How long til all US public toilets are unisex?
>>70690507
The answer is 70, you fucking idiots.
>>70692318
Oh, so 12 is parallel to 16? And 5 is perpendicular to 12 and 16? Cool! That means the triangle is a right triangle! Guess what? That means a^2+b^2=c^2! You know what else? 2^2+5^2=8^2! Nice, 8^2 is 29, never knew that before. I didn't even think 29 had an integer square root!
fucktard
>hispanic men below nigger women
cmon
>>70690507
Shit not this problem again.
>>70690507
123.94
>>70690507
Approximately 72.5, right? I'm not retarded?
>>70694924
Shit, nevermind, 91.22 is right.
Trapezoid is h*(a+b)/2
>>70695518
It can't be a trapezium (the correct name for what Americans call a trapezoid) because the numbers don't add up.
>>70690507
Depends who gets elected, or more accurately the supreme court pick. Hillary will probably achieve it in the first 100 days, Trump will make it a states' rights issue. Just a guess though really.
Wasn't there a guy in Oregon or California that was consistently using the women's changing room at the pool or something? Not trans, just a guy, but its the law. The hero we need.
>>70690507
There is no right answer, because this shape is impossible. That's what OP is getting at
lol OP asks a question with pic tangent related and autists try to solve the pop quiz like Pavlov's dogs. I want off this ride.
Washington
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/23/man-allowed-to-use-womens-locker-room-at-swimming-pool-without-citing-gender-identity/
>Washington’s regulations even go so far to say that it is complaining women, not biological men, who should be asked to leave intimate facilities in cases of controversy over gender identity
>>70690507
This question actually makes sense when you realize that since 2010, most standardized tests and worksheets no longer make their diagrams to scale with the actual dimensions given, because with modern calculators, they are too easily solved by just measuring with a ruler and punching in numbers.
>>70696839
It's human nature to attempt to solve a problem when they see one.
>>70692318
Just going off the number given... Yes this is correct... But we all know that those aren't right triangles.
the shape is impossible
>>70692318
No, it's not.
remove the 12x5 "rectangle" in the middle. Combine the other two "triangles" to get a 4x5 rectangle.
60 + 20 = 80
>16 - 12 = 4
>4/2 = 2
>2*5 = 10 (triangle edges)
>12*5 = 60 (square middle)
>60 + 10 = 70
>>70694481
It doesn't say 5 is perpendicular to 16, eurodumb
>>70696118
Seattle. He went in there, went out, went back in a little later. He wasn't doing it consistently though
>>70697580
Except being drawn to scale isn't the issue dumbass
>>70696118
Single-occupancy bathrooms yes but do you think even multi-stall bathrooms will be that quick?
Since this is now a common core math thread, people who pointed out the problem is retarded are the only correct answer. If you assume the 5 is perpendicular to the base, the shape not only isn't a trapezoid, it >>70694481
isn't even a parallelogram, and the process for solving it is different No angles marked = no solution.
>>70700472
If 5 isn't perpendicular to the base, then why are you using Pythagorean theorem?
>>70700817
>If you assume the 5 is perpendicular to the base
There is no grounds for this assumption.
>>70700997
I don't actually believe the image I posted, the image was just shitposting. The text in my posts is my actual stance (that the object does exist, the object is not a trapezium, and there are infinity possible solutions).
>>70698745
Combining the two triangles makes a 2x5 rectangle, so the correct answer is 70.
>>70698745
>>70698366
you fucking idiots it is unsolvable that's the joke because you can't assume 5 is perpendicular
>>70701512
Only you can, simply because it is dotted. This is commonly done to show a useful measurement in a geometry problem, eg. base height in a cone.
What is the problem with OP pic? It's very easy to solve.
this thread
I feel sorry for the kids in US public schools
>>70701359
Fucktard
>>70701722
Fucktard
>>70701667
Except that's false you absolute fucktarded moron. Dotted line doesn't fucking mean perpendicular, it means that the line is imaginary, that is it's not actually part of the figure, but just showing the distance. In this case it means that it's possible to draw a line segment of length 5 from the intersection of the left 8 line and the 12 line to some point along the 16 line. If it was perpendicular an angle would have to be labeled as right (either by calling it 90 degrees or with a square at the angle).
