you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

I get you, but it doesn't clearly indicate the angle in the middle at the base as much as it suggestively waggles its eyebrows towards 90⁰, it could just as easily be 89.9999999999999⁰, although upon zooming in, you can see the line does shift one pixel over on its way up. You simply can't trust any of the angles as 90⁰ unless it's got the ∟ symbol (that's the official unicode) or you've measured them yourself, and with that one pixel off-set, it's decidedly not 90⁰. That's why you have to do the math.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

    The internal angles of a triangle always add up to 180⁰, therefore the one pixel offset is irrelevant because the unlabelled angle is, despite what the image suggests, 60 80⁰.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Assuming you're talking about the triangle on the left, it's 80⁰: 180 - 60 - 40 = 80. The other two unlabeled angles are 100⁰ and 45⁰ respectively. None of the unlabelled angles are 60⁰.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments