You all seem like clever people.

So can someone please, please, explain what is happening here.

Relieve me of this torture.

---

Qunpu' lo'taHmo' jIH yItamQo'

Graeme, I want to say that I am the first of many. But I can't solve your puzzle.

---

Account frozen...

LOL. Neither can I.

Graeme, I want to say that I am the first of many.

Souls that is.

The puzzle though has been posted before. I just don't remember how it goes.

---

Account frozen...

Ah!!! See here

---

Account frozen...

Its an optical illusion!

Assume each square is one inch

area of top figure = (5 x 13)/2 = 32 1/2 sq"

Areas of bottom bits

Red (8 x 3)/2 = 12
Green = 8
Yellow = 7
Blue= (5 x 2)/2 = 5

added up = 32

Doh, too slow. I was just writing this same thing down on a scracth pad here.

Thankyou all.

Now I can stop thinking about it.

I knew someone here would know the answer, or at least be able to find it.

Much appreciated. (You clever people, you).

---

Qunpu' lo'taHmo' jIH yItamQo'

LOL. Neither can I.

The solution is easy! Count the squares on the bottom row of the green traingle, then count the squares on the bottom row of the red traingle. Since the red one uses more squares, when you put it up top the bottom figures must slide over to come out even, leaving a hole.

---

Technically the real answer is that the figure is an optical illusion because the hypotenuse of either figure is not a straight line.
The acute angle of the blue one is Tan 2/5 = 0.4
The acute angle of the red one is Tan 3/8 = 0.375

Isn't that what I said, one uses more blocks on it's base than the other one? Yes Chris you are "technically" correct! Yes Chris you figured it out using higher math. But that takes all the fun out of it, just count the blocks. Yes Chris there are some problems that cannot be figured out without using higher math!

---

OK, I'm back onto this.

I need consenus.

OK, I'm back onto this.
I need consenus.

If you want the technical answer, use Chris's explanation. If you want to show them, use mine.

---

Another version...

Another version...

nice, clever, strange

[quote]Another version...

nice, clever, strange

It's basically similar to the previous one in that it's an optical illusion.

Red triangle - acute angle = tan 3/8 = 0.375

Orange triangle - acute angle = tan 2/5 = 0.400

Therefore hypotenuses can't be in a straight line!

QED

Not for this one. What orange triangle? The 2 triangles are identical, so explain your different tan on each???

That makes my brain hurt.

That makes my brain hurt.

Your next question?

---

Account frozen...

I'm not sure why people are still asking about this, since it's been explained..

Anyway, look at the original image in the first place:


In the bottom "triangle" (neither shape is a triangle because the red and dark green triangles are not similar), look at the dark green triangle; it is five units wide. Go up two units and you see the top of the triangle sticks up a tiny bit over two units. Now look at the top "triangle"; count five units along the red triangle, then count two units up. The triangle is slightly under two units high at that point. So by carefully looking at the two shapes with the grid as background, you can see that they are not even the same shape.

Maybe this will help:



It was an illusion... This is reality... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Maybe this will help:



It was an illusion... This is reality... ;)

No, all the pieces are exactly the same. The slope of the two triangles is different. The red triangle is 8 x 3, and the teal triangle is 5 x 2. 8/3 is 2 2/3, and 5.2 is 2 1/2. The lines formed by the triangles is not straight. It is concave in the one without the missing square, and convex in the one with the missing square.

---

BOINC WIKI

If you put your head close to the screen and look along the hypotenuse, you can see that there is a kink in it where the red and dark green triangles meet. The kink is in different directions for each composite shape.