Protip: You can't prove it's perpendicular but I can prove it's not, see >>70692509
Then lynch yourself, fucktard
For all of you FUCKTARDS too fucking incompetent to solve this:
The lower limit occurs when the angle between the left 8 line and the 16 line approaches 0. In this situation, the 5-unit line segment can be ignored. We therefore essentially turn the quadrilateral into a triangle of sides 12, 8, and 8. We can solve this with Heron's formula.
A=sqrt[s(s-a)(s-b)(s-c)]
s=(a+b+c)/2
s=14
a=sqrt(14*2*6*6)=sqrt(1008)=31.749015733
Since we are making the angle approach 0 rather than be equal to 0, the area is not technically equal to sqrt(1008), rather it approaches sqrt(1008) from above.
>>70701969
The upper limit occurs when the intersection of the 12 line and the left 8 line are as far from the 16 line as possible. Therefore we have a right triangle with sides 8, 5, and sqrt39 along with a quadrilateral with sides 5, 12, 8, and 16-sqrt39 where the sides of length 5 and 16-sqrt39 form a right angle. We can split the quadrilateral into two triangles, drawing a line segment from the upper left corner to the lower right corner.
By combining the lower left of these two triangles with the triangle we initially separated, we have a single triangle of base 16 and height 5, giving us an area of 40.
We are now left with one triangle of area 40 and one triangle with a side length of 12 and a side length of 8. In order to solve the area of the latter triangle, we need to determine either the remaining side or an angle. We cannot solve for any of the angles without first solving for the remaining side, so we'll just solve for the remaining side. To do this, we need to take the right triangle that we created in the middle of the figure whose hypotenuse is the same as the unknown side on the triangle we still have to solve. Given that we know the other two sides are 5 and 16-sqrt39, we can use the Pythagorean Theorem to determine the length of the hypotenuse as sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2). We now have all three side lengths for the triangle of unknown area and can use Heron's formula to solve.
a=sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2)
b=12
c=8
A=sqrt(s(s-a)(s-b)(s-c))
s=(a+b+c)/2
s=(20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2
A=sqrt[((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)(((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)-(sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2)))(((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)-12)(((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)-8)]=42.684891941
Now add to the triangle of area 40 to obtain the area of the quadrilateral.
A=40+sqrt[((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)(((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)-(sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2)))(((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)-12)(((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)-8)]=82.684891941.
>>70698848
FYI, things you will never see irl Poindexter >>70697966
>>70701969
>>70701987
The lower limit approaches A=sqrt(1008)=31.749015733 from above. The upper limit is A=40+sqrt[((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)(((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)-(sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2)))(((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)-12)(((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)-8)]=82.684891941.
This is so easy, what is so hard to understand here?
>>70701920
So, technically since there's no small square placed at the bottom of said dotted line makes it possible that it's not indicating a right triangle, BUT why the fuck else would the line be there? Some arbitrary measurement that has no use without angles? You are seriously just looking for a problem here. Reminds me of this autistic kid who keeps questioning the meaning of words, as if somehow there's just no convention on them.
>>70702311
Oh, so 12 is parallel to 16? And 5 is perpendicular to 12 and 16? Cool! That means the triangle is a right triangle! Guess what? That means a^2+b^2=c^2! You know what else? 2^2+5^2=8^2! Nice, 8^2 is 29, never knew that before. I didn't even think 29 had an integer square root!
fucktard
The answer is 45
>>70701920
Top fucking kek. You got some pent up anger there anon.
>>70702399
Holy fuck, when are you going to understand that the pic is made of two triangles and one square?
One 5x12 square and two 2x5 pythagorean triangles?
Square=12x5=60
Each square has a 90 degree angle so you can basically do heightxlenght and divide by 2.
2x5=10, divide by 2 and multiply by 2 since theres two of them and you get 60+5+5=70.
Not that hard, dumbfuck.
>>70702362
>So, technically since there's no small square placed at the bottom of said dotted line makes it possible that it's not indicating a right triangle,
Which means it can't be assumed, fucktard dumbass.
>BUT why the fuck else would the line be there?
Do you mean to tell me you've never seen some unnecessary information thrown into a problem (be it a math problem or even some other type of problem) just to throw you off? It happens all the fucking time in school. I've encountered it dozens if not hundreds of times when I was a student.
