File :-(, x, )
What Has Science Done?!?! Loneliest !3GqYIJ3Obs!!fcA
Pic
>> Anonymous
wtf? >o<
>> Anonymous
Ugh... Now my head hurts. ;__;
>> Anonymous
MATH IS HARD
>> Anonymous
i don't read moonspeak
>> Anonymous
It's a CLEVER RUSE. The discrepancy is in the border lines
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I used Photoshop to get the answer. And the answer is: the angles are a bit different, so the gif is treacherous.
>> Anonymous
>>341071
You use Photoshop, I can count.
>> Anonymous
>>341071
Right, if we're talking about area. About the number of blocks... it's bizarre.
>> Anonymous
The fit isn't perfect, and it's obvious they warped the four parts with the various amounts of blur evident in the 5x13 compared to the clear 8x8. If you were to try that with perfectly small lines, you would notice discrepancies where the trapezoids and triangles meet.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Like the same thing here.
>> Anonymous
This is stupid, and old, and ridiculously bad at disproving mathematics. It's so painfully obvious that I feel disgust for humanity now.
>> Anonymous
So....what? Is this like Tetris for Math nerds?

I know what the answer is. YOU MOVED THE FUCKING SHAPES AROUND. See? I didnt even have to count.
>> Anonymous
I see what you did there...
>> Anonymous
ones the tiniest part concave, the other, convex, just enought that one square is added or lost over the longest edge
>> belladom
Here's the best way to see the problem: Notice that for the large triangle with the hole to be "real" the hypotenuse (diagonal side) of that triangle would have the same slope as the hypotenuse of the two smaller ones that share it's edge, but 2/5 does not equal 3/8 going by the ratios of the vertical side to the horizontal side.
>> Anonymous
Those that fell for this shit are stupid.
To make a retarded example, how the fuck can 64 apples suddenly turn into 65 apples without any intervention?
It's not like any of those boxes dissapear, they are only moved around.
>> Anonymous
>>341134
I don't think you understood what the video was showing.
>> Anonymous
>>341134
yes the blocks move around from an 8z8 square [64 total blocks] to a 5x13 rectangle [65 total blocks] by calculated angle divides of the square [intervention]
the mind fuck is that it works without losing any original squares [meaning the square reconstructs from the rectangle]
>> Anonymous
>>341134
>>341098
>>341071
>>341126

Enjoy becoming an hero.
>> Anonymous
heheheh
>> Anonymous
THIS

http://neurobashing.com/monkey/archives/001356.html

says it all.

(spoiler/solution: the seemingly added square results from a gap in the diagonal cuts)
>> Anonymous
>>341155
Look at this post:>>341071. It's clear. You lose the area equivalent to one block in between the shapes after they're moved. That's where the trick is. The GIF uses thick border lines in the shapes to cover this hole, leading you to believe everything is well and perfect after the operation, which is not true.
>> Anonymous
I Bump
>> Anonymous
A *real* mathematical fuckup. As far as I've seen.

a = b
a² = ab
a² - b² = ab - b²
(a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b)
a+b = b
b+b = b
2b = b
2 = 1
>> Anonymous IV
I concur.
>> Anonymous
>>341844
fails for dividing by zero
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Only an idiot could fall for this...

If you did, I think your idiocy should be punished with a visit from Pedobear (he will not show mercy even if you're older than 6).
>> Anonymous
>>341844
A *real* mathematical fuckup. Asince im not a fuck up

a = b
a² = ab
a² - b² = ab - b²
(a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b)
(a-b)(a+b = b)
you cany just divide by shit and say its not there anymore
its like saying (2+2)/4 = 2+2
>> sovietrussia !OLAi9VIw7M
i am so cool
>> Anonymous
slopes are not equal.

2/5 and 3/8 are close, but are not equal.
>> Anonymous
1=.9999999999999999999999999