Mind fucked. .. They don't line up properly, the gaps created by them equal 1cm squared, which then drops it back down to 64cm squared. Maths, bitch
Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Mind fucked

+2371
Views: 91039
Favorited: 949
Submitted: 10/28/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to moc Subscribe to fucking-science E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(317):

[ 317 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #58 - zakaizer (10/28/2012) [+] (4 replies)
They don't line up properly, the gaps created by them equal 1cm squared, which then drops it back down to 64cm squared. Maths, bitch
#9 - fcrocker (10/28/2012) [+] (3 replies)
Okay ************* ...
Lets call the smallest angle in the green triangle A:
Before rearranging Tan A = 3/8
Making A 20.566 Degrees
After rearranging Tan A = 5/13
Making A 21.038 Degrees
Therefore we can see that there are minor changes to the angles, creating the extra square.

#78 - whoovesthedoctor (10/29/2012) [+] (1 reply)
same thing goes for the red and orange pieces.
#39 - telamatoes ONLINE (10/28/2012) [+] (1 reply)
That isn't how math works.
#263 - euphamatical (10/29/2012) [+] (7 replies)
I HAD to find at least one flaw... Dem MS Paint skills!
#272 - katanauser (10/29/2012) [+] (1 reply)
Comment Picture
#168 - anonymous (10/29/2012) [+] (5 replies)
The slopes do not match up. They look like they do to the human eye, but there is really a small sliver of empty space running across the´╗┐ rectangle diagonally.
#130 - EjaculationMan (10/29/2012) [+] (3 replies)
<< same trick, its just optical illusion.
#116 - tomtomvdp ONLINE (10/29/2012) [-]
#91 - Fagdust (10/29/2012) [-]
You think that's math? That's not math. Its LIES.
You think that's math? That's not math. Its LIES.
User avatar #24 - srskate (10/28/2012) [-]
Seen it before. It's due to slight mismatches in the slope that most people don't notice.

The more interesting thing is that it only works with numbers of the Fibonacci sequence.
#213 - thisuseris (10/29/2012) [+] (4 replies)
the middle lines don't line up; a very thin strip of space is left in the middle that makes up the final square   
   
&lt;----alternate version of it
the middle lines don't line up; a very thin strip of space is left in the middle that makes up the final square

<----alternate version of it
#134 - icefall (10/29/2012) [+] (3 replies)
Typical math fallacy question.

It's simple, red and green have slopes of 3/8 while blue and orange have a slope 2/5.
Thus the lines are not exactly straight. there is a small gap in between the blue and the green piece, and the red and the orange piece. That gap creates the extra 1 area.
User avatar #16 - justbeinabrony (10/28/2012) [+] (7 replies)
the only reason this "works" is because it looks like it works... in fact, the slopes of the two hypotenuses of each right triangle are just slightly different. in the actual triangle and the triangle in the polygon, it can be found by finding the hypotenuse length (8^2 + 3^2 = 8.54) and (5^2 + 2^2 = 5.39), then you find the angles where they all meet and find that out by using sin^-1 cos^-1 or tan^-1, to see that their angles are really 68.2 degrees and 69.5 degrees, a very slight difference, so it is not blatently obvious and does not really mean anything

tl;dr, angles that are touching are really 68.2 and 69.5 and aren't the same so the above doesn't work
#19 to #16 - micota (10/28/2012) [-]
Stupid people are always trying to pull this kind of crap and it just doesn't work if you actually pay attention...
#114 - zedacedia (10/29/2012) [+] (6 replies)
After staring at for five minutes, i realized that problem was coming from the difference in slopes between the two types of shapes. the ones on the top have diagonal slopes 3/8(or 8/3, depending on what direction their in), while the bottom ones have a diagonal slope of 5/3(3/5). This means the diagonal don't actually line up properly, meaning the second shape wouldn't be a true rectangle.

to prove this, take the 4 seperate shapes and find their area, then add them together. 1&2 both have areas of (8*3)/2, which is 12 each. pieces 3&4 are a bit tougher, because their rectangles and triangle put together, but you can calculate them as (3*5)+[(2*5)/2], which comes out to 20 each. put it all together (12+12+20+20), and you get 64. This is obvious proof that the "15x5" rectangle or it's pieces have been distorted or misplaced in some fashion.

That was pretty fun.
User avatar #192 - akkere (10/29/2012) [+] (3 replies)
Didn't the Mythbusters do this one?

If you were to enlarge the scale of this to something much more... colossal, you'd notice that the slopes don't match up.

At a glance, no matter how long, it seems to match, but that's because the scale is 8x8 and the margin is just a singular unit spread out to the point it's impossible to notice.
#103 - cruppgrounder (10/29/2012) [+] (2 replies)
Quick explanation of the basic principle (used in a different problem) in gif form if anyones interested
Quick explanation of the basic principle (used in a different problem) in gif form if anyones interested
#35 - shazain (10/28/2012) [-]
i dont understand ching chong hop off ma **** . 64 is 64 ***** .
#55 - potential (10/28/2012) [-]
What happens is there is a small space in between each piece. Enough so that it creates another square.
[ 317 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)