|
| Jason
Triangle Dissection Paradox
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/TriangleParadox_1000.gif
The above two figures are rearrangements of each other, with the corresponding triangles and polyominoes having the same areas. Nevertheless, the bottom figure has an area one unit larger than the top figure (as indicated by the grid square containing the dot)
|
|
| Jason
I love this paradox because it reminds me to say what the fuck everyday.
|
|
| CosmicLemonade
blither, blither
???
|
|
| Frälsaren
That’s why today’s scientific religion is full of bullshit. There are so many holes in their “knowledge” and so many paradoxes. And people don’t realize it’s not about facts but about theories. It’s no different from any other religion, they can’t separate theory from fact, and they never question stuff enough. I’m not talking about the scientists, but about ordinary people who have a “scientific view on reality.” Self righteous bastards.
About the paradox itself, it’s very interesting. It carries a great message, things aren’t what they appear as, and things don’t always follow logical patterns. The universe in general isn’t very logical.
|
|
| R.V. Star
Neither of those shapes are triangles ;)
The grid fools your mind into thinking the lines are straight
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TriangleDissectionParadox.html
“The source of this apparent paradox is that the “hypotenuse” of the overall “triangle” is not a straight line, but consists of two broken segments. As a result, the “hypotenuse” of the top figure is slightly bent in, whereas the “hypotenuse” of the bottom figure is slightly bent out. The difference in the areas of these figures is then exactly the “extra” one unit. ”
But yes, nothing is as it seems. Those shapes seem like triangles, but they aren’t
|
|
| Alex
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DissectionFallacy.html
|
|
| 1.61803399
This is easily explained and If I weren’t typing on my iPod I would.
Edit Keenan did it
|
Anonymous
