I don't think that the resolution of my PC is the problem, if those lines mean that those sides are identical, so yes they are congruent. But graphically the're not congruent, I measure it and they are not identical, and they are suposed to be identical, don't they?.

Conclusion: If those sides are identical(according to the lines through them) those triangle are congruent. But graphically(the picture itself) they are not congruent.

It is impossible for both triangles to be different. Looking both triangles again, it is only an illusion that one may be bigger than the other. See both of those vertical lines? And see those two lines, intersecting horizontally, and then connecting to those vertical lines? Because both of those lines are at the exact same angel, with those two other lines, intersecting in between, it is impossible for both of those triangles to be different, therefore, they are, indeed, congruent.

They appear to be congruent, but mathamaticly it can not be proven congruent. Ther reason, imagin a circle drawn were the 'a' line is the radius of the circle and the center of the circle is the connection points of lines 'a' & 'c' ( the two lines other then the hypotinus) You will see that the circle crosses the 'b' line (hypotinus) a secound time. That means that there is a second set of angle that this set of sides can create a triangle for. Therefor the triangle can not be proven congruent mathamaticly.

I guess so. So to conclude, it could be congruent. It is unconfirmed.

Okay thanks, I was having an argument with my math teacher over weather or not that triangle was congruent, I did draw that in ms paint though, and those aren't right angles. His argument was that you could move the lines (with 1 dash through it) up and down so the third line wouldn't be the same, I said that if he was to do that they wouldn't cross at the same spot. Hope some of that made sense

JHawk is right. The triangles are drawn to look congruent, but they are not able to be mathematically proven congruent. The point of the question would be lost if the triangles didn't LOOK congruent, so you have to look past that and find the mathematical basis. In order to prove two triangles congruent (there are several ways), one way is to know that two sides and one angle are congruent. The trick is that the angle has to be the angle between the two known-to-be-congruent sides. In this case, we know two sides, but the angle that we know (the one in the center of the drawing) is not the angle between the two sides, so we cannot prove the triangle congruent. There is no basis either, despite the fact that the angles between the known sides LOOKS congruent, to definitively say that they are the same. One could be 90.01 degrees and the other 89.99. Visibly, no difference. So the answer is that the triangles cannot be proven congruent with the information given.

We need more threads like this one, who is with me?

Unless you printed out the triangles on paper, and measured all of the lines using a microscope, you wont find the true answer.

I get what you're saying, but that's not a math answer.  That's an observation answer.  Looking at the pictures, they look congruent.  But as you have to make certain assumptions in order to make the statements you're making.  I agree with you that the two specific triangles drawn are almost certainly congruent.  But unless you can prove that two sides and the included angle (or two angles and the included side, or three sides, or three angles) of the two triangles are congruent, you can't say that the triangle is definitively congruent from a math standpoint.

If those dashes mean equivalency in length, then they are congruent. Simple as that.

Edit: Ah, that silly right angle thing. Answer: Not enough information!