| By: ok - July 03rd 2009 | |
| The area of the big triangle is 32,5 but when you measure the parts with your eyes it seems there should have been a half hole in the 1st one too. So it is because of the slight truncating problems :P |
| By: Monica - April 07th 2009 | |
| In the 2nd triangle, the top part of the green section is longer than the bottom part of the pink section thus creating a space. |
| By: Samantha_ - August 31st 2008 | |
same spot as.. the top triangle.
there is a hole, 5 going across and 3 underneath. It works. there will be a hole if you move that group. |
| By: Samantha_ - August 31st 2008 | |
OMG this is actually pretty easy.
its not the size of the triangle thats diff.
you move the top blue to the corner, it fits. take the turquise group and move it to the excat same spot as... |
| By: ? - August 13th 2008 | |
| Erm...yeah.. welll.......i aint that gud in maths..but i like my math teachers bum (its hot)i get horny when i look at it....... |
| By: Trixter - July 25th 2008 | |
| This is not an illusion its a simple geometry problem. its not even really a puzzle as its just logic. |
| By: J_wood - July 08th 2008 | |
| The 2nd triangle is infinitely slightly bigger than the first, so in time, there is enough to make an extra square. In 3 weeks, the infinitely slightly larger triangle will have two holes in it |
| By: tamanna - July 07th 2008 | |
| it is impossible to find it out theres a trick in this so were |
| By: testmachine - June 17th 2008 | |
| 4 and 4 as well |
| By: terry - May 06th 2008 | |
| The two triangles are not simalar. look at the ratio of sides:small triangle, 2/5. large triangle 3/8. although very close, this isnt the same value. to the eye the slopes look the same |
| By: Sarah - May 04th 2008 | |
| the hole is there because the second shape is bigger than the first shape but all the pieces are the same! |
| By: james (countinued) - April 29th 2008 | |
| then i arranged them like the triangle with the space and i was right! just because u can use 4 shapes to make a figure does NOT mean u can use the same 4 to make the same trangle but using less space |
| By: james (countinued) - April 29th 2008 | |
| okay, so i printed this puzzel out, cut out one the triangles, then the 4 shapes within. after that, i took the 4 pieces ( from the upper triagle) and aranged them like it was above. then i.. (c next) |
| By: fart tart - April 29th 2008 | |
| i like pie |
| By: james - April 29th 2008 | |
| just because 4 shapes can be used to make a triangle one way, doesnt mean that the same 4 pieces can be put in the same triangle a differnt way, and use less space. |
| By: Moni - April 27th 2008 | |
| Omg its just an opptical illusion doesn't mean you have to literally work it out, its meant for entertainment and trivking your mind. |
| By: osaga - April 15th 2008 | |
| get real people. it's socery and nothing else. the devil is a math teacher. |
| By: rafael(continu ed) - March 02nd 2008 | |
| This proves that the "squares" actually are not squares. (8x3)/2 + 7 + (5x2)/2 + 8 = 32 |
| By: rafael(continu ed) - March 02nd 2008 | |
| On the other hand if u count the area of the triangle by taking each small part of the triangle and counting its area and in the end you add it up u only find 32 instead of 32.5 . |
| By: rafael - March 02nd 2008 | |
| The small equilaterals that the triangles are drawn on are not squares, they have 1cm width and 1.1cm height. Take in ur consideration they are squares, count the area of the triangle, (13x5)/2=32.5 |
| By: Woooo - January 16th 2008 | |
Ok here is the solution from Wiki:
****en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Missing_square_pu zzle |
| By: ·elitemµsician · - January 04th 2008 | |
| Ok now that colored shape is actually a quadrilateral. Which leaves a very obtuse triangle with an area that equals one square on the grid. The thick border covers up that obtuse triangle. |
| By: ·elitemµsician · - January 04th 2008 | |
| Think of the colored shapes all together as one shape. Then a border around that shape as a triangle. |
| By: Heloise - December 19th 2007 | |
| I don't get it... and I will not spend my time caring for too long... to all those who have it figured out... well done! :) to those who have nothing better to do than **** then get a life. |
| By: Shuey - December 08th 2007 | |
| the 2 short sides on the big triangle are 5 and 13. What you are seeing is the fact that you think the inside triangles are 2:5 or 3:8. After transformation, the purple triangle is actually shorter |
| By: bob (continued again) - November 15th 2007 | |
So in actuality, in the top picture, there are 18 purple squares, but only 17 on the bottom. This accounts for the blank space in the bottom picture. Try and prove me wrong!
