64 = 65?

[OneBlueSky]

go figure . . . via Metafilter . . .

[mrboba1]

1. BOOM!

*sound of head exploding*

[mstrsplinter326]

2. 1 = 0

In my highschool geometry class we proved that 1 = 0

That's why I don't do math.

[LynneSin]

3. Next you're going to tell me 2+2=5

you working for the Ministry of Truth or something?

[Bill McBlueState]

4. thanks a lot...

I don't exactly have the mindset to just let something like this go! I'll be staring at it until I can figure out what's going on...

There goes my afternoon. ;)

[mrboba1]

6. that's exactly what I'm doing.

There has to be a slight of hand when those pieces move around like they do. I wish you could pause it...

[trotsky]

5. Look carefully where the red & green meet in the 2nd picture.

The squares are not even. That little discrepancy is what yields the false result.

[mrboba1]

7. ah yes - I see they aren't lining up

not even just the red & green, but all the pieces are misaligned...

[wtmusic]

8. 2/5 != 3/8

the angles aren't the same. Very clever though.

[Bill McBlueState]

10. yeah, that's it

and the final figure is really just a little less than 13 squares on the long side, and just a little less than 5 squares on the short side, so its area is still 64.

[eyesroll]

9. .99999 repeating = 1

if x = .9999...
Then 10x = 9.999....

10 x - x = 9x
(9.9999... - .9999.... = 9)

9x = 9

Therefore, x = 1.

[baldguy]

11. Different angles

In the top two triangles, the angle is about 21.8°. in the bottom figures, the angle is about, 69.4°. that totals 91.2°, therefore the bottom two figures can't be rotated 90° to join up with the top two triangles and still fit properly.

[jay-3d]

12. just took into Auto CAD

It does not work. the polygons don't fit together in the new box when doing this precisely. 64 still = 64