But then again, it does actually affect the problem: It shows that a line segment of length 5 can be drawn from the intersection of the left 8 line and the 12 line to the 16 line. Were that line of length 5 not present, that would not be a given. For example, consider a cyclic quadrilateral with side lengths 8, 12, 8, and 16. Said 5-length line could not exist in such a figure.
>Some arbitrary measurement that has no use without angles?
It has use in lowering the maximum possible area.
>You are seriously just looking for a problem here.
No, you're just being a fucktard dumbass.
Protip: You're assuming the shape is a trapezium, but that's literally impossible. Not only am I right to question the assumption that 5 is perpendicular to both 12 and 16, but I can PROVE that it is not perpendicular to both (though it could be perpendicular to one).
The assumptions you make are not only impossible to prove, but they are possible (and easy) to disprove.
>>70702674
each triangle*, fix'd
>>70702674
>5x12 square
Stopped reading right there.
>hues being in charge of basic logic
Not even once.
>>70690507
A is obviously the entire pyramid
>>70702749
Dude I'm graduating in stem, I learn shit like this here in brazil, why don't you realize you can divide it by a square and 2 triangles? have you ever had technical drawing lessons?
>>70702869
>thinks that a 5x12 rectangle is a square
>graduating in stem
Somehow I don't believe you.
>>70702996
Dude it's like a mind typo, why don't you pay attention to what I said instead of finding minor problems that won't change what I said? It's 2am in here.
>>70690507
If we grab the left triangle and put it in the right we will have a 14 x 5 retangle.
14 x 5 = 70
>>70702696
Prove it, then. What this problem really lacks is context. Assuming what you say about red herrings is true, we also need to know what level math is being tested here. I can only make concessions to your argument if this problem showed up in some advanced course akin to Logarithms of Trigonometric Functions, Special Case, but since this looks to be a simple geometry question the highest probability is on the questioner simply forgetting to indicate the dotted measurement as perpendicular.
>>70702696
while it isn't explicit, if 5 isn't perpendicular to the base then its presence in the figure is completely irrelevant. any way you slice it, the person who wrote the problem is either A. math illiterate, or B. has a sadistic sense of humor. Since this is common core we're talking about, I am assuming its both.
>>70703103
You might want to go back to middle school before you graduate. The shape is impossible. Try drawing it to scale.
>>70702869
because 2^2+5^2=/=8^2
>>70698745
sorry, your retarded
>>70703103
I already disproved what you're trying to say though.
>>70703187
Oh, so 12 is parallel to 16? And 5 is perpendicular to 12 and 16? Cool! That means the triangle is a right triangle! Guess what? That means a^2+b^2=c^2! You know what else? 2^2+5^2=8^2! Nice, 8^2 is 29, never knew that before. I didn't even think 29 had an integer square root!
fucktard
>>70703201
>Prove it, then.
Given a regular trapezium of sides 8, 12, 8, and 16, the height is sqrt(60) which is greater than 5. Therefore, given such a figure, it is impossible to draw a line segment of length 5 from the intersection of the left side and the top of the trapezium to any point along the base of the trapezium.
What now, faggot?
>>70703187
If the figure is a trapezoid, with the side lengths as marked the 5 measurement is impossible. Taking the 5 to be perpendicular to the base see >>70694481 and the area is ~82.7. If the 5 is arbitrary then there is a set of solutions, 70 being one of them.
>>70703250
>then its presence in the figure is completely irrelevant
Nope. It's presence means that the maximum possible area of the figure is A=40+sqrt[((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)(((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)-(sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2)))(((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)-12)(((20+sqrt(25+(16-sqrt39)^2))/2)-8)]=82.684891941. (see >>70701987 for proof)
Were it not for the 5 line, the maximum possible area would be given by Brahmagupta's formula (because a cycling quadrilateral has the greatest area of any quadrilateral with given side lengths). That would give us:
A=sqrt((s-a)(s-b)(s-c)(s-d))
s=(a+b+c+d)/2
s=22
A=sqrt((14)(10)(14)(6))
A=sqrt(11760)=108.443533694
>>70703666
*Its
>>70703646
>70 being one of them
but not by the solutions given
>>70703666
>cycling quadrilateral
*cyclic
Fuck, two typos in one post. Sorry, I'm tired.
>>70703666
you're right. this thread gave me cancer.
lol brazil STEM graduate
>>70690507
I'm disappointed in you people.
