I cant figue this out

[Ginge]

[Phil rr]

apart from the diagonals of each triangle not being straight I'm not sure

[fifedjdomo]

whats to figure out?

they re arranged the shapes and now theres a hole in the triangle lol

[Ginge]

But simple maths says that there shouldnt be. If you break a shape into smaller shapes and re-arrange them, they will still take up exactly the same area.

 

THAT doesnt.

[fifedjdomo]

hmm yeh funny that eh

 

each shape still has the same area but moved about gives it a square less area in total... funky innit.

technically it should have the same area because the shapes are the same

[Ginge]

The only thing I can think of is its not a perfect triangle. I think the long edge is slightly curved but the grid layout makes it look straight.

 

Its an optical illusion I think

[Guest]

ginge u think to much sometimes

[Phil rr]

The only thing I can think of is its not a perfect triangle. I think the long edge is slightly curved but the grid layout makes it look straight.

 

Its an optical illusion I think

203581[/snapback]

 

 

apart from the diagonals of each triangle not being straight I'm not sure

203566[/snapback]

 

 

the top triangle has an 'down' curved diagonal

 

bottom triangle has an 'up' curved diagonal

 

case closed.

Edited October 9, 2005 by Phil rr

[tronicz]

The only thing I can think of is its not a perfect triangle. I think the long edge is slightly curved but the grid layout makes it look straight.

 

Its an optical illusion I think

203581[/snapback]

 

 

apart from the diagonals of each triangle not being straight I'm not sure

203566[/snapback]

 

 

the top triangle has an 'down' curved diagonal

 

bottom triangle has an 'up' curved diagonal

 

case closed.

203583[/snapback]

 

wrong..nothing to do with the curves

[Phil rr]

yep, it is.

 

the lower triangle has an up pointed/rounded surface which is just enough to make the inside of the triangle take up 1 square more area.

 

look at it from one side of the screen

Edited October 9, 2005 by Phil rr

[fifedjdomo]

mmm yeh i knew there was something like that, cos i was lookin at the grid before and trying to see if it was the same up the diagonal after the picture changed

[Phil rr]

mmm yeh i knew there was something like that, cos i was lookin at the grid before and trying to see if it was the same up the diagonal after the picture changed

203615[/snapback]

 

no you didn't you were completely confused. you thought it was a miracle. you were about to start worshipping ginge as the second coming. probably finding something to sacrifice as you replied

Edited October 9, 2005 by Phil rr

[fifedjdomo]

oh aye and in doing so i forgot what i was thinking and so came up with the previous reply

[Ginge]

Looking at the dark green triangle and then the red triangle, the green one is 5 squares long x 2 squares high...the red is 3 squares high (1.5 times the height of the green on) THEREFORE the length should be 1.5 times 5 which is 7.5 but the red triangle is 8 squares long which makes it a slightly different shape to the green on which also means that neither of the mixed block shapes are triangles but quadrilaterals.

 

Does that make sense?

[fifedjdomo]

Looking at the dark green triangle and then the red triangle, the green one is 5 squares long x 2 squares high...the red is 3 squares high (1.5 times the height of the green on) THEREFORE the length should be 1.5 times 5 which is 7.5 but the red triangle is 8 squares long which makes it a slightly different shape to the green on which also means that neither of the mixed block shapes are triangles but quadrilaterals.

 

Does that make sense?

203884[/snapback]

 

 

slightly

 

lets just say its cos the longest side was bent