Prove you are not a brainlet

prove you are not a brainlet

Do your own fucking homework

This. Saged.

Seriously? You can't solve this easy shit?

Brainlet here, what tools are used to solve this?

Just an above average brain, LOL

You're just ebbing away at the parts of that square you don't need

ITT people who only post in PEMDAS threads and call everyone with a moderately hard question a brainlet

It is not hard but it is long. You just need to identify each part and know what to substract. The square is just an arbitrary square of side 2 (if you want to do this problem analytically then center it at the origin). Then the big circle is the circle with radius 1 that shares a center with the square. Then notice that you have the angles of the triangle so you can use trigonometry to find the lengths of its sides. Also, notice that the triangle is equilateral.Then you have two other small circles.

For the leftmost circle first, divide the original square into 4 squares as seen in the picture. Then that small circle is the circle of radius 0.5 that shares the center with the bottom-left square.

The other circle is the circle inscribed in the equilateral triangle. This is a classic shape, you can google what the relation between the triangle and its inscribed circle is to compute its area.

>homework
kys newfags, this get posted all the time for years

I got a really long expression that evaluates to about 0.095

Stop posting these circle-area problems. They're tedious and nobody cares.

That's isosceles. OP's question isn't.

>equilateral triangles are not isosceles

It's about 5 of some unit of area.

i never realized how powerful mathematica actually is
i really want to know how it got that answer

its shit I can do in autodesk inventor in about 30 secs

easy
no math needed

Could you please give us a detailed explanation of the way you perceive the world? I am really interested in how retards perceive life. Like, how could you not see the triangle was equilateral? How distorted is your view? I want to know. I want to feel what being stupid would be like.

>no math needed
>the computer I am using to show you this answer runs on FEELS. No math needed.

no years of math study needed*

I knew someone would respond that lel

i know you're memeing me but i was talking about how it seems to have given an expression for the area rather than estimating it somehow
did it just break the region into smaller regions and integrate?
how did it know how to work it
i am interested in these things

Google CAS. Machines being able to do symbolic mathematics (aka human mathematics) is old news.

post the whole expression

Hit your head with an hammer really really strong and if you are lucky to survive the day after, you will know what being idiot means

>did it just break the region into smaller regions and integrate?
most probably. here's how i did it before i lost the will to do it any further.
perfectly solvable symbolically, even though you will need to approximate it in the end to be able to resolve a few inverse trig functions and roots

Sure. Here's the notebook too if anyone wants it: a.pomf.cat/cwbyys.nb

thank bro, mathematica is really amazing