Optical illusion

Geometry Level 2

The two red lines in the diagram shown are drawn diagonally on the faces of a cube. What is the angle (in degrees) between them at the point where they join?

45 75 60 90

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

51 solutions

Abhay Tiwari
Jul 19, 2015

Honestly didn't think of that. I flattened the cube, which I realize changes the problem. That results in a 90 degree angle instead of a 60 degree angle. My mistake.

Dustin Hazzard - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

Not your mistake my friend, that's the right answer. In geometry problems we can't assume what we want to change the outcome. When he draws the imaginary third line of the triangle(what wasn't on the problem) he compares different dimensions of the question, which shortens the angle and changes completely the rules of the problem, what couldn't be forseeing. It's 90.

Gustavo Machado - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

If you have a cube, and a triangle from band class, you could rest the triangle on the cube. ....no?

Don Tetlow - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

@Don Tetlow On the cube, no. Diagonally in the cube as shown by the picture, YES.

Marc Brothers - 5 years, 5 months ago

The angle is measured in the plane where the points lie since it was stated a cube all sides are equal and corners are 90's then we know the info we needed. If you took a cube and made lines from the corners and put a square to the lines it would not touch both at the same time. But if you turned the cube to see three lines form the triangle all the sides and angles would look the same

Everett Plummer - 5 years, 10 months ago

Sorry but you are incorrect. Think of the two sides of the cube to be a book. If the book was open flat (not at right angles to each other as they are in the diagram) the angle would be 90. As you to bend the two sides together along their hinge the angle shrinks and if you close the sides completely like a closed book the angle becomes 0.

Rob Bednarik - 5 years, 5 months ago

The way the original problem is presented, it isn't clear whether you are supposed to measure from the lines to their shared edge or diagonally. If the intent of the problem was the first method, 90° is indeed the answer, but seeing the drawing that abhay drew, it makes perfect sense that the answer is 60°, as we are dealing in 3 space

John King - 5 years, 5 months ago

really? Is it correct?

Aarush Kumbhakern - 5 years, 10 months ago

Same thoughts here, mate!

Sharan Shastri - 5 years, 10 months ago

Just because you want your answer to be correct, it doesn't mean you can shout loudly and change maths because you don't understand the problem.

Benedict Willacy - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

@Benedict Willacy Dude, I got the problem, but the question simply didn't have enough information. If I draw two imaginary lines at my service there, there's a number of variety of angles I can find, it only depends the way I use them. That's not math. Assume, for example that my imaginary lines make that angle in question be cut in a higher hight, or in a way that my line approach the vortex really close. The angle would change, wouldn't it? And that's ok, you can make questions like that, but there's got to be information to do so.The lines are in 2D dimension, calculate like as. When it comes to cut the cube there's the concept of the lenght of the vortex as well.

Gustavo Machado - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

@Gustavo Machado Yes! 2d projection of a 3d changes the observant angle

Nimesh Krishnani - 5 years, 5 months ago

@Gustavo Machado This is not a 2D problem, it shows you two lines on separate faces of a cube. This is a 3D problem. You do not need additional information to solve.

Reid Everett - 5 years, 5 months ago

Me too, if the 90° angle gets cut in half it becomes 45 so 45 plus 45 is 90, I've seen the solution but i am still completely lost....shouldve paid attention in geo. And algebra...there's always next year to start XD

Genifer Genise - 5 years, 10 months ago

i did exactly the same thing!!!! all angles in a cube measure 90 degrees, thus a diagonal drawn across it would intersect it making it 45degrees.. with two such sides, it would sum upto 90 degrees ...my bad!!!

anushka janawlekar - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

Same here! XD

Mandeep Singh - 5 years, 5 months ago

Same here... IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO SOVE YOUR PROBLEM THEN TRY TO MAKE IT AS CLEAR AS POSSIIBLE!

Apple Sidenburg - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

The problem was extremely clear, you just didn't get it.

Reid Everett - 5 years, 5 months ago

In solving a math problem you don't need to supply or show all the information to the problem to solve it, just use your creative analytical mind. You can manipulate the supplied data and supply the missing information IN ACCORDANCE to the mathematical laws. 60 is the correct answer.

Jonathus Narvato - 5 years, 5 months ago

Same here. I too made the same mistake..

Parangat Mittal - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

Glad I'm not the only one.

