64=65?

[PB_and_J]

This may be old, but it is still intresting...

 

[konerboy]

its actually quite funny

 

[Miz]

64 = 65
Of course it does sillies

 

[Wiseman_2]

Holy crap. Now that is damn interesting.

 

[SFilip]

A mere optical illusion...
That square is slightly bigger than the rectangle.

 

[Sevion]

Ewwww Math!

 

[Jessi]

yea, its just an illusion. The orange and the green overlap on the red and blue on the rectangle.

 

[U are a noob]

Have you guys tried it your selves? It works for me.

 

[SFilip]

Try what?

 

[U are a noob]

Reproducing it with paper or on a computer.

 

[Rad]

Yeah it was true last time I checked but I just measured someone elses work and all the shapes were the same size

 

[enouwee]

Have you guys tried it your selves? It works for me.

Just calculate the surfaces:
One triangle: (3 * 8 ) / 2 = 12
One other block (rectangle + triangle): (3 * 5) + ( (2 * 5) / 2 ) = 20
Take two of each: (12 + 20) * 2 = 64

Which gives the right total of 64.

 

[Nigerianrulz]

im going to check it out to see why that happened lol

btw did anyone understand the chinese writing

 

[enouwee]

im going to check it out to see why that happened

Because the parts don't fit. While one angle measures roughly 20.56°, the other one is: 21.80°. This difference is small enough to produce the illusion.

Other proof that the correct result is 64:

 

[SFilip]

> Reproducing it with paper or on a computer.
Yes, and you'll get that the square is bigger.
To be precise it's 1.54% bigger than it should be. Noticing this can be rather difficult which is why it all seems right the way it is now.

 

[SilverHawk]

I've seen this before. If you look closely enough, you'll notice that the grid is messed up along the diagonal line in the 5x13 rectangle. This causes the illusion.

In the second image, you'll notice that the second "triangle" (excluding the missing square) is actually a quadrilateral. The "hypotenuse" of the "triangle" is actually an angle that is very, very close to 180° (181.245°, to be exact), so our eyes don't notice it.

Actually, it's the same case in the first image - the angle is 1.245° larger than it should be.

 

[Darkchaoself]

Yup. That center diagonal line in the retangles dont actually touch. Theres a small oval. The size of the oval? 1. So you get the illusion of 65.

 

[DhAoS[ARRC]]

and if you notice the quadralaterals also go over the sides of the rectangle [very little but it's still there] =P idk if that disprooves it or not..but it looks like 2 itty bity triangles which would add 2 other sides thus maing it a hexagon :/ i guess..idk XD

 

[Romek]

Because the parts don't fit. While one angle measures roughly 20.56°, the other one is: 21.80°. This difference is small enough to produce the illusion.

Other proof that the correct result is 64:

Notice that the first triangle, the top seems to "dent" while on the second one it comes out. This section that sticks out is the size as one of those blocks