Printable View
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/trigrid.gif
It's.. just impossible!! Another mystery of math
*edit* There is no trick here, it's real. If you are useing Opera.. drag and drop the top image to the bottom one and u will see that they are 100% the same size in all shapes.
they clearly take up different amounts of space.
compare the blocks.
Your absolutely right. :blink: :ph34r:Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfmight@6 August 2003 - 18:48
If you are useing Opera.. drag and drop the top image to the bottom one and u will see that they are 100% the same size in all shapes.
Stop using your mumbo-jumbo, talk English!
The apparent size of the complete images is 13 * 5 / 2 = 32.5 squares
But if you add up the apparent sizes of the individual parts you get
8 + 7 + (3 * 8 / 2) + (2 * 5 / 2) = 32 squares.
A variation of the size of the individual parts of about 1% along each axis is all that is needed to give this false picture, but on the scale shown this is undetectable.
Essentially it's the thickness of the lines (perimeters) that accounts for the variance that lynx pointed out.... very deceptive. <_<
And anyway, this is far too serious for the lounge, please take it outside.
Or at least to the Gauntlet. ;)
Thank goodness it does not affect pythagorus's principleQuote:
Originally posted by Wolfmight@7 August 2003 - 04:48
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/trigrid.gif
It's.. just impossible!! Another mystery of math
*edit* There is no trick here, it's real. If you are useing Opera.. drag and drop the top image to the bottom one and u will see that they are 100% the same size in all shapes.
He's dead.... who cares! :PQuote:
Originally posted by nigel123@6 August 2003 - 22:25
Thank goodness it does not affect pythagorus's principle
You are correct.Quote:
Originally posted by lynx@6 August 2003 - 23:11
The apparent size of the complete images is 13 * 5 / 2 = 32.5 squares
But if you add up the apparent sizes of the individual parts you get
8 + 7 + (3 * 8 / 2) + (2 * 5 / 2) = 32 squares.
A variation of the size of the individual parts of about 1% along each axis is all that is needed to give this false picture, but on the scale shown this is undetectable.
Use that paint program and snap a straight line from the top right corner of the actual triangle to the bottom left cornerof the actual triangle.
You'll see that the line is bowed differently in both pictures. Enough to make that 1/2 a box off.
I want to buy a time machine and bring Newton and Leibniz(sp?) to the present year and show them that picture, and see how long it takes them to get it :)
The gradients of the two triangles is not the same, the green one (2:5) is steeper than the red one (3:8), therefore the complete image is not in fact a triangle, but a quadrilateral.
The first one has a dip in it equivalent to about half a square, from plane.
The second one has a lump in it of the same size.
Therefore, summed together, that adds up to a square, which is where the extra square comes from in the second image.
how is this a major hole in science??
:blink:
it's just another in a long line of puzzles
what is more amazing is a bose-einstein condensate as i said in another post earlier
Dip? lumps and bumps?
That's a bit too scientific fer me. Got screen shots for dummys?
You would have thought that they wouild have reported the death of Pythagoras
in todays papers!
OH! Sorry that as Pythagorus :D
http://members.roadfly.com/tite-wad/trigrid2.gifQuote:
Originally posted by balamm@7 August 2003 - 04:27
Got screen shots for dummys?
Ah! tricky bastards :angry:
http://members.roadfly.com/tite-wad/trigrid2.gif[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by titey+7 August 2003 - 11:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 7 August 2003 - 11:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-balamm@7 August 2003 - 04:27
Got screen shots for dummys?
Ah.....! Talking of holes! I heard that a hole had appeared at Piccadilly Circus today......the police, are looking into it.....
Several holes have appeared at Dunkin Donuts.... the police are sinking their teeth into that matter as well. :rolleyes:
get the amount per partion.. they will all the be the same.. it's so strange.Quote:
Originally posted by lynx@6 August 2003 - 21:11
The apparent size of the complete images is 13 * 5 / 2 = 32.5 squares
But if you add up the apparent sizes of the individual parts you get
8 + 7 + (3 * 8 / 2) + (2 * 5 / 2) = 32 squares.
A variation of the size of the individual parts of about 1% along each axis is all that is needed to give this false picture, but on the scale shown this is undetectable.
get the amount per partion.. they will all the be the same.. it's so strange. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfmight+7 August 2003 - 14:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wolfmight @ 7 August 2003 - 14:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@6 August 2003 - 21:11
The apparent size of the complete images is 13 * 5 / 2 = 32.5 squares
But if you add up the apparent sizes of the individual parts you get
8 + 7 + (3 * 8 / 2) + (2 * 5 / 2) = 32 squares.
A variation of the size of the individual parts of about 1% along each axis is all that is needed to give this false picture, but on the scale shown this is undetectable.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc15.jpg
theres a hole inbetween my ass cheeks thru which shit passes.