>>70700472
>being an actual retard
The dotted line is vertical, meaning the length of the 2 triangle bases together is 16-12=4, or 2 on each side.
>>70704006
A FUCKING LEAF
At least you're not quite as incompetent as the hues. Close though,
autism the thread 2016
>>70704007
>being retarded
How did I do?
>>70704074
Calm your autism. Approximations are totally fine.
>>70704006
I'm ashamed that you live in the same country as I do.
16- 2*sqrt(64-25) = 3.51 =/=12
So instead of a 8 they should have put a 5,4.
Or instead of 5 they should have put a 7,75.
First scenario is 70.
Second scenario is 108,5.
>>70704301
But your answer is wrong. The maximum possible area is approximately 82.68.
>>70704285
Bad. Maximum possible area is 82.68.
>>70704285
bad.
I'd wager the answer key says 70, though
>>70690507
Never we gonna lynch those homo trannies
https://soundcloud.com/couchtruthing/emperor-trump
Tranny bathrooms already exist, they're called the handicapped rooms.
>>70704439
I said unisex, not tranny. I don't give a fuck about trannies. There is such a thing as bathrooms where normal men and normal women are both allowed to go.
>>70704160
only because common core is autism, the curriculum.
>>70704355
>>70704387
It's within the ballpark, who cares? This is what I took away from my BSc.
>>70701920
you sound like you just googled 'what do 4chan people talk like'
>>70704546
You should be able to tell at a glance that the trapezoid figure is fiction.
>>70690507
>be me, get straight A's in 7th and 8th grade algebra using 'traditonal' math teaching methods
>get to 9th grade, school initiates common core pilot program for all incoming freshmen
>classes were all bullshit word problems and learning how to use TI-83 aka playing Tetris and Drug Wars because assigned classwork only took 5min if you weren't a retard
>Get to college and test into 8th grade level math because I didn't learn jack shit in high school
Fuck Common Core, that shit is beyond retarded.
>>70704546
You assumed it's a trapezium, didn't you, Leaf?
>>70704554
lol'd but only because I'm tired and it's easy to make me lol when I'm tired
>>70704546
must be bio or chem then
>>70704615
It's perfectly acceptable to assume that whoever drew up that image was incompetent. I find these things hilarious because it's like those jokes comparing mathematicians to physicists.
>>70704686
geophysics desu
>>70690507
Are people really this dumb? its 12 x 12 + 2 x 5 = 155 units squared.
Are people in this thread really this retarded?
1/2(16+12)*5
>>70690507
shouldn't the area of a trapezoid be the sum of the two bases times the height, then divided by 2?
Itt: niggas who got less than 90
Percentile on quantitative gre cause they fucking believe the pictures proportions
>>70705127
I see the paradox now. This object cannot exist.
>tfw you sucked at math and never understood it
>tfw common core is intuitive for you
I think I'm autistic.
>>70701969
>>70701987
is the best answer
If you did this on the test, it would probably be marked incorrect. That isn't what the answer key says, guaranteed.
>>70705199
Shouldn't the algorithm be taught with examples that aren't actually impossible?
>>70704546
The actual area with those dimensions should be something like
5*sqrt(64-25)/2 + (16-(sqrt(64-25))*5 + 5*(12+sqrt(64-25)-16)/2 = 70
>>70704883
got physics, math and mech eng myself. Math and physics needed high accuracy
>>70705127
you are
>>70705381
it can, but it looks like lope sided diamond
>>70697820
rare Jamaica
The faggot who is making these North Carolina threads is the same psycho faggot that has been doing it for two days now. Faggot, you are a profound loser that will achieve nothing. There will be no faggot bathrooms except in a few retarded lib-holes and those will soon be shut down as your freak movement loses momentum and collapses and all faggot die of AIDS. THE END.
>>70705065
>144+10=155
I know you're shitposting, but I'm not sure if getting 155 rather than 154 was intentional or you're just retarded.
>>70705127
You are as retarded as anyone here.
>>70705199
Yes, but that's not a trapezoid in the picture so how is that relevant?
>>70705273
I can prove the area is less than 90. See >>70701987
>>70705381
It can, but there is not enough info to solve
>>70705390
You probably are
>>70705534
here is what it would look like if it were drawn with its dimensions given. it assume no parallels and like likes since there are no symbols indicating it
if the pic isn't a trapezoid, what shape is it?
