How long until multi-stall gender-neutral bathrooms are commonplace in the United States?
>>71875726
If Hillary is elected, probably 2 years.
>>71875726
8 + 8 + 12 + 16 = 46.
>>71875726
five days
Stop using that picture. These faggots will argue forever. FYI it's not an "impossible shape", it just can't be solved because the angles aren't specified.
>>71875811
>american education
>>71875778
What if the unstumpable is elected?
I don't think the president will have much impact though. I think it will start on university campuses, and that SJW student groups will be the driving force behind it, then it will work its way into other establishments in large, progressive cities, and eventually beyond. The president won't have much to do with it.
Unless we get someone like Trudeau, then it'll happen slightly faster maybe.
>>71875726
I don't get it, normal question...
>>71875858
>five days
What makes you say that?
>FYI it's not an "impossible shape", it just can't be solved because the angles aren't specified.
Correct. But the upper and lower limits of all possible areas can be determined.
>>71875811
Congratulations, you found the perimeter. I'm proud of you, anon.
>>71875811
It's 44. And it's not the area.
>>71875913
>clapistani education
>>71875726
80, not a hard question
>>71875858
>it just can't be solved
It's a fucking trapezoid you nigger. 1/2(b1 + b2)*h
>>71875963
It's obviously referring to the area of the trapezoid not the triangle inside with a dashed line for one side.
>>71875936
Five days was a troll answer. Honestly, I don't think it will happen soon. Maybe the larger cities will start putting three bathrooms in public areas within a few years; male, female, other.
>>71875726
>Posting this picture
Congratulations, you've derailed your own thread.
>>71876046
It's 70 ffs.
>>71875726
The answer is 80 in case you guys can't do meths like
>>71875811
>>71875951
Hmm.
16-12 is 4, so each short side of the triangle is 2.
That gives a 'right triangle' with sides 2 and 5 with hypotenuse 8.
This shape cannot exist but anyway the area round be 2*5 (two triangles) + 5*12 (central rectangle) which equals 70.
>>71876163
70 actually
>>71876060
Yeah, but you don't know the height. Five is not necessarily the height, because it's not denoted correctly to specify it as the normal to the bases.
>>71876060
>>71876093
Are you fcking retarded?
>>71876120
I don't think that all bathrooms will be gender-neutral any time soon, but I think that at universities, and in large progressive cities in general, gender-neutral multi-stall bathrooms will be pretty common pretty soon. Not that all bathrooms in those establishments will be gender-neutral, just that some will be "converted" (as in, have the male/female signs replaced with gender-neutral signs).
>>71876060
This, the question is asking for the area of the shape.
The shape is a trapezoid.
The formula for the area of a trapezoid=[(a+b)/2]h
(12+16)/2=14*5=70 units
>>71876214
12 and 16 also aren't specified as being parallel.
>>71876214
>it's not denoted correctly to specify it as the normal to the bases
>being this autistic
Math is about solving problems not wanking off to notation. It's obviously a normal line.
>>71876186
>a 'right triangle' with sides 2 and 5 with hypotenuse 8.
An impossible shape. Even if it wasn't right-angled, it would be impossible as 5+2 < 8 contradicts the triangle inequality.
Can't tell if the people here are trolling or retarded, but the answer is fucking easy to figure out.
A=(12x5)+((16-12)5)
A=60+(4*5)
A=60+20
A=80
>>71876163
Is the only person here who's not a brain-dead cuck. Common core sucks, but this isn't why.
>>71876357
I think most professional mathematicians disagree
>>71876337
Prove that it's a trapezium dumbass
>>71876357
Prove it fucktard, it doesn't have the square that is used to denote right angles
>>71876364
Yes it would be impossible if it gave the units but those numbers could be any unit. Besides the length of the slopes are not needed to find the area.
Could be a misprint in which case they would be looking for the answer of 70
>>71876337
>It's a trapezoid
not possible with the values given.
My answer:
>>71876416
Is what would get you full credit, but:
>>71876364
Is also technically correct, that triangle's retarded.
>>71876511
It's 2016, this figure could be anything it wants.
>>71876301
What I don't understand is why they need to be multi-stall. A lot of places already have a separate family/handicapped bathroom that has a single toilet and urinal.
>>71875726
For the last fucking time
A = AREA
jesus fucking Christ
>>71876598
Why not though? What's wrong with multi-stall gender-neutral bathrooms? Are you that insecure about a girl being nearby when you piss?
