I understand most of figures are not drawn to scale but why in this figure largest leg has smaller number than middle leg what's going on out there are they trying to turn human to deaf and blind machine with no logic?
Very lengthy process,by using Heron's farmula area of given triangle is 84 is coming,then divide it by base 14 and multiply with 2 then we'll get the answer 12...
Did I miss something. I don't see a visual indication the intersection of line "a" to the 14cm line is a right angle. Was there a statement to that effect?
a= (4.*6)/7 (* read as root over ) S=(13+14+15)/2=42/2=21 S-a=21-13=8 S-b=21-14=7 S-c=21-15=6 Area =*(21×6×7×8) =*(7×3×3×2×7×2×4) =*(7×7×3×3×4×4) =7×3×4=84 So, (a×14)=84×2=168 a=168/14=12
Ist eine Witzrechnung: Die Hypotenuse wird mit 14 cm kürzer angegeben als eine Kathete mit 15 cm. Solchen Mist wird von RU-vid verbreitet. Jeder Schüler der den Pythagoras kennt weiss, dass die Hypotenuse der längste Teil eines rechtwinkligen Dreieckes ist? Darf ich davon ausgehen, dass der Genderismus bereits Besitz ergriffen hat in die Mathematik wie aus Männlein mache Weiblein, wie macht man aus kleineren Kathetleins grössere Hypotenüslis? 🤣
shaded area = large quarter circle - small half circle = (20 cm)(20 cm)π/4 - (10 cm)(10 cm)π/2 = (50 cm^2)π ratio of the shaded area to the square area = 50π/400 = π/8
I just set up a right triangle. Line r-b is hypotenuse. The diagonal lline at the upper right hand corner becomes the cosine. 90 degrees at the intersection of b and 2b. Vector a straight line from that intersection to the upper left hand corner of the square. So cosine is 10, and the sine becomes 19.996 length. Going Pythagorean , gives the hypotenuse, which here is the same as the radiius. Which is 22.357.
It is one thing to use a drawing "not to scale" and another to use a drawing which is fundamentally wrong. You have a longest side in the drawing, labeled as 14cm, but the longest label is 15cm and is attached to one of the short sides. This is more than "not to scale", this is an error. My private opinion is that even "not to scale" should not be used when a perfectly scaled diagram can be created as easily as an imperfect one.
If a is length of altitude, (13,12,5),(15,12,9) are Pythagorean triplets and 5+9=14. So common side is 12. which is attitude to side length 14 Area of ∆le =1/2(12×14)=1/2(15h)
Correct. A line segment that connects a vertex of a triangle to a point on the opposite side is called a "cevian". Special examples of "cevians" are altitudes, angle bisectors and medians. The problem statement must define which type of "cevian" is to be computed.
In your last statement, you didn't show why x ≠ 0 . The principal square root operation allows the square root of 0 , so there must be a reason for the exclusion.
The 2nd line is the square of the 1st line. If we had shown the expansion of the square before simplification, we would have: (2*√x)² + 1² - 2*(2*√x) = (√(2*x + 1))² With x = 0 , we have: (2*√0)² + 1² - 2*(2*√0) = (√(2*0 + 1))² 1² = (√1)² The inverse of the square isn't a 1-to-1 function, as there are the + and - branches, when describing the roots using the principal square root function: 1 = ±√1 1 = ±1 Thus, squaring the equation allowed the negative branch as a solution. That's why we must check our initial results against the original equation to eliminate spurious solutions introduced in the process of solving the problem.
Sir, Your class of teaching is is really classic. No words to appreciate you. 🙏. I would love to wait for your next videos. At least one lesson /theorem has been cleared in crystal. Many many thanks sir.
The sum of angles in a pentagon is (5 - 2)*180. The two unknown angles in the pentagon, x and z, have a sum of x + z = 3×180 - 115 - 105 - 100 = 220. Two angles in the "y" triangle are 180 - x and 180 - z. Then y is y = 180 - (180 - x) - (180 - z) = x + z - 180 = 220 - 180 = 40.
Before watching: The diameter is 1/2 that of a full circle with the diameter of the semicircle. Pi(r^2) becomes pi(0.5r * 0.5r) 0.5^2 = 0.25 Or 1/4 the volume of a circle with the radius of the semicircle. The semicircle is 1/2 of that circle. Therefore there is a 1:1 relation between the areas shaded and unshaded.
Without watching the video, I know the ratio is 1:1. Here's why. First off, the radius of the circle is half that of the semicircle. Second, the area of a circle quadruples when you double its radius. With those facts known, I can say that the semicircle has twice the area of the circle, so when you subtract the area of the circle from that of the semicircle, they are the same.
He lept to the conclusion that x ≠ 0 without a valid reason. But, if you use x = 0 in the original equation, then you'll see that it fails: 0 - 1 - 1 = 0 is false.
Without watching a second of the video. The same, learned that in 4th grade while everyone else was still trying to get multiplication and division. Thanks, high school library.