>>70705854
A quadrilateral. Its exact shape is not determined because there is insufficient information, but pic related is two possibilities. (I didn't make the pic, btw)
>>70705989
I would assume for kids that the square part would stay square
>>70690507
>write 70 on test
>take A
>go home
You're reading too much into the thought processes of an underpaid middle school geometry teacher. Good job sliding the board though, shlomo. You should keep this one in your playbook for next time.
It's a fake image.
>>70705825
You're on the right track, but the right side is also labeled as 8 in the problem.
>>70706072
But that's impossible given the dimensions.
>>70705989
but a trapezoid is a quadrilateral
>>70706123
Fuck off faggot, it's real
>>70706190
>all trapezoids are quadrilaterals
>therefore, all quadrilaterals are trapezoids
Nerds
>>70706235
That's not what i said at all. The sides are of equal length, the bases are parallel. considering this isn't likely a college level math course, plus the given information, I don't understand the objection to it being an isosceles trapezoid
>>70690507
Does it really matter? Girls use guy's toilets/showers all the time already.
I try not to think about common core.
Feels bad, man.
>>70706672
Oh, so 12 is parallel to 16? And 5 is perpendicular to 12 and 16? Cool! That means the triangle is a right triangle! Guess what? That means a^2+b^2=c^2! You know what else? 2^2+5^2=8^2! Nice, 8^2 is 29, never knew that before. I didn't even think 29 had an integer square root!
fucktard
GET IT NOW, FUCKTARD?
And no, the bases are not fucking parallel nor does the problem state them to be parallel
>>70706878
I'm 99% sure the correct answer is 70 on the key.
Just fuck my education up f am
>>70706805
>Girls use guy's toilets/showers all the time already.
What the fuck? Where and in what situations?
>>70707091
And whoever made the key should be gassed.
Don't care to actually calculate the area
But just saying, math doesn't give a shit whether or not the shape is impossible IRL.
The shape is well enough described to derive the surface area if you strictly follow the terminology.
Nowhere does it say that 5 is perpendicular to 16 or 12, nowhere does it say that the shape has to look even remotely like the picture looks like. Nowhere does it say 16 and 12 are parallel. There are deterministic and well known symbols for denoting such features. Missing, you can safely assume that they are not present.
/math teacher
>>70707356
>The shape is well enough described to derive the surface area if you strictly follow the terminology.
Then give me the area, prove that your answer is correct, and I'll paypal you $1,000.
>>70706878
where did you get the length of side b? we have only A and C measured
>>70706194
Number 4 and 5 are so fucking easy.
I'd just write 70 for number 6 and go home knowing I probably got at least a 90 on the test.
>>70707492
Dude, it's a quadrilateral with sides 8,8,12,and 16. The 5 could be meaningless. Is it possible for this shape to exist? I don't see why not.
>>70700472
This is terrible.
You have calculated the base of the right hand side triangle as -2.245
Yet you failed to see the problem with that.
You shouldn't call people dumb when the standard of you own work is this poor.
I assumed that the dotted line is perpendicular to the base because I was told last week by an American flag that
>We know there is a right angle because the dotted line is what we use to indicate right angle over here in common core.
Funny how your first attempt gets it so wrong, yet here
>>70701987
you seem to have it all worked out. Maybe because you pasted that from the thread that used the same image last week.
http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/70247792/
Seems strange that you had it all worked out last week, yet you fuck it up so badly on your first try in this thread.
>>70707619
In assuming that it's an isocolese trapezoid, I assume that you took 5 to be the height. Given the difference between the bases is 4, the base of each triangle would then be 2.
If you did not take 5 to be the height, we still have a problem: The height is then sqrt(60) which is greater than 5, so even if 5 is not perpendicular to either base, it is impossible for a line of length 5 to have one endpoint at the intersection of the top base and left side with the other endpoint somewhere along the bottom base.
>>70707136
In college when other girls don't clean up their shed hair and the shower floor starts looking like a jungle swamp or when the hot water isn't working for them.
>>70707759
>Dude, it's a quadrilateral with sides 8,8,12,and 16
Correct
>>70707759
>The 5 could be meaningless
Nope, see >>70703666
>Is it possible for this shape to exist? I don't see why not.
