Greg solved a question here using the area of equilateral triangle and I used the same approach from the video but surprise surprise out of where the solution we use 1/2 * base * height like how is that possible?
Was my approach wrong ?
You’re not familiar with A = \frac 12 bh?
I am familiar with it but why is he solving through this formula?
Why teach us a method and not give us the right answer?
Please give reasoning for the solution than asking the familiarity of the same.
The question is same to same what was in the lesson
So that you’re exposed to different ways of solving a problem?
For what? You can solve the problem with the area of equilateral triangle too(?) Try it and then ask which part you’re struggling with.
I am sorry but that is not how this works.
If you teach a concept and want us to implement then provide a question for us.
Don’t segway us by providing an alternative solution to it because that is not how enforcing works.
Then why give a video.
Push us straight to a problem instead.
You make us watch a 3 minute video and when we try solving you say
tada that is wrong approach this is how we do it
Not every concept is independent of each other though. If you’re attempting to solve this question then you’re already supposed to know/employ everything you’ve learnt before it.
The main role of questioning is for you to use all these concepts in tandem to then actually solve the problem. That goes for everything outside of the gre as well; just because you’re learning about quantum computing doesn’t mean you’re not expected to have learnt classical mechanics or smth like geometry before.
Anyhow, why don’t you make a solution using A = \frac {\sqrt{3}}{4} s^2? Isn’t it better practice for you to reinforce what you’ve learnt by actually doing it that way? I offered to help if you’re lost in the process.
Youre probably right. When I make hundreds of videos, I wouldn’t be surprised if I sometimes go “off script” a little bit. I try my best not to, of course, but I’m sure we can find a few exceptions.
Hi Greg
Yes absolutely but your past videos have been stellar and I sometimes get amazed you using a different approach doing it and try to implement the same but I am having a tough time with Geometry since many of the questions are quite hard.
the exceptions are definitely few.
I just feel that geometry needs a little fine tuning
I didn’t get the correct answer with this
What I would do right now is skip it. I’m not joking. Lingering on one topic or question for too long actually HURTS our score.
Can you briefly outline what you’ve learnt so far (geometry wise), so that we can try to think of a way to incorporate this for our new solution? Like have you learnt congruent triangles? Otherwise you can just skip it like greg suggested.
If you have indeed learnt congruent triangles then try to show that these three smaller triangles that make up the equilateral triangles are congruent:
