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.
Nice done, I liked it. I wonder if there exist a shorter way.
I cant figure out this: "by the ASA postulate, ∆ACG = ∆CAE" is trure. Can you more explain.
I guess you did have to put that one together a little. It's given that m ∠ E A C = 1 0 ° , and I found before that m ∠ F A E = 1 0 ° . Add those together and m ∠ G A C = 2 0 ° , same as ∠ A C E . Also, I found before that m ∠ A C G = 1 0 ° , just like ∠ E A C . Finally, A C is congruent to itself. It may be difficult to see in the picture, but these two sets of congruent angles are oriented on A C such that these two triangles are congruent by the ASA postulate.
Great job. Very nicely done........
the answer is 30
how /FAB = 60
△ A B D ≅ △ B A F , and corresponding parts of congruent triangles are congruent.
Another reason is that since AB || DF then the Alternate angle theorem can be applied to show that FAB = DFG. since Triangle DFG is equilateral.
Can somebody tell where I went wrong- Ang(DAE)=ang(DBE)/2=10°.So B is the centre of the circle joining D,E, and A.Now,ang(AED)=ang(ABD)/2=60°/2=30°.
I have no idea what you are trying to do, make a circle out of angle bisector concurrence?
But, if B is the center of the circle joining D, E and A, then BD, BE and BA are all radii and should equal one another. And they aren't, or triangles ABD and BDE would both be isosceles and this problem would be much easier.
@Louis W - So what?BD, BE and BA might be equal.Start from my logic,where was I wrong?After all,B can be the centre of the concerned circle!
That's the thing, I don't know what your logic was in the first place. And no, none of those are congruent. If they were, △ A B D would be isosceles and m ∠ A D B would be 8 0 ° , but it is 4 0 ° . Similar for △ B D F . So whatever your logic is, something is wrong with it because the outcome doesn't work.
I can see that DFE = 80 and I can agree that if the argument for Isocelles is right then angle DEF = (x + 30) but how did you get the extra (x + 30)? I cannot see how you get the measure for Angle FDE as (x + 30).
△ D F E being isosceles has nothing to do with m ∠ D E F = ( x + 3 0 ) ° . That is just the sum of the two smaller angles that comprise it (look at the very beginning, m ∠ A E B = 3 0 ° ). m ∠ F D E = ( x + 3 0 ) ° because △ D F E is isosceles, one of the two angles opposite the congruent sides is ( x + 3 0 ) ° and those two angles are also congruent.
I get it 'till triangle EDF is isosceles. But then, I'll tend to state that angle EDF + 2(x+30) = 180° However, once we are here, angle DEF = angle EFD = angle CBA = 80° x = DEF-30° would give me 50° What am I doing wrong? Wherer do the 80° come from in the last equation?
The two angles congruent in an isosceles triangle are the two angles opposite the two congruent sides. D F and E F are the congruent sides, so ∠ E D F and ∠ D E F are the congruent angles, one of which is ( x + 3 0 ) ° . The third angle ∠ E F D (aka ∠ C F D ) is 8 0 ° , and is found shortly after I modified the picture.
The way that you set it up would imply that D E and D F are congruent, which is not what happened.
Nice! I had to get out the colored pencils when you said it got tricky.
hi Louis W, correct working. though at some points you made it unnecessarily lengthy! but till now only your working is correct. I appreciate your hard work. very good job.
nice job if / FBD= 30 / DBA =50 EAB= 60 EAD= 20 what will the answer pls
The answer would be x = 3 0 ° . Instead of drawing the line through D, you would draw it through E, and then draw a few more lines. It makes a different picture, but uses similar concepts.
I didnt think i understand u wrote because its too long for me....
How did you go from the sin(10)/[2cos(80)sin(70)] to x=20? I'm trying to follow, but the math wasn't working out for me in the end.
Use the law of cosines to solve for cos(x) in terms of the base and sides of the large isosceles triangle. Two equations in two unknowns
My triangle is this one, I know the "correct" answer is 20, but this is what I did and my answer is x = 50°. Please let me know if you find a mistake so I can correct it, thank you
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=994470413942408&set=a.610002989055821.1073741834.100001383774807&type=3&theater
The angles at the point on side AB of the triangle. What makes you the angles are 60 and 80? And please label intersection points properly. Don't reuse name for different points.
A similar difficult problem will be with the same drawing (not to scale) but with different angles: the pair 70 - 10 becomes 60 - 20 and the pair 60 - 20 becomes 50 - 30
Draw AB।।DG and DG।।EF. So, <FEG=100. (as, <CEF=80). DE divide <FEG equally. So,<FED=<DEG=50. <DEG=x+30=50. So, x=50-30=20.
But how did you get <FEG is equally divided by DE?
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Just make use of elementary geometry you say? As you wish...
All the angles in a triangle add up to 180º, so I can fill in some blanks on the picture.
m ∠ A C B = 2 0 º
m ∠ A D B = 4 0 º
m ∠ A E B = 3 0 º
There's more to find, but it leads to a dead end...
So I just need more lines on this picture (crazy, right?). As of this point in geometry, I would know about parallel lines and transversals. So to start, I need to draw the line parallel to A B through D , intersecting B C at F (so A B ∥ D F ). Then I can draw A F , intersecting B D at G . Finally, I can draw C G .
Now, there are quite a few congruent triangles on this picture, but none that can be proven with the information I have thus far. But I can fill in more blanks.
Corresponding Angles are Congruent, so:
m ∠ C A B = m ∠ C D F = 8 0 º ⇒ m ∠ B D F = 6 0 º
m ∠ C B A = m ∠ C F D = 8 0 º
There are now several isosceles triangles on this picture, two of which are △ A B C and △ D F C . So,
D C ≅ F C
A C ≅ B C
Subtract these two: A C − D C = B C − F C ⇒ A D ≅ B F
I now have everything necessary to say that by the SAS postulate, △ A B D ≅ △ B A F . Thus,
m ∠ D B A = m ∠ F A B = 6 0 º ⇒ m ∠ F A E = 1 0 º
m ∠ A D B = m ∠ B F A = 4 0 º ⇒ m ∠ A F D = 6 0 º
That is the second angle of △ D F G , thus m ∠ D G F = 6 0 º , which makes △ D F G equiangular, and thus equilateral. Thus,
D F ≅ D G ≅ G F
I now have everything necessary to say that by the SSS postualte, △ C G D ≅ △ C G F . Thus,
m ∠ A C G = m ∠ B C G = 1 0 º
And now a tricky one to see, I now have everything necessary to say that by the ASA postulate, △ A C G ≅ △ C A E . Thus,
A G ≅ E C
△ A F C is isosceles, so A F ≅ F C
Subtract those two: A F − A G = F C − E C ⇒ G F ≅ E F ⇒ D F ≅ E F
That makes △ D F E isosceles. Therefore,
2 ( x + 3 0 ) º + 8 0 º = 1 8 0 º
⇒ x = 2 0 º □