Yep, but not for it to be solved.
>>70707835
The image I posted in >>70700472 is a troll image, of course it's wrong.
>>70701969 and >>70701987 are correct. I typed them myself the first time and saved them to post in the future. For this thread I copied and pasted them from my text document.
the small side of the triangle is approximately 6.24 you dumb fucks
>>70707951
You mean in your dorm?
Do they freak out if guys use the bathroom at the same time or do they not give a fuck?
>>70708126
NOPE
1) Work out the rest of the problems and get them right.
2) Write 70 for problem 6.
3) Go home and shitpost to 4chan.
>>70708126
i got 6.245
>>70708218
1) Get the correct answers for all the problems, including problem 6 (which is a range, not a specific answer)
2) Go home and shitpost on 4chan
>>70708126
>6. something
you can literally te;ll by looking at it, that it's shorter than 5
>>70708332
>>70708168
Please kill yourself
>>70708332
also, it's 2
the long part is 16, the short part is 12, theres4 leftover for the base of the two triangles
>>70708362
You kill yourself you incompetent fucktard, considering you are wrong
>>70701359
Wat
>>70708309
Let's be real here, 70 is probably what the teacher has down for number 6
>>70708386
And this is a perfect example of how common core focuses on obedience, compliance, and willingness to accept dogma over actual education.
>>70708488
Look, a new contender for stupidest person ITT!
>>70708416
No wonder the country is going to shit when it's full of inbred retards like yourself that can't do basic math.
>>70708332
it's not relevant to attempt to empirically measure the side. the information notes side B as 5 and side C as 8.
wait. remind me why we're using Pythagorean theorem on a part of a quadrilateral?
>>70708536
So? That would mean that the teacher is wrong.
>>70708092
Why insult me then, when last week we agreed I had one of the possible correct answers?
And why post troll images containing incorrect answers in the first place?
And why do you keep making threads using this same stupid picture knowing the thread will be completely derailed by it?
AND WHY IS OP ALWAYS FAGGOT?
>>70708581
Pick your battles friend.
geeze, what a bunch of fucking autismos
hack off triangle at dotted line
paste it on other side
5x16 rectangle
80 is answer
unless you're an autistic fucking retard
>>70708137
It happens regularly since there always are a couple of fuckwits every year that SHIT DIRECTLY ON THE TOILET SEATS EVERY FUCKING WEEK.
>>70708536
the teacher should have defined the shape better.
>>70708577
See >>70701969 and >>70701987
I got the right answers idiot
>>70708548
>perfect example
you know for both of those sides to be 8, the angles have to be the same right?
>>70702869
ever heard of the Pythagorean theorem hue?
>>70708666
worst answer.
>>70708860
That's only true for an isosceles triangle.
>>70708610
>Why insult me then, when last week we agreed I had one of the possible correct answers?
Because you seemed to be implying that your answer is objectively the only correct answer when really it is just the upper limit.
>And why post troll images containing incorrect answers in the first place?
For the lulz, of course.
>And why do you keep making threads using this same stupid picture knowing the thread will be completely derailed by it?
Because otherwise the thread will die. I use the trapezium pic in attempt to get the thread to live long enough for people to actually discuss the topic at hand.
>>70708630
One of the battles I pick is to call people out on incompetence and give the right answers to math problems
>>70708666
Fucktard
>>70708688
They do this mostly in the women's bathroom?
Do the girls not give a fuck when guys are in the bathroom at the same time when they use the men's?
>>70708860
only if the shape is a trapezoid, which if the height is 5, is impossible.
>>70708666
retard
>>70709044
You: Teacher this problem is clearly wrong and here's why.
His possible responses:
Teacher: You're right, your grade just went up by 1%.
Teacher: I don't care, you already have an A, why the fuck do you care so much?
I get 70. Just pick one of the triangles and place it on the other side so that it forms a rectangle. Five times fourteen.
>>70708551
Maybe fucking explain it
combine two triangles whose small side (a) is 4, get 2*b rectangle??
>>70709165
>Teacher: You're right, your grade just went up by 1%.
Cool thanks
>Teacher: I don't care, you already have an A, why the fuck do you care so much?
Because I like being right, and I like it when other people are wrong because it makes me feel good about myself, and I especially like proving to other people when they're wrong because it makes me feel extra good about myself.
