A
Anonymous01/20/26, 06:39No.16895254Clickbait of the day
Is it even possible to calculate the radius just based on the information provided by this image?
With my knowledge, I think we can't because the top part doesn't angle down at the end of the circle's diameter. And we don't know the circle's height.
So, since you guys do math every day and love it, I thought I'd ask here.
Share your process.
33
Replies
A
Anon01/20/26, 06:47No.16895256
(3 x 7) / (3 + 7) =
21 / 10 =
2.1
A
Anon01/20/26, 06:49No.16895257
Fuck you man.
This shit is in my recommended videos even when I watch things that are completely unrelated to math and science.
Tired of this shit.
A
Anon01/20/26, 13:32No.16895384
A
Anon01/20/26, 19:03No.16895582
>Is it even possible... Share your process.
So, here's a tip that I realized that not people do. For problems like these, like physically geometric ones or physics ones, it is very useful to ask this question in your head (and attempt to answer it):
>Is this problem "rigid"?
The intention is that you should attempt to reconstruct the object in question in your mind, like putting together pieces of wood step by step mentally, all in an attempt to see if
1. If the object is even constructable, and
2. If it is uniquely constructable.
Because you're doing it step by step, you're way more likely to determine which parameters are important to making this object, which are the variables you outta be using in your work, a,b,c... It also will tell you where exactly the construction fails to be unique or even constructable at all.
This is actually useful outside of geometric/physical problems if you solve problems by drawing any sort of picture in your head, like how sets can be drawn with venn/euler diagrams. If you're asked to prove if this function... you imagine sets and the action of physically mapping sets to other sets, etc. Drawing pictures are good.cont.
A
Anon01/20/26, 19:10No.16895587
A
Anon01/20/26, 19:11No.16895588
A
Anon01/20/26, 19:19No.16895596
in ppt
>3 = 1.6"
>vertical = 2.4"
>vertical = 4.5
>radius = 2.25
or
>7 = 4.8"
>vertical = 3.5
>radius = 1.75
we average the two results
>radius = 2
A
Anon01/20/26, 19:23No.16895599
(2R)^2 + 4^2 = (10 - 2R)^2
R = 2.1
A
Anon01/22/26, 08:23No.16896572
r = radius = 21/10
Here's how I found r:
I gave, or input, the following system of equations to "my trusty genie" WolframAlpha.
(y – 0)/(x – 7) = (2*r – 0)/(3 – 7)
(x – r)^2 + (y – r)^2 = r^2
It then found r for me.
A
Anon01/22/26, 15:09No.16896764
A circle can always be tangent to all sides of a triangle but not quadrilateral. So if you have a quadrilateral, the fact that the circle in fact touches all sides serves as the "missing" information you're looking for. Change one of the lengths and the shape of the quadrilateral changes and the circle would no longer be tangent to all sied. Hence it has all the information needed.
A
Anon01/22/26, 20:48No.16896934
Susanne is known as the Math Queen.
I watched her video (the duration is 14:12).
Therein, she basically said the following (among other things).D = darkened
LS = line segment ≈ chopsticklength of black LS = r
length of D cyan LS = 7 – r
length of D magenta LS = 3 – r
length of D yellow LS = rlength of right side of trapezoid = (7 – r) + (3 – r) = 10 – 2*r
A
Anon01/25/26, 04:01No.16898685
Just use Pitot's Theorem.