Dustin Hazzard - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

@Dustin Hazzard me too but i understood the math

Aaysha Babu - 5 years, 9 months ago

@Dustin Hazzard You'll never be alone in this bro

Aarush Kumbhakern - 5 years, 10 months ago

@Dustin Hazzard I did the same mistake!

Leonardo Engracia - 5 years, 10 months ago

Haha.. Exactly the same mistake done by me..

Mohammed Yaseen - 5 years, 6 months ago

I did the same thing.

Avinash Kamath - 5 years, 6 months ago

If you flatten the cube there isn't enough information. Where does 90 come from? I just measured the angle and it is 77 degrees. Even if I'm wrong and there is enough information to calculate that value, it's far from 90, or any answer for that matter. Thus, it must be a 3D problem. The definition of this problem is, for better or worse, extended by the possible answers.

Nick Zafiridis - 5 years, 5 months ago

I was looking at it in the same way as you, Dustin. It's the actual wording which is key to the solution. True we are looking at a 3D shape, but the question isn't about the shape necessarily, but about two lines, although we are using our knowledge of the properties of a cube and an equilateral triangle. Constructing that third line, to make the 2D equilateral triangle or a triangular cross-section, simplifies the problem without the need for any algebra.

Donald Williamson - 5 years, 10 months ago

same as your mistake :3

John John Malgapo - 5 years, 10 months ago

even i did like that.

Abhilash Nair - 5 years, 9 months ago

Like you're saying if I flatten the triangle, it'll be like you got a cubic cheese block and to calculate the angle between a cubes adjacent diagonal, you changed the damn cube by flattening it. It's not a cube anymore

On the other hand consider, a cube made of thing steel wire, not to get the adjacent diagonal angle I don't push the frame and make it into something else but just tilt it so that the diagonals lie on a horizontal plane

Nimesh Krishnani - 5 years, 5 months ago

Me too, changing the plane of surfaces affects the angle.

Mehdia Nadeem - 5 years, 10 months ago

Same here. It isn't actually a cube. Clearer problem statement please. :)

Elijah John Dar Juan - 5 years, 10 months ago

The answer of this problem "60 degree" defies the rule of triangle's internal total i.e. 180 degree on front side. What is the explanation to that?

Usman Aslam - 5 years, 10 months ago

Since this is a cube, a symmetrical 3D space containing 6 equal squares, this means that all diagonals drawn on any square would be equal in length, hence if you draw a diagonal in the third surface adjoining the two and imagine it in the 3D space, it would make an equilateral triangle in which all three internal angles are congruent to each other and are 60°.

Kritika Cheeyanna - 5 years, 10 months ago

Everyone still defending 90, let it go. I got it wrong too. It's 60. Be happy that you now know another truth instead of letting your ego be bruised. Nice question. I should have thought it through more.

Mike Sull - 5 years, 10 months ago

It can't be 90 degrees. Just grab your trusty Rubik's cube and a couple of pens and you can see for yourself that the angle is definitely <90 degrees.

Sirae Montoya - 5 years, 10 months ago

Glad to see there were lots of us doing this. I made a quick decision based on what I thought was "obvious." But it's solid geometry, not plane!

Peter Montalbano - 5 years, 10 months ago

I still do not understand. Would someone mind breaking it down and explaining it to me? Thanks!

Genifer Genise - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

The angle you are trying to find cannot be seen nor broken up by using the outer surfaces of the cube (hence it is not 45 + 45) Rather it is inside of the cube.

The way you can think about it is if the cube has side length "a" then all of the diagonals have length a√2, so both of the drawn lines have length a√2. The two lines make two legs of a triangle, and you will find that if you find the third leg it is also a diagonal, making all 3 sided a√2. This is an equilateral triangle and therefore the angles are all 60°....

Hope this helps!

Matthew Morawiec - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

Good explanation.

Jonathus Narvato - 5 years, 5 months ago

Thank You!! It helped.

Genifer Genise - 5 years, 10 months ago

Best explanation, draw the angle without a cube. Now measure the angle. In relations to the angle, there is no cube!

Jerith Jade - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

Thank you!!

Genifer Genise - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

@Genifer Genise You are most welcome.

Jerith Jade - 5 years, 10 months ago

BEAUTIFUL, THANKS FOR THE SOLVED

Anirban Chowdhury - 5 years, 10 months ago

property of an equilateral triangle.

