[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 214 KB, 500x350, 1298300633323.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2578450 No.2578450 [Reply] [Original]

hey mathfags explain this

>> No.2578453

64=65.
What is there to explain?

>> No.2578451

define "="

>> No.2578457
File: 96 KB, 229x233, 1282198218654.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2578457

I Would...

But I'm still trying to find out what the fuck is up with Schrodinger's cat.

>> No.2578461
File: 49 KB, 848x440, drevil.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2578461

>>2578451

define "define"

>> No.2578463

>>2578450
64s a variable that = 65 :D

trollface.mp3

>> No.2578466

>>2578457
It's a zombie cat.

>> No.2578467

the equals sign "=" means that they're the same thing
it may only be true if one of them is not a number but a variable
in this case we assume that 64 is the variable
so it's the same as writing
x = 65
64 just stands as a symbol for a variable and not as a number
otherwise the statement is false

>> No.2578479

>>2578466

But where's the proof? If I Don't look I'll never know,but if I DO Look I'll get sick!

>> No.2578482

>>2578457
The cat is a wizard.

>> No.2578483

pic related.

this is not a cropping error by me, it's an almost un-noticeable optical illusion made by the transformation of the shapes.

the gap in the shapes makes up for the missing square

>> No.2578487
File: 106 KB, 995x855, derp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2578487

>>2578483

forgot my pic

If you don't believe me, take the pic of the original square and make it look like the alleged 5x13 shape and you'll see it dosen't match up.

>> No.2578488

The equation is false, or one of the terms is a variable.

>> No.2578500

>>2578487
>5x2 triangle
>7x3 triangle

Well duh.

>> No.2578507

>>2578500

..what?

>> No.2578511

>>2578483
>>2578487

This would look a lot better if you showed the illusion before ruining it.

>> No.2578520

>>2578511

How else can i show the illusion except for showing the obvious white gap visible?

that weird gap in the middle? that IS the illusion.

Don't beleive me? try it yourself and you'll end up with a weird gap.

>> No.2578542

>>2578520

Didn't even notice that the OP's picture was animated, but that's what I mean. DISREGARD.

>> No.2578602

>>2578507
The slopes of those triangles don't match up, and the only reason it looks like it all fits together is because whoever made that thingy used thick lines to fill in the empty gap in the middle.

>> No.2578642

Well, this is stupid.

Two shapes can have identical areas, but have different dimensions.

>> No.2578712

? = -1

>> No.2578736

>>2578450
I've seen this before. Every single time, it's caused by dividing by zero somewhere in the equation.
If you assume that you can divide by zero, you can prove literally ANYTHING true.