No apology necessary. I'm happy to have been able to provide a quick solution. For once my pencil and paper worked more quickly than my software.

Bob

bobbym

2013-06-03 04:40:16

Because of the fact that Flux does not tell you when a post has been put just prior to yours, I was posting for your posts and did not see any of his!

My apologies to Bob.

anonimnystefy

2013-06-03 04:35:24

No, no. I just stated that we do not need the length of AB.

bobbym

2013-06-03 04:34:22

I am sorry, your comment in post #21 confused me. I already solved this in post#20. I thought you had found something wrong with that answer, and got mixed up.

anonimnystefy

2013-06-03 04:30:09

Hi bobbym

I do not think you understand me. The distance from X to AC is always the same as MX. Bob has a nice proof up there.

bob bundy

2013-06-03 04:28:45

Here's my diagram.

MX is given as 9, so it cannot change.

Bob

bobbym

2013-06-03 04:26:05

MX changes too because it is a perpendicular bisector of AB. If AB lengthens MX will change too.

anonimnystefy

2013-06-03 04:21:51

It does. But it stays the same as MX.

bob bundy

2013-06-03 04:21:44

In my diagram and if Y is the point on AC where XY is perpendicular to AC then

AYX and AMX are congruent (SAA) so the size of AB is irrelevant.

Bob

bobbym

2013-06-03 04:13:34

I am looking at it now. If you change AB the distance varies.

anonimnystefy

2013-06-03 04:11:36

We do not need it. Did you try drawing a picture in GG and then changing AB?

bobbym

2013-06-03 04:09:36

Of course we need AB but it is given.

anonimnystefy

2013-06-03 04:05:19

We do not need the length of AB.

bobbym

2013-06-03 04:04:38

Hi;

AB is 40 but now I think we need more info. The length of AC would be nice.

anonimnystefy

2013-06-02 23:56:53

Is it just me or do we not need the length of AB in the last question?