are just yapping around because you know that you wrong

 

[ngannou]

View attachment 3518107

Just admit you are wrong man I can't be wrong becaues this is the official solution

 

[imontheloose]

Just admit you are wrong man

i seriously dont think i am, i may be, but i so far dont think so because you cant address my points since you dont understand english and thats fine

 

[ngannou]

i seriously dont think i am, i may be, but i so far dont think so because you cant address my points since you dont understand english and thats fine

I can't be wrong because This is the official solution and you are making bunch of nonsense

 

[widdi]

your solution is high IQ but you sound like a 85 IQ nigger in your other posts on this thread

 

[imontheloose]

I can't be wrong because This is the official solution and you are making bunch of nonsense

wheres this question from? bro, why are you speaking to me in the most indian colloquial english, i didnt steal your cow dung

 

[ngannou]

wheres this question from? bro, why are you speaking to me in the most indian colloquial english, i didnt steal your cow dung

Ain't currycell but a ricecell

 

[ngannou]

your solution is high IQ but you sound like a 85 IQ nigger in your other posts on this thread

Seems like you understand my solution the guy below doesn't understand how coinciding the angles to become 180 makes the line straight help him bro

your solution is high IQ but you sound like a 85 IQ nigger in your other posts on this thread

 

[ngannou]

bump

 

[widdi]

Seems like you understand my solution the guy below doesn't understand how coinciding the angles to become 180 makes the line straight help him bro

A line is also a collapsed triangle @imontheloose



eg this famous problem. the drawing is not to scale because x = 0 and this is actually line (since AB + CB = BC in this case). If you progressively increased x by increasing AB and BC you are basically just redistributing the 180 more equally to the other 2 angles. thats why it’s the same thing

 

[ngannou]

A line is also a collapsed triangle @imontheloose

View attachment 3518166

eg this famous problem. the drawing is not to scale because x = 0 and this is actually line (since AB + CB = BC in this case). If you progressively increased x by increasing AB and BC you are basically just redistributing the 180 more equally to the other 2 angles. thats why it’s the same thing

Thanks

 

[ngannou]

A line is also a collapsed triangle @imontheloose

View attachment 3518166

eg this famous problem. the drawing is not to scale because x = 0 and this is actually line (since AB + CB = BC in this case). If you progressively increased x by increasing AB and BC you are basically just redistributing the 180 more equally to the other 2 angles. thats why it’s the same thing

You math major math white guy? or just math interested asian

 

[imontheloose]

A line is also a collapsed triangle @imontheloose

View attachment 3518166

eg this famous problem. the drawing is not to scale because x = 0 and this is actually line (since AB + CB = BC in this case). If you progressively increased x by increasing AB and BC you are basically just redistributing the 180 more equally to the other 2 angles. thats why it’s the same thing

a "line is a collapsed triangle" is only in the degenerate sense, that is, when one side of the triangle equals the sum of the other two sides, so the figure flattens into a straight segment and has 0 area. but that is not the usual, non degenerate situation where each side is strictly less than the sum of the other two, and the shape encloses a positive area. "a line is a collapsed triangle" does not mean every triangle (or pentagon) can be viewed as "the same thing" with area 0. Degenerate and non degenerate shapes obey different side/angle conditions, leading to fundamentally different geometrical outcomes (zero area vs. positive area) which was my point