>>71876494
If we can assume that the dotted line is the normal then we can assume the units are the same for all number.
Yes, if they removed the 8 and specified that the top and bottom lines are parallel then this would be a perfectly valid and solvable problem.
>>71876613
Correct, anon. What the fuck is your point?
>>71876694
Or if they removed the 12... or the 5... or the 16...
And specified that the 5 line is perpendicular to the top and bottom lines...
>>71876654
No, I used to live in Korea and it's pretty common to have cleaning women just walk into a crowded subway bathroom to clean it while men are standing there pissing. It just seems like it would inconvenience more people that it would help.
>>71876862
>It just seems like it would inconvenience more people that it would help.
It wouldn't inconvenience anyone, and it would greatly convenience parents with young kids of the other gender.
>tfw i still wouldnt do the question cause i forgot how to calculate the area of a trapezium
>>71876930
Yeah, I don't know. Don't really care. Maybe it would be weird to take a shit with a woman in the room. But then again I think it's weird to take a shit when anyone is in the room.
>>71875726
Wtf even is this picture
Answer is 80 I could do that in 9th grade.
I swear people use the most retarded arguments against common core, when in fact the ONLY reason it would be a bad idea is establishing a precedent for the federal gov to continue pushing holohoax/white guilt faggotry in humanities classes (which many cucks in school districts do anyway)
Holding a high universal standard for education, math in particular, is a good thing for Americans.
So can someone redpill me on Common Core? Why do some people hate it so much while others think it works?
>>71876416
>A=(12x5)+((16-12)5)
No. You've got to halve the area when taking the triangles. Each one is half the area of an equivalent bas*height rectangle. A=(12*5)+(((16-12)/2)*5) = 70.
Setting aside the impossible triangles, of course.
>>71877069
>I could do that in 9th grade
I'd fucking hope
>>71877082
That's not what this thread is about. Ask somewhere else.
>>71875726
Wait.
>a^2 + b^2 = c^2
>8^2 = 64
>4^2 + 5^2 = 41 =/= 64
What?
Did I do something wrong?
>>71875726
12*5 = 60
3rd side of both triangle sides are 6.24 (Pytagoras)
2x((6.24*5)/2) = 31.2
60+31.2 = 91.2 mystery units
>>71877175
>That's not what this thread's about
It's about a ton of idiots doing math. Isn't that close enough to my question
>>71876416
This is incorrect. The mistake is with the ((16-12)5) portion. Basically, you are slapping the areas of the triangles together, but you're missing a factor of 1/2. You see you are subtracting the area of the small rectangle from the large one and setting that exactly equal to the area of the triangles when it is in fact 1/2 the value. The answer is 70 setting aside the impossible triangle.
>>71877276
No it's about gender-neutral bathrooms.
70.
2 right angle triangles 1 rectangle
right angle triangle area is ab/2
a=5 b=2 =10/2=5
area of the rectangle is 60
w x l
w=12 l=5
>>71875726
>trapezium
fuck off britbong
(1/2)(12+16)(5)=70
Solved.
>>71875726
>not teaching your kids four-dimentional trapezoids
>civilized
kek
we've got one here in L.A.
Santee High School in south-central has a gender-neutral bathroom with 15 stalls.
>>71877214
Am I the only one getting this? I guess I done goofed somewhere then. But I can't see where. Someone check my theory please.
>>71877397
Yes, it is very easy to solve if you ignore the 8. If you don't ignore the 8 then you'll see that the trapezium is impossible.
>>71875726
i bad at math
>>71877553
it's not asking to prove the possibility of the shape with the given data, just the Area with the given data as clearly stated by the question.
Also there is not units, the sides could be 8 apples for each side if I care.
There are gender neutral bathrooms in the building at my college where gender and women studies classes and departments are.
>>71877069
I think the problem here is that the figure doesn't specify units, it doesn't specify that there are right angles in 3 spots, and it also seems to think that 5 is larger than 12
not being able to detect these errors in the problem would be proof that the person speaking shouldn't form opinions about math education, much less express them
>>71877840
And what if you wanted to use a different method to find the area? If you split the trapezium into 2 triangles and a rectangle and find their area you should arrive at the same answer, right?
a=1/2h(b1 +b2)
h=5
b1=16
b2=12
>>71878123
You don't need the hypotenuse for the area of a triangle.
>>71875726
First, you get the rea from the triangle there.
5x4 = 20
Now, we take the area from the rectangle.
