My mind is blown

musicnap · 2 months

listentobillyzane · 2 months

Images not drawn to scale

Donpablo · 2 months

Notice the top right corner looks goofy in the 5 x 13. These things never hold true because the angles are close enough to initially fool you but don't actually work out.

swampxiix · 2 months

This (my) blog post from 2004 shows the math involved in solving (disproving) the optical illusion.

http://xiix.wordpress.com/2004/08/18/does-64-65/

akrano · 2 months

This is fake, there is a overlap. Use some paper and try.

gwennypoo22 · 2 months

This assaults my mathematical sensibilities and so I'm compelled to prove it wrong. Bear with me here.

First, we start with the 8x8 square: Imgur

Next, we color in the sections marked in the gif: Imgur

Next we begin to assemble the rectangle and everything seems to be going well: Imgur

But wait! Our poor red triangle doesn't seem to be fitting in quite right (notice the overlap with the orange and green sections): Imgur

So then we reposition our rectangle, remembering that in order for the area to be calculated using Area=base x height the sides must be perpendicular and parallel. However, when this happens, we see that the shapes don't actually line up the way they do in the gif (outlined in purple): Imgur

So now we know that the creator of the gif, through clever use of trickery and deceit is really just a troll.

emdx · 2 months

If you look closely, the "missing" square is swished between the two built-up triangles:

http://emdx.org/photos/reddit/waaa.png

autocad sourcefile so you can see for yourself: http://emdx.org/photos/reddit/waaa.dwg

DrShagner · 2 months

Yup bs. The cuts that make the triangles don't have equal angles with respect to the parallel edges. Its just an illusion

ArtemisMaximus · 2 months

the slopes of one of the triangles is different, and slightly overlaps/ underlaps (is that even a word?) a different triangle, giving the illusion of 65 squares.

ouTPhaze · 2 months

Nope. There's ~ 1 square worth of empty space due to the diagonal lines. The thickness of the lines covers this up.

Lillipout · 2 months

The last time this was posted, I learned a wonderful new phrase: Fibonacci Bamboozlement!

jiboner · 2 months

not WTF

meatpit · 2 months

for some reason gifs arent working on my res lately, so all I saw was "64=65?" and I was all "WHOA my mind is blown!"

johnnydethkill · 2 months

This is basic mathematics isn't it? It's similar to if someone gave you a piece of 10' string, and told you to make a square perimeter for yourself. If you made a perimeter 1' wide, and 4' long, you would have 4 square feet. You could take the same length of rope, and make it 2'x3'. This would give you 6 square feet.

khrusos · 2 months

Usually the difference between angles is covered with a bold line, as seen in figure 2. This is a popular "trick" with one of my math professors.

teslas_notepad · 2 months

Animation isn't accounting for the thickness of the lines it draws.

Tyronius · 2 months

The top triangle goes up three and right eight units, and the other triangle goes right two and down five units. When they are put together, they should make an angle because of the different gradients.

polobeer · 2 months

hell yeah a fellow UNC-G student!

Tonytarium · 2 months

spleck · 2 months

Wow, 2/5 = 3/8 now!

SilentStriker15 · 2 months

So really, 2+2 does equal fish?

wowzerss · 2 months

You really can't cut numbers up and tape them back together. This has the same nature as folding origami, you can fold the paper all you want into any shape but it's still paper.

alecnunez93 · 2 months

one does not simply creates matter

jockc · 2 months

The explanation is that you are fooled visually into believing that the blue quadrilateral fits together with the red triangle (or the orange quad and green triangle) to form a larger 5x13 right triangle. It doesn't.

The slope of the 8x3 triangles' hypotenuse is 3/8; but the slope of the quadrilaterals' diagonal part is 2/5; So if you put these shapes together you aren't getting a triangle, just a shape that looks close but is actually a quadrilateral.

In the final assembled shape there is a small space between the two reassembled quadrilaterals which adds up to a 1x1 block.

HandymanFerric · 2 months

In this example, the slopes of the realigned edges do not actually match up 2x5 v 3x8... there is a gap that you are asked to ignore.

crazy_j · 2 months

I think the fact that it's in Chinese really helps my understanding.

prophet001 · 2 months

2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2.

TalonX1982 · 2 months

Me right now

watafaklol · 2 months

I had to downvote this shit. You must be incredibly stupid to fall for that..

Servuslol · 2 months

The actual trick is that you assume all the lines are straight.

i_m_fury · 2 months

The first line drawn is not perfectly straight. It has a very slight arch which can be seen by lining up a ruler or opening the frame in photoshop.

Balclutha · 2 months

The diagonal lines are not parallel to eachother, just very close. The slope of the red and green triangles is 3/8(.375). The slop of the blue and orange portions is 2/5 (.4). .375 and .4 are close enough that they look to line up, but they don't.