Subin Raj - 5 years, 10 months ago

Good solution. If the cube is cut to get a "flat" triangle it is clear that no angle can be 90 degrees. All the corners will then be the same (where to diagonals of a face meet) and therefore the angle must be 60 degrees.

Anelize Theron van Biljon - 5 years, 10 months ago

wow glad I wasn't the only one who said 90 deg... That said I understand why it is 60.. at least within the terms of this problem. The statement that it is a cube is the "trick" to this question.. Something we should all come to expect from apps/quizzes like this.

Conor Andrews - 5 years, 5 months ago

Brilliant indeed

Shubham Sinha - 5 years, 10 months ago

make another line connecting the 2 red points that are not United...now you have a red triangle....you will figure the triangle has the same angles and you know it's sum to be 180...

Bruno Luccas - 5 years, 10 months ago

oh yes ............I just couldnt recollect the method

Abhaya Vinayak - 5 years, 10 months ago

How is that possible

Mayank Shukla - 5 years, 5 months ago

Did the same thing bro 👍👍

Hiba Zreik Farhat - 5 years, 5 months ago

With this way of looking at the solution, are you imagining the two lines completing a triangle which passes through the cube? If so, I understand the 60 degree angle.

What I find odd, is that they specifically mention the surface of the cube. In that case, do we account for the convex corner? If so, would that lead to the answer being 90 degrees vs. 60?

Nick Shell - 5 years, 5 months ago

Baawall bhai

hariom bhardwaj - 3 years, 4 months ago

Didn't think that.

SOUMYAKANTI JANA - 2 years, 11 months ago

Pictorial description does help a lotttttttt

Ali Adnan - 5 years, 10 months ago

i have a doubt.how can u say that it is 60.i thought it to be 45????

priya dharshini - 5 years, 9 months ago

Sorry. It is wrong. It cant be a a trangle. Because it is not flat. Pls let me clear.

Mehbub Litu - 5 years, 9 months ago

you have made wrong figure right answer is 90 degree check out my solution.you can check your figure my plotting it on a dice you have mispaced the lines. check out image of my solution at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2AHsLBn0bgAWUg0WXFPZzBxa2c/view?usp=sharing

Yashu King - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

Your calculations are correct, however your method is wrong. You have calculated the two angles of two triangles on the outside of the cube and added them together. This is not the angle between the two lines, merely two triangles whose angles you have added. The angle between the two lines is inside the cube and cannot be seen from the original diagram.

David Williams - 5 years, 10 months ago

Interesting.

bijayakumar behera - 5 years, 4 months ago

Actually the answer is indeed 90. When you approach this exercise by three dimensions you cut off the cube and shortens it's angle. It's a wrong approach since you obviously don't have information enough to know that you're cutting the cube. You can't assume that we have a sword and can cut the damn cube. Again, it's a wrong approach and the obvious answer it's 90. And yes, I understood his solution, but it's simply fantasy to think that anyone would think of that, and, if they did, it would be wrong

Gustavo Machado - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

Why on earth wouldn't anyone think of that? It's not fantasy, it's basic 3D geometry. Any mathematician would do it that way. It's the simplest way to calculate the answer. Your method is wrong, your answer is wrong. Why do you keep on insisting it's right? This isn't a matter of opinion. The answer is 60 degrees. It is the only answer.

David Williams - 5 years, 10 months ago

You're wrong. Angles must be calculated on the same plane. You can't fold (or in this case unfold) two different planes, so your only option would be to cut the cube (with a sword or whichever you like).

Felipe Prates - 5 years, 10 months ago

Cube, Diagonally placed red lines, And asks what the angle is between where they connect, that is all you need to solve. Only one answer. As a toolmaker I have seen what happens when new guys get prints without extra info and have made costly mistakes because they assume you would know what they know about geometry and try to make prints clean and free of superfluous details. Just get a square and a square cube and place it on the cube and then try to put it on the red lines and see what happens. It asked what the angle was between them where they joined and that is not 90 degrees.

Everett Plummer - 5 years, 10 months ago

Cutting the cube or drawing lines does not change the angle, because the lines defining the angle do not change.

Alex Bean - 5 years, 5 months ago

Any geometrical problem can be solved plainly in a paper using a pen. You don't need to use a sword, just your creative analytical mind. You don't also need to supply or show all the information to the problem to solve it, you can supply the missing information in accordance with the mathematical laws. 60 is the correct answer.

