| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Comments:
<0> I hate all you precalc monkeys
<1> i'm going to sleep
<2> Answer my quandary, jose
<1> eh?
<2> [03:01] <2> If you move point C, the circumcircle remains the same, so long as C is on the current circumference
<2> [03:01] <2> I don't understand how that's not true
<1> how can the circumcircle be the same
<1> different triangle
<2> Doesn't matter
<0> dude
<0> do you know what circumference means
<2> If it's on the current circumference, it will be the same circumcircle
<2> Yeah, yeah, I'm using the word anyway because nothing else leaps to mind
<0> not you
<1> draw your perp. bisectors from the nwew triangle, see if it p***es through the midpoint of AD
<2> Oh
<0> well mayhbe you
<2> Yeah, f*** j00 too
<2> It will, jose
<2> Because the points are all on the circle
<2> That's how you create the circumcircle in the first place.
<0> jose2:
<2> The unique circle whose rim/circumference/whatever p***es through each vertex
<1> move C, but keep A and D the same?
<0> is all you're trying to provfe that C+D = 180
<2> Not D
<2> B
<2> Pay attention.
<2> The ABC triangle
<1> lol no Cowmoo
<0> jose2: what are you trying to prove
<2> Move C along the arc between A and B, and the circumcircle will not change.
<2> Cowmoo, shut the **** up
<1> i'm proving that Sin(A) / a = Sin(B) / c = Sin(C) / c = 2R
<2> You are not clearing this up
<0> JB wtf, I'm trying to get a clear picture
<0> R = r, radius?
<1> jep
<2> JB has a clear picture, nobody else matters
<3> the sides aren't labeled
<1> lord
<1> jb
<1> pm
<3> ;)
<2> <2> Move C along the arc between A and B, and the circumcircle will not change.
<2> Tell me how that's not true
<2> Any of you, not just josey
<2> -y
<2> (Outlaw Josey Wales was on today)
<3> it is true
<2> If it's true, then by moving C, the angle of C changes
<2> But the angle of D does not
<2> Therefore, they cannot possibly be supplementary
<1> why are you moving C though?
<2> And you are all pwned by the retarded reindeer.
<0> wtf are you saying
<0> JB stfu
<3> actually, it doesn't
<2> To disprove your thesis
<1> my quesiton applies to the original triangle
<2> Of course the angle of C changes
<3> o, nevermind
<3> ya
<2> It's a bit tricky to tell, but I'm certain of it
<3> wait, does it?
<2> In the middle it will be much larger than at either end.
<3> or do just a and b change
<0> dude
<0> either you have a proof or you don't
<2> You infinitely approach 90 degrees on the ends.
<0> wtf omg
<2> And it's nowhere near 90 degrees in the middle.
<1> my question applies to the original contstructed triangle...not some new one made by moving points
<2> Damnit cow, this is why I told you to stfu
<3> yea, you're right
<1> haha
<2> But your thesis doesn't work
<2> Because the points can move
<0> !@#E!#!#$
<1> ...
<2> Obviously if the points remain the same, you can describe them any way you choose
<0> JB do you know what a mathematical proof is
<2> But that doesn't accomplish much
<1> but the question regards THAT TRIANGLE
<1> no new triangle
<1> :(
<0> wtf is this talk of "thesis"
<2> Well, all you'd have to do is put C in the right spot to make the math work
<3> then tell us some angles or lengths
<0> NO
<1> you can disprove any geometric proof if you start changing angles
<2> Cowmoo, please consult Merriam Webster then return to the discussion
<0> jose2: please go on efnet, in #math, and ask your question
<0> paste the response in this channel so JB cna see
<1> k-lined due to a "randomly generated nick"
<0> or freenode's #math is ok too
<3> i don't think you can prove they're supplementary
<2> jose, your question was whether C and D are complementary.
<1> k
<0> but not undernet's, since they're quitet
<3> without having some other real numbers
<0> rd: that's not even what the discussion is about, lol
<1> yes, based on the original triangle, without moving any points
<3> but we don't know where those points ar
<3> exactl
<3> y
<2> jose, all you'd have to do is move C to where it becomes complementary with D.
<2> Which is probably possible.
<1> from what i've made, can you think of any way to determine if they equal 180?
<0> jose2: I'm going to kill
<0> you
<2> Just make them.
<1> no, don't move C
<1> lo
<2> It's not hard.
<2> Look, your picture ****s
<3> yes, get a protractor
<0> go to freenode's #math NOW
<1> lol
<0> ****
<2> Try to understand that C has no reason being where it is
<1> don't start hating on MS paint
<3> jose2 C is in a theoretical place
<2> I asked you if there was some reason it was there and you said no
<0> JB stfu
<2> It's not at the midpoint of the arc
<0> you don't know waht you're saying
<2> So it can move.
<2> If it can move, the angle can change.
<2> If you can change one angle and not the other
<3> right
<0> jose2: go to ****ing freenode #math right this second or I'll kill you
<2> It doesn't seem that hard to find a complementary match.
<3> unless jose2, you can tell us that the arcs AC and CB are equal
<3> but I don't see that anywhere
<2> So, yes, it's probably possible, but totally pointless as it cannot be a rule generally applied to that system.
<2> Damnit cowmoo, go graze or something
<2> This is much clearer than you think it is.
<0> NO
<3> jb is right, it doesn't make any sense
<2> Stop being ashamed of getting pwned by JB.
<0> I'm not ssaying this si hard
<2> It happens to everybody.
<2> Except JB, of course.
<3> there is only one place C can be that makes C and D supplementary
<0> I'm just saying there's a really short proof from simple definitnios
<0> your pseudo arguments won't cut it
<0> unless his prof is a retard
<0> this is maths, not philosophy
<2> I provided a test case that disproves his claim.
<0> jose2: I don't see you on freenode
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#chatzone
ReDragon buffer Overflow
#chatzone
theausaurus
mirc thorak
#windows
#windows
#mirc
ftp localhost 421 service unavailable vsftpd
#c
|
|