Rebel_for_Life · 2 months

You are mind-blowingly stupid

gx61 · 2 months

I don't come on reddit for math shit. Show me broken hands in accidents and gross things!

whitesterredditor · 2 months

they did it on QI. the slope of each triangle is bent to appear like a straight line. it's a disproportionate triangle.

Slayers_Dream · 2 months

theres a gap

systmh · 2 months

Don't fall for this silliness, there's trickery in that diagonal slice. Euclidian space is not broken.

xordon · 2 months

The top section is cut 8x3 the bottom cut is 2x5, these are not the same ratios. The cuts do not match up once you rearrange them despite the gif making it seem as if they do.

One has a slope of 2.6667 the other has a slope of 2.5.

vTaLeNTz · 2 months

It's because they have different angles

DunceMSTRFLX · 2 months

THIS RUINED MY DAY

eydryan · 2 months

It's not the same shape, just look at the squares where the diagonals meet, they seem square but they're not.

captjet23 · 2 months

This isn't really that mind blowing, as most of the comments here suggest. My old math teacher used to tell us a story about growing up in his country as a child (all of his stories to teach us math were about him growing up in the middle east). He told us about how the village elder once split 17 camels among 3 people evenly. I forgot how he did it, but its really interesting.

bmoreoriginal · 2 months

Yeah, it's just an optical illusion. No matter how precise you think you are cutting and rearranging the triangles it will never be exact, therefore, adding small amounts of area creating the illusion that there are additional grid squares. You can't fake math.

David_Robot · 2 months

This is officially the worst gif I have ever seen...

PTCruisin · 2 months

Mind blown and I think I poo'd a little.

redn2000 · 2 months

Ugh, just when i though math wouldn't betray me any further.

Simi566 · 2 months

8+8=16 5+13=18

How does 5x13 and 8x8 supposed to make the same answer?? I'm sorry for my stupidness but I don't understand how this is supposed to work

jordy22 · 2 months

they don't fit perfectly when reshuffled. There's some empty area with the same surface size of a square.

[deleted] · 2 months

forgot to carry the one, is all.

Ranga92 · 2 months

WITCH CRAFT... THE WORLD MUST KNOW!!!

catbeef · 2 months

Again? Come on, people, do the math.

eatsa_pizza · 2 months

http://imgur.com/3Amrf

roflwaffle666 · 2 months

What the fuck.

noshoesnoshirt · 2 months

I foresee a communications degree in your future.

THEREFOREiEXIST · 2 months

A 4x4 square has area 16 and perimeter 16.

A 5x3 rectangle has area 15 and perimeter 16.

Conclusion Just because perimeters are equivalent doesn't mean their areas must be equivalent.

Jolu- · 2 months

oh really? this is fake? mh. i thought 64 equals 65.

revoman · 2 months

This always requires dividing by 0. Check the math somewhere...

d-dubbs · 2 months

This is a famous triangle illusion... I think Fibonacci may have come up with it. No, math is not exploding at the seems. There's a gap along the diagonal in the so called "65 units squared" rectangle which accounts for the area of one extra sqaure.

zboub64 · 2 months

Its not working like that. Mind => not blown

TheFruitDetective · 2 months

I..... I just don't know anymore

ODrCntrJsusWatHavIdn · 2 months

Unfortunately this is mot how the world works.

eegs · 2 months

This is the dumbest thing ever...the angles of those triangles are slightly larger allowing the total area to be 65. You can even see that the lines aren't overlapped correctly! haha

iah5016 · 2 months

repost

SneekySnooper · 2 months

Pythagoras Theorem

coldgluegun · 2 months

What type of sorcery is this? This may have just broke my hypotenuse.

Allthewaybluesy91 · 2 months

When you cut across the units, you are making hypotenuses, which if, you have taken any form of basic geometry, you know that that is the longest side of a triangle. Although not every square is cut into a perfect triangle, the diagonal cuts make a longer side which in turn is used to make the sides of the new rectangle. So it's basically just a visual troll.

cale69er · 2 months

This blows my mind:

Three men and a hotel. Three men checked into a hotel and decided to share a single room. The hotel manager gave them a total price of $30. The men split the cost evenly by paying $10 each. However, the manager realized that it was a Monday night, which meant the hotel had a special rate: rooms were only $25. He had overcharged the three men $5. He immediately called the bellboy, gave him the $5 and told him to return it to the men. When the bellboy took the $5 back, the men were so pleased at the bellboy’s honesty that they tipped the bellboy $2 of the $5 he returned and each kept $1 for himself. So, initially, there were $30. The men paid a total of $27. The bellboy got $2. It adds up to $29. Where did the extra $1 go?

Nolff · 2 months

That shit is in Korean or something like that. Speak American, dumbass.

fleamiller · 2 months

Actually this is impossible to do. you can try with a piece of paper ....

WTF

MODERATORS

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login