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.
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, 60⁰.
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.
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.
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, 60⁰.
It’s enough to say it’s “CLEARLY” not 90⁰.
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.The shape on the left might be a quadrilateral instead of a triangle, with a vertex at the same place as the top vertex of the shape on the right.
That’s just what I said but more into the weeds on the detail.
👍