5x12 = 60
Now, we add all of these:
20 + 20 + 60 = 100
Not that hard.
>>71878328
You CAN use the hypotenuse and the height to find the length of the base.
>>71877840
Proving the trapezoid exist:
For reach triangle:
A^2+B^2=C^2
A^2 = C^2-B^2
A^2 = 8^2-5^2
A^2=(5.39)^2-5^2
A= 2
Assuming 8 are 8 apples measuring 5.39 units
>>71878392
>mexican intellectuals
>All these idiots saying it's 70
This is not a common core question, this is a general math problem
The answer is n/a, because the object is without definite bounds.
>>71875726
This image is shopped, that is, the 8s are. Without them it's a perfectly possible problem. With them, however, it becomes an impossible shape.
>>71878392
not that hard,and also wrong.
build wall paco
>>71878854
70 bitch.
you can solve this 2 ways.
the area of a trapezoid fomula
or
taking and breaking the trapezoid into 2 right angle triangles and 1 rectangle then adding the 3 areas..
thank god mcdonalds is hireing
If you approach it with the assumption of the 5 being an impossible value you can correct for that length.
It's really
(C)2 - (A)2 = (B)2
64 - 16 = 48
The value for B is 6.928203230275509
6.928203230275509 x 16 =
>110.8512516844081
110.8512516844081
The answer is 28*sqrt(15)
>>71876568
underrated.as fuck
Not only is it funny, it fits both thread topics perfectly in a way that wasn't discussed before!
You're alright by me Igor, I hope Trump wins, Putin and he become bros in chief, and we enter a new age of evolution with our combined potential.
>>71876357
If the dashed line is supposed to be the height, and forms a right angle with the base, then we can calculate width of the third side of the triangle it forms: 6.24. The other triangle on the other side is also 6.24. That means the length of the remaining base = 16-2(6.24)=3.5.
So the area we calculate is 6.24*5 = 31.2 for the two triangles on the side. The rectangle in the center is 3.5*5= 17.5 for a total of 48.7.
However, the top of the shape is labeled 12. We calculated that it must be 3.5 based on the sizes of the triangle, assuming the dashed line is perpendicular to the base. As this is not the case, we must conclude that the dashed line does NOT form a right angle with the base, and the area of the shape is therefore unsolvable with the given information.
>>71879988
>being this autistic
Just ignore the 8 lad and all your problems go away.
>>71879988
fuckin nerd
>>71876568
jesus fucking ghrist.
the Russian nails it right off.
no wonder they're beating us in aaayyyyy lmao
>>71879988
It's easier to just assume that the 5 isn't perpendicular to the 16
>>71880070
>070
70 confirmed for correct answer. praise kek
>>71875726
That trapezoid is impossible
>>71880070
Why ignore the 8 and not the 12 or 16? It's not solvable since the numbers don't work.
I'm not autistic, I just have a PhD so I know things.
>>71880252
Because the 8 is fluff information that's not necessary to the question.
>PhD
In gender studies I'm sure.
>>71880078
>>71879988
they didn't ask you to check their fucking numbers, they just wanted you to work with what they gave you. so quit over analyzing it and admit it's 70.
fuck multi gender bathrooms.
got into my first bar fight in Italy in 1983 because of one
>>71880341
Ignore the 8 and the answer is 70. Ignore the 12 and the answer is 48.7. Both are equally valid mathematically.
The reason this is labeled "thanks common core" is because in the old days, kids were just taught to memorize the formula and wouldn't realize the shape was impossible. I'm assuming the new common core encourages kids to check all the numbers to make sure the shape is truly a trapezoid before applying the memorized formula.
>>71879988
Was going to state something like this but thanks for posting.
>>71880362
Either way it's wrong
This fucking b8 again. Everyone who gives a number as a solution is either a retard or a troll.
/thread
I don't know I just wish they would put changing stations in the men's bathrooms for when I have to change my wife's sons diaper.
70? Area of a trapezoid is 1/2(b1 +b2) * h
>>71880561
>I'm assuming the new common core encourages kids to check all the numbers
Nice assumption there.
The most likely scenario is that the question maker simply slapped some numbers together and didn't pay attention to whether the shape was possible. Caring about whether or not the shape is actually real is pointless to the question. Discarding the 8 is the natural choice since non of the quickest methods to finding the area require it.
>>71880952
Of course, you're right. It's much more likely the teacher was lazy than was trying to encourage the kids to think. Sad!
We're going to end common core and replace it with something much better! MAGA