Jonathus Narvato - 5 years, 5 months ago
Ivan Koswara
Jul 20, 2015

Draw one more diagonal that connects the two remaining endpoints (the one on the left side of the cube). We now have a triangle. All of its sides are equal in length (all of them are face diagonals of a cube), so it's an equilateral triangle and the angle formed between any pair of the lines is 6 0 \boxed{60^\circ} .

Moderator note:

This is a common observation of angles in a cube. In other polytopes, we can sometimes find regular polygons sitting in them, which helps us determine the angles.

All right. I understand, red lines make a equilateral triangle... yes...But diagonals of every face of a cube make two rectangles triangles, wiht a 90º angle and two of 45º each one. So, each of these angles of 45 attached to the adjacent from the other side, which also has 45 ° do not makes one of 90 °?. I'm missing something...

MJ CG - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

You have to think of it as a flat plane rather than 3-d. I did the same thing you did.

Sabrina Joyner - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

If you do that though there isn't enough information to calculate the angle. Even if there was, I measured the angle to be 77 degrees. Since this isn't an answer, you have to assume it is 3D. Some would say uninformative definition, some would say the answers expand the definition well enough.

Nick Zafiridis - 5 years, 5 months ago

Problem states not to be fooled by the appearance of depth. Basically, there is no cube, just the angle.

Jerith Jade - 5 years, 10 months ago

You're unfolding two different planes, instead of measuring the angle on the same plane.

Felipe Prates - 5 years, 10 months ago

hey it will not form a triangle are you out of your mindtry it on a 3d object like a cube box or a dics you will get to know.

Yashu King - 5 years, 10 months ago

If you draw another diagonal then the square is divided into four parts . now there will be four triangles. One of the side is of a square and the other two sides are 1/0.414 of its side. They will never be equal. Answer is 90 degrees not 60 degrees.

Apache Raju - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

That makes no sense at all. Plz explain with named points at least. The answer is not 90 in any case, imo.

Nick Zafiridis - 5 years, 5 months ago

The red lines can make, with another line, an equilateral triangle, because they are diagonals, so, this angle is: 6 0 o \boxed{60^{o}}

Darren A
Aug 5, 2015

Well, I thought it was 90, 90 was the bottom answer in the email I got about this problem, logged in, clicked the bottom answer on the site, after which I saw it was actually 60 that I clicked on, how's that for a Zen calculation!

That's what we call "luck".

A Former Brilliant Member - 4 years, 1 month ago
Mrinmay Dhar
Jul 19, 2015

Equilateral triangle formed

Euan Zhang
Jul 22, 2015

Turn it around in your head and think: it is cutting from vertex to vertex to vertex, so all three sides of the resulting triangle are equal, hence forming an equilateral triangle. equilateral triangle: 180/3=60 and theres your answer!

Brian Kardon
Jan 7, 2016

Let the origin of a coordinate system be at the intersection of the two red lines. Let the "x" direction be to the right, the "y" direction be into the diagram, and the "z" direction be up. Let's also assume for convenience (without loss of generality) that the cube has side lengths of 1.

One of the red lines can be described as the vector a = ( 1 , 0 , 1 ) \vec{a} = (-1, 0, -1) . The other can be described as the vector b = ( 1 , 1 , 0 ) \vec{b} = (-1, 1, 0) .

a b = ( 1 ) ( 1 ) + ( 0 ) ( 1 ) + ( 1 ) ( 0 ) = a b cos ( θ ) \vec{a} \cdot \vec{b} = (-1)(-1) + (0)(1) + (-1)(0) = |\vec{a}||\vec{b}|\cos(\theta)

1 = 2 2 c o s ( θ ) 1 = \sqrt{2} \cdot \sqrt{2} cos(\theta)

1 = 2 c o s ( θ ) 1 = 2 cos(\theta)

θ = 60 ° \theta = 60°

if we consider triangular prism based on red lines connecting triangular surface, then it's very easy to understand that base is equilateral triangle. And hence answer is 60 degree....:)

Miles Johnson
Feb 22, 2016

If you connect the two points by drawing a line between them, you can see you have just made an equilateral triangle, where each side is simple a diagonal of one side of the cube. (Since it is a cube, all of these lengths are equal). Equilateral triangles are also equangular, so 180/3=60 degrees.

