I'm sure you can solve this

24x4=96
96-68=28

answer = 28

I dropped out of school at age 14 you fucking faggots

For a square of any area you can cut it into 4 arbitrary sections with 3 having those areas and the final square having the remainder.

where do any of these numbers come from

Areas of sections across from each other have to match.

20 x blue = 32 x 16
blue = 32 x 16 ÷ 20
blue = 25.6

28. Make bisecting triangles from the corners of the square to the corners of the quadrangles, then use substitution based on equivalent triangles to find the areas of the triangles found in the unknown region

If i have a square with area=10 units^2 split into four segments, and i have 3 segments that add to area 7 units^2 the renaming segment has a definite area. In this case it is 3.

Grug have app on shiny rock. Go tap tap for count calories. Math dull hunting instincts.

Attached: 3b6.jpg (353x400, 20K)

Correct. This square has area X which has three segments adding up to 68. The final area is X-68.

Where is the 24 coming from here?

I'm a moron, shouldn't be multiplication and division, should be addition and subtraction.

20 + blue = 32 + 16
blue = 32 + 16 - 20
blue = 28

Thank you for correcting me i was wrong.

imagine a grid

if top left is +4 of botton left
if top right is +12 of top left
if top right is +16 of top left
then the obvious pattern leads to top right being +8 of bottom left

this means that once centered, each box = 24

it is coincidentally 28 but everything you said is retarded

48

+16 of bottom left*

sorry about typo

hater, see my reasoning
i am merely more abstract than you

the answer is "x", dummies

You are assuming that any two sections divides the square in half.
Retard

+8 of bottom right

goddammit im sorry these typos must be confusing i mix up right and left all the time in day to day life

the other two quadrilaterals across from each other add up to 48, so then 20+x=48, x=28.

i will literally solve any version of this problem using my method, low iq swine

>You are assuming that any two sections divides the square in half.
I'm assuming correctly because of the double ticks on the line segments in the image.

Top left 16
Bottom right 32
Top right 19,826,452/sqrt(2)

Not a possible problem because of the way the lines are segmented

a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square

also where is the picture

>I'm assuming correctly because of the double ticks on the line segments in the image.

That doesn't mean what you think it means. All of the double ticked lines are the same length, which does not give you enough information to make that assumption.

actually the ticks on corner bottom left and the ticks on corner top right would certainly imply distance between ticks = 12

from there you get the answer easily

If you work through the problem backwards under the assumption that the total area of the square is 100cm2 or 96cm2 you can find that the missing area is 28cm2 or 24cm2 respectively without any error or unknown in either case. So that means that you need to know the overall area of the square to know for certain, and as far as I can tell you can't determine that with the given information. More likely than not this is intentional to keep a discussion/argument going as several people believe that they have reached an answer that when they double-check makes sense logically, but is only one of several possible solutions. If anyone sees how one could determine the true overall square area please enlighten me but I think it's left open-ended intentionally.

Jesus Christ you’re all fucking idiots the missing area could be infinite

do you know what a square is

Why not? Any square that's broken into four parts starting halfway through its line segments should have the opposite areas be equal.

are you "people" allowed to vote?

Now, I'm an engineer so I don't do elegant solutions
With bottom left corner as (0,0) the center point is (126,156) and the midpoints are 186
The bottom left sector has an area of 32'796px
The x sector is 36'396
16:32'796=x:36'396
X=~18 (17.75 according to my numbers)

Not if it isn't being broken by a straight line. The top area would clearly be greater than the bottom area in this case, as more than half of the overall area is contained in the top. Draw an imaginary hotizontal line across the center of the square and THAT would split it into even halves. If you can visualize that you should clearly see the difference in area contained in the top area rather than the bottom

The ticks mean equal length; suppose x is a single line segment, therefore the area is 4x^2. The actual equation is 4x^2 = 68 + y (where y is missing area). The diagram isn’t accurate to scale - y could be fucking 10283 for all we know

is this how the leaning tower of pisa happened

.........im at a loss for words

good thing you exercise

I'm glad somebody's talking sense in this fuckfest.

too lazy to solve this

>measure line segments using photo editor
>calculate areas in pixels^2 to find out if the 3 known areas could actually be true
>very likely that the given areas are not all possible when converted from pixels to "cm" with a single scaling value
>solve for length of sides of square
>find area of square
>subtract known areas

how is the center point (126, 156)? how are the midpoints 186?

I am too dumb for this and I have 119 IQ. Someone call a Rick and Morty connoisseur

I'm not talking about top and bottom areas, I'm talking about opposite DIAGONAL areas.

Opposite are diagonals always equal area if they start from halfway between the sides of the square.

