They just had an interesting question on that show today. Asked what the area of a parallelogram (sp) with horizontal sides of 12, vertical of 5, and angled sides of 13 (I'm assuming dimensions are in inches). In this particular case, I wouldn't really call it a parallelogram (again, sp) as the vertical measurement would have to be taken at the end of the horizontal line(s), creating two triangles that are butted up against each other, on their height axis. As you may recall, the hypotenuse (long side) of a triangle equals the square root of the sum of the squares of the other 2 sides. Since we're given the height (5) and the hypotenuse (13), simple math gives us 13*13=169, 5*5=25, 169-25=144, Sq. Root of 144 is 12, which also equals the horizontal measurement.
Huh?
When I went to school we didn't get these types of questions until 10th grade.
lol
I typed as slow as I could, and still forgot to put in what the real answer to the question was. :o :o :o That would be 60....Base (12) times height (5).
Man I thought I went brain dead for a minute. ;D
TT, I understand ya, buddy...
Ask Squirt about his canvas framing some time...
(But I didn't learn that crap in the fifth grade)
Oh wait a minute...
I didn't GO to fifth grade.
The answer they gave was correct. That was indeed a parallelogram, and their formula was correct. In any parallelogram, height x width is area (that goes for square, rectangle, rhombus, etc).
When I went to school they wouldn't even waist their time asking me that question. They would ask someone that and then they would just tell me to go to detention cause they knew it would be trouble if I opened my mouth. 8)
Quote from: Hoss on January 13, 2010, 03:55:49 PM
The answer they gave was correct. That was indeed a parallelogram, and their formula was correct. In any parallelogram, height x width is area (that goes for square, rectangle, rhombus, etc).
I know...I wasn't questioning the question or answer, just the drawing and dimensions. Most of the parallelograms I've seen have the horizontal lines overlapping at some point, and with the dimensions given, they wouldn't.
I think their drawing is what threw the contestant off though....their "5" dimension was almost equal distance to the "13", and both were less than half the "12" dimension (if you follow what I'm saying).
I do a lot of these rambling posts. ;D ;D ;D
edit: BTW...she got it wrong again...second time today. :D :D :D :D
Oh, yeah, I reread your post. Yeah, that parallellogram is mathematically impossible isn't it?
It seems the base of the triangle created by measuring the height where it was measures would be 12 by itself.
That is quite confusing, and seems like it would be just what you said, two triangles butted together. However, that would still make a parallellogram, but it would definately not be elongated as the picture was.
Pretty sharp catch there TT ;)
I knew dat. It's like somebody leaned on a box. The answer don't change, it just looks different.