Rishi Gangadhar
Jan 3, 2016

If you draw the other diagonal of the triangle, passing through the two points, you will realise that the triangle so formed has all its sides equal, and hence it is an equilateral triangle. Thus the angle is 60º

David Morgan
Jan 3, 2016

Prior knowledge. The cube is the complimentary solid (platonic) to the octahedron - eight equilateral triangles. The eight faces of the octahedron correspond to the eight vertices of the cube, so 60°.

Nimesh Krishnani
Jan 2, 2016

Imagine tilting the cube such that both the diagonals are on xy plane. Now the diagonal at the third face ie the non connecting end points will form an equilateral triangle, and all angles in equilateral triangle are 60

William Hsu
Jan 2, 2016

The two lines given are diagonals of a cube. They have the same length. If you connect their end points together, that's another diagonal. You have an equilateral triangle and therefore the angle between the two initially given lines is a 60 degree angle.

Aaron Ogrimina
Oct 2, 2015

It is simple.. as you can see the two diagonals, can be proven as equal to each other due to the fact that they are diagonals of the intersecting faces of the cube... and if you draw a line from the endpoints of the two diagonals, you will form another diagonal of a face... considering that the three faces are congruent to each other, the diagonals have the same measurements that makes the formed triangle an EQUILATERAL AND AN EQUIANGULAR TRIANGLE where all angles are equal to 60°...

Leroy Zhao
Sep 4, 2015

Red lines are drawn diagonally across 2 of the faces. Because the object is a cube, if a 3rd line was drawn on the left face, an equilateral triangle would have been created. Therefore, the angle shown is one of an equilateral triangle, hence 60 degrees

Ac Bubba
Aug 9, 2015

A cube has congruent diagonals, and both diagonals form two sides of a triangle, with the remaining side as another diagonal of the square. You find yourself with an equilateral triangle, thus arriving at the conclusion that the angle formed by the two diagonals/sides is 60 degrees.

John Um
Aug 8, 2015

Forget all the math work. Imagine drawing a third diagonal to complete a triangle between the ends of the two red diagonals. Since the cube is ...well... A cube, all the diagonal lengths would be the same, thus we would have an equilateral triangle. And every angle in an equilateral triangle is 60 degress. 👍👍👍

Aj Loy
Jul 30, 2015

If you draw another line to complete the triangle, you will see that all 3 angles are the same. They are all diagonals at the vertices. Therefore, 180/3 =60

Chris Mehrstedt
Jul 30, 2015

The solution is simple, all the faces of a cube are the same, so the diagonals are all the same. If you imagine the third side of the triangle and realize it's the same length as the other two sides then it must be an equilateral triangle meaning every angle is 60.

Karan Jha
Jul 28, 2015

Damn easy question you just need to imagine an eqillateral triangle made by the face diagonals

Andrés Abril
Jul 25, 2015

I saw a triangle drawn by the diagonals, then, knowing that every triangle has 180 degrees, and that every diagonal is a cube measures the same, is an equilateral triangle, so, every single angle is the same, 180/3=60

Vaibhav Borale
Jul 23, 2015

Clearly every side of the triangle will have same length i.e. 1.414 times the side of square. Thus, this is an equilateral triangle which has angle of 60 degree.

Sreenuj C M
Jul 23, 2015

Diagonals of every face of a cube are of same length, here we have two sides and so with the third diagonal, triangle is complete! So angle is 60 degree

Leandro Silva
Jul 22, 2015

it is clearly an equilateral triagle

Zé Costa
Dec 24, 2020

1ºWe can make a triangle with that 2 red lines 2ºwe can conclude that all the lines have the same length, because all of them are diagonals of the squares. 3ºso 3 angles of the triangle are equal, so:

180=3x

x=60

answer: all the angles of the triangle have 60 degrees, including the one from the question.

for me this is the easiest way to resolve this problem what do you think? hope this was helpful

There is no need of computation or any calculation here. If the other diagonal is connected, it forms an equilateral triangle and we know that an equilateral has an angle of 6 0 60^\circ on each vertex.

Jonathan Daniel
May 29, 2016

It's a cube so the diagonals are congruent, so all three sides are congruent, thus it's a equilateral and equiangular triangle and the angles are 60 degrees

Sebastian Oertel
Apr 26, 2016

Let's go with some vector calculation: When you flip the screen upside down, then you can imagine the corner where both edges come together as the origin of a coordinate system. Then edge1 can be described as e 1 = ( 1 1 0 ) T e_1 = (1|1|0)^{T} and edge2 as e 2 = ( 0 1 1 ) T e_2 = (0|1|1)^{T} (T means transformed, so we can write those vectors in one line). For the angle θ \theta it is: cos θ = e 1 e 2 e 1 e 2 \cos \theta = \frac{|e_1 \cdot e_2|}{|e_1|*|e_2|} which leads us to cos θ = 1 0 + 1 1 + 0 1 1 2 + 1 2 + 0 2 0 2 + 1 2 + 1 2 \cos \theta = \frac{|1*0+1*1+0*1|}{\sqrt{1^2+1^2+0^2}*\sqrt{0^2+1^2+1^2}} , which is cos θ = 1 2 \cos \theta = \frac{1}{2} , which leads us to θ = 6 0 \theta = 60^\circ

Béranger Seguin
Jan 3, 2016

I do not rely on intuition, so I computed :p.

( 1 , 0 , 1 ) . ( 1 , 1 , 0 ) = 1 = 2 × 2 × c o s ( θ ) (-1,0,1).(-1,-1,0) = 1 = \sqrt{2}\times\sqrt{2}\times cos(\theta)

So c o s ( θ ) = 1 2 cos(\theta)=\frac{1}{2} which means that θ = 60 ° \theta=60° :)

Wyatt Kachner
Jan 2, 2016

The easiest solution is to draw an imaginary line between the 2 unconnected points, creating an equilateral triangle. If you don't understand this, I invite you to think in depth about the spatial relations involved. It's best to use a visual aid, such as a physical cube and diagrams of your own making. From there, it's easy from many directions to prove that each angle in an equilateral triangle is 60 degrees. That is the geometric method I used to get the answer.

The more robust and general method is rooted in vector algebra. This is somewhat loftier, but should be comprehensible in the context of a complete high school education.

There are several way to go about it, but the simplest is to look at it as a 3 dimension system in Cartesian coordinates, taking the top, closest, right-hand corner (the vertex of the angles) as the origin. Consider the cube to be a translated unit cube (each side length=1).

Therefore the top line can be represented as the vector <-1,1,0> and the bottom line as <-1,0,-1>. Use vector identities concerned with the angle between two vectors to find the angle between these.

I used the fact that the dot product of two vectors equals the product of both magnitudes and the cosine of the angle. This is well described in this link: example link with good formatting/pictures/examples. Simple algebraic rearrangement of the equation gives: arccos( dotproduct / productofmagnitudes ) = angle. Again, visit the link for a visual and formatted equations.

Loren Silbaugh
Dec 6, 2015

Don't know if anyone posted this method, but if a line is imagined on the left side connecting the ends of the red lines, those three form a plane which is an equilateral triangle. Each angle is 60 degrees. Most basic way I could see. Though probably by the most robust.

Sushant Singh
Dec 6, 2015

All the sides of cube are same so all angles of triangle will same .. means equilateral triangle. So the andle will be 180/3=60.

Brandon Price
Dec 2, 2015

Purely geometric solution: Let's call the angle ABC so we know what we're talking about. B is the vertex and A and B are the end points of the two line segments forming the angle.

Line segments (LS) AB and BC lie on the diagonals of two squares that are the faces of a cube (Given)

LS AC, which completes triangle ABC, lies on the diagonal of a third face of the cube (also given in the diagram)

All sides of a cube are the same length (property of cubes), let's call this X.

LS AB=√(2X^2) (Pythagorean Theorem) LS BC=√(2X^2) (Pythagorean Theorem) LS AC=√(2X^2) (Pythagorean Theorem)

Therefore, LS AB=LS BC=LS AC

Since all three sides are congruent, triangle ABC is an equilateral triangle (definition of equilateral triangles)

All three interior angles of Triangle ABC=60° (property of equilateral triangles) (in euclidian geometry)

Therefore, angle ABC=60°

Himnish Dhar
Aug 14, 2015

the two diagonals are in different plane surface. so, we have to think of another surface in which these two diagonal lie.

Can Hou
Aug 13, 2015

'm pretty bad with latex, so I did my on word documents, using the Cambria Math font.

We shall define the bottom left corner towards us (which I shall call A) as (0,0,0) in the spatial coordinate system of (x,y,z) (x is left to right, y from us away and z from bottom to top). Thus top right corner on our side (which I shall call B) is (1,0,1) and the top left corner away from us (which I shall call C) is (0,1,1).