Pic related. A+B will always equal C+D

Attached: always.png (1200x960, 781K)

Jow Forums doesn't know what a square is

You're correct in creating that equation to point out that we have 2 unknown variables with only a single equation, meaning there is no single solution. However, TECHNICALLY, the possible areas of the square are not infinite. Even though the diagram may not be to scale, it is obvious that the upper two sectuons take more space than the lower two sections, and the right two sections take more space than the left two. This gives us two inequalities that could be written:
20+32>16+X
And
16+20X
And
4

lol jesus christ how are you guys so bad at math?

Legit what I did, but it's not to scale
Total area comes up as 68, which is already the sum of athe three known sectors

you are assuming the diagonal lines (B's right line and C's right line) are the identical

No I am not assuming that at all.

case closed we all got baited

i'm gonna jack off and take a nap

That's starting to sound plausible.

Explain how my post is wrong and then I'll care about your opinion. Saying "you're bad at math lol" is as good as admitting you just don't have the reading comprehension to understand what was written out in the post

Hello I'm Lance Corporal Baker with the U.S. Marines

Have any of you outstanding gentlemen considered joining the infantry?

I'm drawing up an explanation now because I'm tired of this thread. Give me a minute.

how would A+B = C+D? Since we don't know what the diagonal lines are, imagine if the lower diagonal line extended to the bottom left corner. Then A+B would be fucking huge. How would that equal D+C?

We know because of this.

Attached: fuck.jpg (1200x1904, 251K)

Just for fun, I drew your example as well so you can get a good visual of how D=B+A

Attached: just-for-fun.jpg (432x432, 14K)

It's also worth noting at this stage that this produces two right-angled triangles A and B that even a child could tell they together form half the total area.

I'm inclined to believe that's true, but what's the proof for that?

see But breaking it down into triangles is an extra step if you just remember the opposite area thing.

butiful

Attached: me.png (645x729, 90K)

>that one guy who passed high school geometry

You are wrong mate. I made a picture to make it easy to understand. This applies to all letters you designated. I will only prove your "y"s do not have the same area.

In the drawing I made:
Clearly both "y" have the same base (represented by the red line)
Clearly both "y" have the same height (represented by the blue line)
Clearly both "y" have DIFFERENT width (represented by the black line and pink line)

Forgot to attach the drawing, here it is

Attached: Untitled.png (508x490, 152K)

Is this a troll? That's now how you calculate the height/area of a triangle.

But just in case you don't know, you don't use the diagonal to calculate the height of the triangle. You use the distance based on the ring angle from the base (as if it were infinitely long) to the top-most point.

Here's some practice problems for you! khanacademy.org/math/basic-geo/basic-geo-area-and-perimeter/area-triangle/a/area-of-triangle

Attached: example[1].gif (300x200, 2K)

>that one guy who failed high school geometry

Apologies for my big retard brain, but what would the equation for solving this look like?
Always was interested in maths but my maths teacher found it more fun to talk about life and taxes and shit, which while im thankful for, left me a bit behind on maths itself.

The total field (68 + x) has to be dividable by 16 and just by looking at it you can tell that the blue field is just slightly smaller than 32. 16 x 6 = 96 96 - 68 = 28

No need for fancy geometry

what the fuck is this board...

x + 20 = 16 + 32

thank you my guy, so opposite sides, despite having different angles, will add up equally?
interesting.
and now that i think about it makes sense considering the shape and now i feel retarded again.

Yep. Check out the posted solution here for why

>Engineer
>Thinks he can actually do big boy maths

Go back to your tables and plug and play equations, faggot. You have no business even claiming you can work out a solution, much less an elegant one. All of you dipshit engineers are retards who couldn't hack it past calculus or understand basic proofs.

No trolling. To my previous post, it is irrelevant how do you calculate the area of a triangle.

My previous post was about how both triangles labeled as "y" were different from each other.

If both have same base and height BUT they differ in the width, clearly one is bigger than the other. Thus, they'll have different area.

Wish I could stay, but got to sleep :(

lol this is obviously a troll. But for others reading:
The formula for a triangle's area is: 1/2 base x height
They have the same base (half the length of the right edge of the square)
They have the same height (distance from the right edge of the square to the point where all the triangles meet).
Therefor they have the same area

>engineer
>not knowing calculus and lineair algebra

I think it's 28.

16

Attached: 1554650732591.jpg (811x506, 230K)

Is there a way to prove that A+B = C+D? I’m thinking the Cosine theorem might be used, but I’m not sure

See

>cm

what's that?

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 9K)

My thread was offtopic but this isn't?

Being good at math helps one be Jow Forums. Also anime girls in the OP pretty much never get deleted, so use that next time you make a thread

It's 32, Im sure of it

Why 16?

28

The side of the square is divided into 4 equal units so it’s field is 4u x 4u = 16u^2