Rezos017:
mmmm...looks like its high time u changed ur moniker from 'Mr Shape' to something else. How about 'Mr CashPrize'?

Lol

Mrshape:

It is a chord of the shaded circle

Okay.

I wish I can do the construction to verify that.

Well, What I did was to assume a line drawn from point "F" upward to the circumference of the main semicircle, and then deducted the radius of the small semicircle from the Radius of the main semicircle to get the diameter of the shaded portion.

stanisbaratheon:



Okay.

I wish I can do the construction to verify that.

Well, What I did was to assume a line drawn from point "F" upward to the circumference of the main semicircle, and then deducted the radius of the small semicircle from the Radius of the main semicircle to get the diameter of the shaded portion.

Alright check my basic solution I have posted it

Overlook the poor sketch...not drawn to scale anyway.

Rezos017:
Overlook the poor sketch...not drawn to scale anyway.

Were you got it wrong is the 14 you made use of.
That h was unknown

Mrshape:

Were you got it wrong is the 14 you made use of.
That h was unknown

what 14? Can u specify how using d 14 is incorrect?

Rezos017:
what 14? Can u specify how using d 14 is incorrect?

Yes.
Because no proof that |OF|=|ON|

Mrshape:
Take necessary precaution, stay safe and relax your mind with this shape

173.25cm²

Ikennablue:
please wat app did u use to plot the result?

Go to Google Play Store and type "graphing app," then download the GeoGebra Graphing Calculator.

agatoid:



173.25cm²

No sir rather show workings to prove your solution please

The absence of proof is not necessarily a proof of absence. What is ur own evidence that OF is not equal to ON? Or should I just accept it because Mr Shape said so?

How did you all get the diameter or radius of the shaded portion

Mrshape:

Yes.
Because no proof that |OF|=|ON|

The absence of proof is not necessarily a proof of absence. What is ur own evidence dat OF is not equal to ON? Should I just accept it because Mr Shape said so?

Jaeis:
How did you all get the diameter or radius of the shaded portion

Check my solution in the first comment
Then ask question on specific pleases you don't get, I will be glad to help

dazzlingd:
I got 346.4 using pie as 3.412

Pi is 3.14159265358979... Did you mean 3.142?

Rezos017:
The absence of proof is not necessarily a proof of absence. What is ur own evidence dat OF is not equal to ON? Should I just accept it because Mr Shape said so?

Smile. No you should not believe I because I said it.

But in geometry we do not make any assumption without a proof.

If it can't be proved diagrammatic/ and algebraically,/ and coordinately
It is inaccurate.
There most be a proof.
Martinez39s can you help me out here please I am short of words

Mrshape:

Check my solution in the first comment
Then ask question on specific pleases you don't get, I will be glad to help

Pure magic (assumptions). That triangle is filled with imaginary dimensions.


The top part of the triangle is my issue. I understand the dimensions of the base and part of the slant height

Jaeis:



Pure magic (assumptions). That triangle is filled with imaginary dimensions

Smile there is a geometric reason for each line I used imaginary line to show those lines are not part of the original diagram

Martinez39s:
Pi is 3.14159265358979... Did you mean 3.142?

Yes 3.142

Mrshape:

Smile there is a geometric reason for each line I used imaginary line to show those lines are not part of the original diagram

According to Rezos017 OF = 14 fire!!!! Lies. How?

Mrshape:
Take necessary precaution, stay safe and relax your mind with this shape

394.24cm²

Jaeis:



Pure magic (assumptions). That triangle is filled with imaginary dimensions.


The top part of the triangle is my issue. I understand the dimensions of the base and part of the slant height

Distance from center of a circle to any part of the circumference is a radius.
That was why I placed R as the top dimension in the shaded portion.

Next because the radius of the bug circle is the distance of the center of the circle to the circumference,

Take a distance from the center of the big circle vertically upward to the circumference, you find out that it is made up of R and H
That's why
R+H=28
then H=28-R.

Ii font known if that was the issue Sir

Jaeis:



According to Rezos017 OF = 14 fire!!!! Lies. How?

I don't know why he made that assumption I am still try to learn from him. Let him come up with a proof, we might gain one or two things from it

Mrshape:

Distance from center of a circle to any part of the circumference is a radius.
That was why I placed R as the top dimension in the shaded portion.

Next because the radius of the bug circle is the distance of the center of the circle to the circumference,

Take a distance from the center of the big circle vertically upward to the circumference, you find out that it is made up of R and H
That's why
R+H=28
then H=28-R.

Ii font known if that was the issue Sir

The only part I don't understand is why the height of the triangle should be 14. Bro na lie

Kylekent59:



394.24cm²

Nice you used 22/7 as pie?

Jaeis:



The only part I don't understand is why the height of the triangle should be 14. Bro na lie

Did u say the height of the triangle is 14?
Check again.
I never said that o

Rezos017:
The absence of proof is not necessarily a proof of absence. What is ur own evidence dat OF is not equal to ON? Should I just accept it because Mr Shape said so?

In Maths, you don't just make assumptions without proof and present them as solutions. Even by mere intuitive geometric consideration, |OF| cannot equal |ON|. If |OF| = |ON|, then the circle centred at O would touch F. |ON| is the radius of the circle centred at O, how then is |OF|, which is clearly bigger that the radius of the circle centred at O, equal to |ON|?


MrShape.

Martinez39s:
In Maths, you don't just make assumptions without proof and present present them as solutions. Even by mere intuitive geometric consideration, |OF| cannot equal |ON|. If did, circle centred at O would touch F. |ON| is the radius of the circle centred at O, how then |OF|, which is clearly bigger that the radius of the circle centred at O, equal to |ON|?


MrShape.

Thank you o

hmmmmmm...........

Mrshape:

Did u say the height of the triangle is 14?
Check again.
I never said that o

My major issue is that assumptions were made to arrive at a figure for the diameter of the shaded portion.

Jaeis:


My major issue is that assumptions were made to arrive at a figure for the diameter of the shaded portion.

Please point out the assumption

Mrshape:

It us a chord of the shaded circle

Cc: Mrshape

Having seen your solution, I want to bring your attention to this question I asked earlier about the line you said was a chord to the shaded circle.

The question is, if it's a chord to the shaded circle, why did you take your reference point at the center of the shaded circle?? You even went as far as designating it "R+7". That means you recognised that line going through both shapes as radii.