Dk Chaudhary
Aug 9, 2015

In the cube all the triangle dimensions are same...so all the angles in triangle are same...so angle is 180/3=60°

Nikhil Prasad
Aug 9, 2015

Since the three sides of the triangle are the diagonals of squares of same dimension, which makes it an equilateral triangle. Angles of an equilateral triangle are 60..

Steven Langhorst
Aug 8, 2015

cube = 3d so 60

Gav Cooper
Aug 8, 2015

I used a vector method which has given me the right answer, but I'm not sure how valid my solution is, haha.

Let the cube have side length a, and let the vertex of the cube where the two red lines meet be the origin.

Let the x-axis be the right hand edge of the front face. Let the y-axis be the top edge of the front face Let the z-axis be the right hand edge of the top face.

Let's model the two red lines as vectors pointing away from the origin.

In that case, the red line on the front face can be described by the vector (a, a, 0). The red line on the top face can be described by the vector (0, a, a)

To find the angle between the two vectors, we use the scalar product.

formula: u. v = |u||v| cos X

The length of each vector is sqrt(2a^2)

Taking the dot product of the vectors in component form, we have the dot product = a^2

Hence, we have a^2 = sqrt(2a^2) * sqrt(2a^2) cos X

a^2 = (a*sqrt(2))^2 cos X

a^2 = 2*a^2 cos X

1/2 = cos X

X = 60 degrees.

McKay Holmes
Aug 2, 2015

To all the people who are still confused on this, draw an imaginary third line to complete a triangle. Since it's a cube, that triangle is equilateral. Since all sides are the same length, all angles are the same as well. 180/3=60

Sandip Gawali
Aug 1, 2015

As there is a cube, when all the diagonals are joined it forms an equilateral tringle... sum of all the angles in trigle is equal to 180 degree. so the ans is 60 degree

Benedict Willacy
Jul 31, 2015

This is the maths one needs to solve it via vectors.

A(vector) = (0,0,0) --> (1,1,0) = (1,1,0) B(vector)= (1,1,0) --> (0,1,1) = (1,0,-1)

A•B= 1 + 0 + 0 = 1

|A| = √2

|B| = √2

cosθ = (A•B) / (|A| x |B|) = 1/2

arccos(1/2) = 60°

Finley George
Jul 30, 2015

a.b=|a||b|cosx

Assuming each side of the cube was 2 units long...

4=8cosx Cosx=0.5

There for x (the angle) is 60°

Ali Durrani
Jul 30, 2015

Think of it as simply forming an equilateral triangle, which has an internal angle of 90 degrees. Simple 😄

Tony Carter
Jul 30, 2015

For those struggling to see why the answer is 60 degrees, remember than we need a plane or 2D triangle to define the angle. The only way we can find such a triangle that contains the required angle is by joining the two ends of the red diagonals already drawn on the diagram. This creates a triangle (in 2D) that has three equal sides (diagonals of the cube's faces). Each angle in an equilateral triangle is 60 degrees. Abhay's diagram shows this.

Jerith Jade
Jul 30, 2015

Right on the first try. Could tell just looking at the picture that it was 60°. Only 18% get it right though? o.O

Nelson Mandela
Jul 30, 2015

find vectorial form of three orthogonal sides and find out the vectorial form of the mentioned diagonals.

Then take dot product which turns out to be 1/2.

So, cos inverse 0.5 is 60 degrees.

Tyler Chen
Jul 30, 2015

Yep you can draw in another diagonal on the left face of the square, and it makes an equilateral triangle (since all sides of a cube are equivalent, each of the diagonals are also equal) that lies on the plane that intersects the square diagonally, in which all three angle measures are 60! (Pretty much what Abhay said. )

Jannat Ferdous
Jul 29, 2015

60 degress Equilateral triangle as all the sides are same

Órká Crúzé
Jul 23, 2015

It forms an equilateral triangle. Thus, the angle is 60°

Kumar Swamy
Jul 23, 2015

To make it easier to solve,join the two red lines by another,it forms an equilateral triangle,hence equiangular triangle. Since all the angles in equiangular triangle are 60 degrees ,required angle is also 60 degrees

i think we all did. the isosceles right triangle has angles of 45 45 90, so two 45's = 90. cutting across the third dimension shortens it, which is the key to the problem. my hat is off to those who solved it.

William Cummings - 5 years, 10 months ago

1 pending report

Vote up reports you agree with

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...