princeevee:

i need some help

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

princeevee:

@Vocaloid

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

hm, not quite, the original length of QR is 5 and the scale factor is 1.5 right so the new length Q'R' is just 5 * 1.5

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

first you must calculate the area of the triangle that's on the graph area = (1/2)bh

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

so 108?

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

108? judging by the size of the triangle it's much smaller than that the base of the triangle is KM, how long is KM?

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

|dw:1529801081890:dw|

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

6, or -6

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

|dw:1529801087031:dw|

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

area is always positive, so 6 not -6 now, that's the area of the original triangle, but we want the dilated one for area, we apply the scale factor twice so 6 * 1/4 * 1/4 --> simplify to get your sol'n

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

0.06

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

so it's just 6?

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

ot like, 600?

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

the scale factor is 1/4 the original area is 6 6 * (1/4) * (1/4) = ?

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

0.375

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

good (idk whether they want decimals or fractions, since they give you 1/4 they may want 3/8 as the solution instead of 0.375)

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

good

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

hm not quite check your calculations again triangle proportionality theorem 3/(x-1) = 5/(x+1) solve for x

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

might be going soon but you just need to cross multiply 3(x+1) = 5(x-1) distribute the 3 and the 5 then solve for x

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

4

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

good so x = 4 = your sol'n

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

notice how we are only given two angles so it must be angle-angle

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

going to get some dinner

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

ok

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

@Vocaloid back yet?

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

yes

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

hm not quite symmetric states that if b = a then a = b notice how we have UXA ~ WXY WXY ~ VXZ therefore UXA ~ VXZ this is another form of the transitive property

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

other way around since x + 4 and 8 are the sides of the small triangle and 18 and 10 are the sides of the big triangle it has to be (x+4)/18 = 8/10 not 10/8

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

hm if we rotate the triangle so that they're both in the same orientation we can see we have the proportion 12/10 = 15/12.5 right? that means the two sides given are similar

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

so we have two sides the angle next to the two sides this is the SSA similarity theorem (unlike SSA congruence theorem which doesn't exist, SSA similarity is real)

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

wait

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

huh, weird, SSA isn't one of the choices let's go with your choice then

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

good

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

careful is 4/5 equal to 9/10?

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

so C?

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

good

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

good

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

huh not sure how to solve this but A is the only one that seems physically possible

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

good

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

almost MLN and OLN are not corresponding (try rotating the two halves so the congruent sides are lined up) it ends up being ONL and MLN (first choice) the ones being congruent

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

sides across from bigger angles are bigger so FG has to be less than KM

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

*less than ML

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

so it needs to be a less than sign (without the equal part)

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

hm, not quite, it only tells you which angles are bigger than others, so false

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

|dw:1529810412380:dw|

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

|dw:1529810417532:dw| not quite it has to be the angles in between the two congruent sides so the two angles marked in yellow

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

so...wait...

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

UVT and WVT?

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

*WTV not WVT (pay attention to the letter order) so D

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

not quite for an indirect proof, take the "prove" statement and assume the opposite

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

so B?

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

good

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

hm. not quite. the left angle is smaller than the right angle so the left segment is smaller than the right segment so the right segment needs to be longer than 27 not shorter

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

so 29?

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

yup good

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

hm not quite notice how the side across from S is larger than the side across from B so S is bigger than B

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

princeevee:

@Vocaloid

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

notice how it's in the form a = b then b = a which property of equality is this?

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

reflexive?

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

|dw:1529815379604:dw| symmetric not reflexive reflexive would be a = a

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

can I see what the paragraph proof is?

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

alright, B is correct then

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

good but make sure to spell it right *transitive

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

EF = FG FG = GH therefore EF = GH this is transitive not symmetric

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

<1 is congruent to <2 <2 is congruent to <3 <1 is congruent to <3 using the same logic as before, transitive

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

|dw:1529817250658:dw|

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

nothing is being added together so segment addition isn't applicable notice how something is stated to be equal to itself (reflexive)

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

I think we did this one already we said it was a case of congruent complements

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

oh, right, i forgot..

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

same logic as before, if something is equal to itself it's reflexive not addition

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

princeevee:

i dont know if we've done this question before, possibly, i;m just tired atm

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

good

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

good

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

princeevee:
3 weeks ago

princeevee:

this one i feel we did before

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

oh I think I finally figured out this one since they went from 90 + BAD = 180, they subtracted 90 from both sides to get BAD = 90 so subtraction not symmetric

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

hm it says "definition of" so they're probably looking for the name of a geometric figure not a postulate so "congruent segments" is probably what they're looking for

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

not segment addition. nothing is being added up. AB = EF EF = CD AB = CD via transitive

3 weeks ago
princeevee:
3 weeks ago

princeevee:
3 weeks ago

Vocaloid:

hm, not quite it's only talking about <QRS which is only one angle so it cannot be a pair looking at QRS is it a right angle or a straight angle?

3 weeks ago
princeevee:

straight

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

good so A is the better option

3 weeks ago
Vocaloid:

it's about 2 in the morning here so i'd better get to bed will be on tomorrow if no other plans come up

3 weeks ago