>>70709189
Nope
>>70709204
I've already explained it multiple times ITT, see
>>70692509
>>70701969
>>70701987
12 is not stated to parallel 16, and 5 is not stated to be perpendicular to 12 or 16
>>70709044
>They do this mostly in the women's bathroom?
No, it's always the men's stalls that get fucked up.
>>70709252
If this were college level you might have a point. It's ~8th grade geometry, no one fucking cares.
>>70709317
Then what does this have to do with women using the men's bathroom/shower?
>>70709339
It is from a college math class, or so says the anon who originally posted the worksheet that it was taken from (he didn't even realize it was fucked up, he just wanted homework help)
>>70709301
Explain the answer of 70 given the implication that this shape is allowed to work. CC doesn't try to abide by real rulew, they make it so kids can just punch numbers in
>>70709189
Where did you get 14?
>>70709350
Guys use girl's room, girls use guy's room. No one freaks out as they usually knock and announce they are entering for whatever reason.
>>70702311
Have you read your numbers? Look at the triangles. How is it that the hypotenuse is longer than BOTH OTHER SIDES COMBINED? It's a shit problem because the numbers are flawed.
>>70709505
According to the retards that think it's 70, they're ignoring the fact that the sides are length 8, and they're assuming that it's a trapezoid, and they're assuming that 5 is the height. By their logic, there's a few ways
Trapezoid formula: 5*(12+16)/2=70
or
Triangle+rectangle+triangle=(1/2)(5)(2)+(5)(12)+(1/2)(5)(2)
or
Combine triangles into a rectangle, add to center rectangle: 5(2)+5(12)
>assuming that there is a 90 degree angle
>assuming that any angles are given
>>70709574
And do they try to limit it to when there's no one of the other gender in there? Or do they commonly use the bathroom/shower at the same time as people of the other gender are in there?
Where do you live? It seems weird, I've never seen someplace people are that comfortable around the opposite gender.
>>70709189
this is objectively the right answera dn wuld work fine if there werent autists looking at the problem wrong
that is the correct way to solve this, and also to solve area problems with riemann sums, if you dont want to do the algrebra
>>70709525
By taking out the triangle and placing it on the opposite side so that it forms a rectangle you balance the two parallel sides (16-2, 12+2), which makes it 14 x 5. It looks like an isosceles trapezoid so pretty sure it works.
>>70709850
#unitoilets4germany
back to the topic, idk about bathrooms becoming unisex, but "gender identity" laws allowing men to use women's facilities would see immediate abuse by pervs, with cops only able to shrug. I think Clinton's supreme court would give a ruling like the gay marriage one, where states are forced to observe degenerate faggotry because, "its my right." The result would be unnecessary costs to municipalities to build or modify facilities or even just put up signage, and a bunch of complaints about perverts that police can't do anything about. All of it because tranny snowflakes self-identify as insufferable faggots.
Hopefully a conservative supreme court would dismiss it as the retarded bullshit it is, leave it to the states as it should be, and put the responsibility of accommodating a deviant lifestyle back on the deviants, or vote with their feet and get the fuck out of states that don't want to entertain their mental illness.
>>70709850
Ever seen a 2,5,8 right triangle before? Because I sure as fuck have not.
>>70709955
RARE
A
R
E
You must be in an embassy. Julian Assange? Is that you?
>>70709778
If you combine the two triangles, the hypotenuse is irrelevant
>5(2)+5(12)
Wuddafug.
How and why the fuck do two triangles with width 2, when combined into a rectangle, rectangle width = 2??
(I apologize in advance for being a fucking tard)
Is this a troll thread? I really can't tell if all of you are just actually 100% retarded or are just shit posting master minds.
The answer is 80 now please go to sleep.
>>70709778
Ignore
>>70710098
>>70710010
If bathrooms are gender segregated but allow people to use the one that corresponds to their "gender identity" that's the worst. Then creepy fags go in the girl's bathroom and normal men aren't there to protect their daughters/girlfriends/etc.
But if all bathrooms are unisex, as in truly unisex (not "womens but feminine guys can use it too"), then there will be normal men in the same bathroom as women, so if some creepy fag does try to rape someone or whatever, there's men around to save her.
With gender-segregated bathrooms, a rapist won't avoid going in just cause the sign says it's for women any more than a shooter will avoid bringing a gun into a place that bans guns.
