/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4767362]

some mathfag explain to me why this is wrong

I think it has something to do with the slopes being presented as equal when in reality they're not, so the second figure isn't a true rectangle even though it appears like one

forgive teh moonspeak

[Anonymous No.4767426]

Sure, gimme a sec to type it out.

[Anonymous No.4767438]

Let's suposse 64=65

=> 64-64 = 65-64
=> 0 = 1

Which is a contradiction of one of the first axioms in real numbers.

[Anonymous No.4767440]

fig.1 is exactly what you think it is, and 8x8 grid with perfectly fitting pieces.

fig.2 is an illusion.
The ratio of the green triangle's base:height is not the same as the triangular part of the orange piece.
In brief, the top of the orange piece has an angular ratio of 2:5, where-as the green triangle is 3:8.
This is identical to the red and blue shapes.
Basically there is a slit in the diagonal line of fig.2.
This slit, although thin, spans the entire shape and is the equivalent to 1cm^2.

[Anonymous No.4767446]

I feel like I missed something..

[Anonymous No.4767452]

>>4767440
So in essence, the 65 = 64+1empty space.