>>70710016
yea, the 5 is wrong, but in the real world, youd solve that by turning it into a rectangle and solving the area. If you cant figure that out and you need to do other things, then you have problems. Also, you can solve for the area without the 5, and guess what? it says solve for the area. Not solve for the area, using the 5 in your proof
checkmate atheists
>>70710107
kill yourself
>>70709864
Fucking hell lmao... I can't believe I forgot that. Thanks
>>70710173
You are objectively wrong.
>>70710173
In the real world you can't make a rectangle out of two triangles unless they're identical, actually.
Checkmate theists.
>>70710173
>you can solve for the area without the 5
wat
>>70710026
Yup, it's me! I am not feeling very well now. I've got some strange tea a couple of days ago. Got to go. 2 Swedish nurses are coming to take care of me.
>>70710446
He's just being retarded. People like assuming the shape is a trapezoid, then throwing out one of the numbers since a trapezoid can't exist with the given measurements. If you want the "easy" way (the wrong way), ignore any of the numbers (the 5, the 8s, the 12, or the 16) and solve as a trapezoid. If you want the RIGHT answer, see >>70701969 and >>70701987
There is not a single correct answer, but rather an upper and lower limit of possible answers
>>70690507
In some places they already are.....
>>70710494
FUCK FUCK FUCK
SOMEONE IS TRYING TO POISON HIM
FUCK WHAT DO WE DO /pol/?
JULIAN NOOOO! IT WAS THE JEWS, IT WAS THE FUCKING JEWS! THE JEWS ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU!
>>70710577
Mostly just single-occupancy bathrooms though.
>>70710167
I think the "segregated, but not enforced" scenario is more likely, unisex restrooms are only marginally better. Its true it won't necessarily affect assaults, but I think there will be an uptick in creeps jacking off in the women's toilet or malingering around unisex bathrooms because its "allowed" for them to follow women in. Single occupancy is ideal, but multi-stall facilities are the norm. Public restrooms are disgusting already, unisex would just make them more disgusting, plus creepy.
>>70710561
no, it is literally a trapazoid
you're the retard
the 5 isn't the measuremtn of a line segment, 5 indicates the measurements of all of those DOTS, added up
really, it IS a trapazoid. Unless you're going to tell me that you can''t make a trapazoid with 8 12 16 and 8? is that what you're saying anon?aww mommy didnt coo you enough?
anyway, it doesnt indicate the 5 is a measurement of a line, it has the 5 next to that dotted line, so I will assume (as any logical man would) that 5 is the summation of all of those smaller lines running from the top to the bottom. Irrelevant to this problem, though.
some autists just never learn how to discount irrelevant information. shame really.. They fall victim to trick problems, like this one.
>>70710769
I sincerely hope you're trolling.
>>70710766
It might make people do mildly "creepy" things more, but at the same time I think it would increase safety.
On a semi-related note
http://feministing.com/2012/11/14/gender-neutral-restrooms-are-every-bodys-business/
The article says "woman with a penis" completely unironically.
>>70703497
Mudkipz is that you?
>>70711142
idk, with gender segregated facilities, if a woman walks in and sees a man, she knows something isn't right, hence people getting upset about the incident in seattle.
>>70711449
Yeah but if a man wants to rape a woman, what better place than in the one place that only women are allowed? That way he knows there won't be other men there to defend his victim.
>>70711516
I see your point, I think the only solution is to gas the gays.
>>70692318
That shape with those measurements ain't possible man. Try to draw it.
>>70711611
Valid point, anon. Valid point.
I've received an assignment on the very issue, though I'm trying to advocate against it. It is to help the university decide on policies for gender-neutral bathrooms.
Anyone got links or recommended authors that are against transgenders?
The only sources I've found so far is their mental instability and high suicide rate, but is that inherent or is that due to society's exclusion of them?
The authors we have been tasked to use are Foucault and Judith Butler, so is it possible to use their arguments against them?
>>70710769
>It could possibly be a trapezoid, therefore it is a trapezoid
HO
LEE
FUCK
>some autists just never learn how to discount irrelevant information
Yeah, and some meatheads never learn how to discard assumptions.
>>70705741
>that picture
>one of these is not an endangered species
overthinking problems this hard has to be an autism thing, right?