|
| By: bob (continued) - November 15th 2007 | |
| The trick is that the thick border around the top triangle conceals the 41st block (located above the third vertically stacked purple triangle farthest on the right). |
| By: bob - November 15th 2007 | |
| Both triangles are exactly the same. Both of their hypotenuses are exactly the same length, and both are straight lines. Both triangles consist of 41 blocks (this includes partials) |
| By: Auzzie land!! - October 20th 2007 | |
| OMG! look at all the people below, they obviously have: a. no life or b. are just complete nerds! I, on the other hand, am quiet dazzeling, what about yourself??? p.s: auzzies rule! |
| By: Jamie S. - October 08th 2007 | |
| Neither have the same area. The triangular 'pieces' don't have the same ratio. |
| By: Jamie S. - October 08th 2007 | |
| It's as simple as how the pieces are arranged. The pieces can be fit to make the same shape but one will have a hole where the other is solid. |
| By: Oh my... - September 08th 2007 | |
| Of course the angles are off. This is really basic; does 2/5 = 3/8 to anyone here? The simple answer is that this shape is a quadrilateral. |
| By: osh - September 04th 2007 | |
| Got it. Do some trig on the two triangles. The angles are just slightly off. Enough to make up the 1/2 square difference. |
| By: Osh - August 29th 2007 | |
| Gimme a real answer. Both full size shapes are the same size, 5x13, hypotenuse is 13.928. Area is the same. Hypotenuse has the same slope! All the pieces parts have the same areas, where did the p |
| By: Mo - August 21st 2007 | |
| continued: And also as many have already observed, the 1st triangle has a slightly larger slope (8/3 > 5/2), which makes it bigger. |
| By: Mo - August 21st 2007 | |
| It's because the 2nd triangle is smaller (the hypos ARE straight). How? The squares are not of same sizes. Also pay attention to the thick border line and the way it affects the size of the shapes. |
| By: Yup craig is right - July 25th 2007 | |
| yup the hypotenuse is notstraight. Hypotenuse is the longest part of the triangle. you could use a ruler to see. they're both slanted at a slightly different angle. or blur your eyes |
| By: Obscur - April 22nd 2007 | |
| please people... the blue and red triangles have different slopes, that's the answer. 2/5 does not equal 3/8 |
| By: Joe Mama - April 21st 2007 | |
| So in other words, Pi R Squared (3.14), not round, right? But I always though pies are round. |
| By: ichokepeople - April 21st 2007 | |
| w ell. the blue and red triangle were switched then the green was moved down once and to the left 2 times creating a hole. no headache. that was like the first thing i notice about it. good try tho. |
| By: Lame is an idiot - April 19th 2007 | |
| Both triangle have the same area including the hole. That's why it is so weird. |
| By: Lame - April 18th 2007 | |
Yes there is a hole. Why shouldn't there be???
You arrange the triangles in a completlt different matter, of course it's gonna be different... just stupid.
|
| By: ur mamma - April 13th 2007 | |
| took me a minute... but i got it! |
| By: solved - April 11th 2007 | |
| can easily be switched around. (continuation of last post) |
| By: solved - April 11th 2007 | |
| the top 2/3 of the purple triangle is the same size as the blue triangle. now when you move the green shape down and over, the 3 squares on the top dont fit into the brown shape, but the triangles |
| By: RayKay - April 11th 2007 | |
| Don - they're the same triangle, slopes aren't different, it's just piece placing and how they fit one way but not the other. |
| By: Craig - December 26th 2006 | |
| Niether shape is a triangle because although it looks it, the hypotenuse is not straight. |
| By: fuzzy logik - December 10th 2006 | |
| The hypotenuse of the 2nd triangle is not straight. Hold a piece of paper to it & see. They're fudging in a little extra space. |
| By: Henry - December 06th 2006 | |
| I do not possibly see how this will work it is ridiculous and if you ask me it's just playing with your minds and you lot are fools to believe this |
| By: - December 06th 2006 | |
| indeed goood =) |
| By: debby - December 06th 2006 | |
| I GOT IT I GOT IT |
| By: Johnson - December 03rd 2006 | |
I agree with Nick:
By: Nick - September 17th 2006
Both pics are not actually triangles. Look at the triangles that make up the hypotinuse. One has a slope of 3/8 one is 2/5, thus the hyp. of the |
| By: - December 01st 2006 | |
| LEss purple covered sqaures on second |
| By: ... - November 26th 2006 | |
| the purp triangle take less space duh? |
| By: zachmonky - November 25th 2006 | |
| the bold black line that surrounds the entire triangle thingie, is taken away. when the line is mushed altogether it makes a square. no line means an extra square. they just drew the line back |
| By: sarah - November 14th 2006 | |
| its easy coz the way they are rearanged becoz the blur fills up less space were it is now.... very good |
| By: emo - November 14th 2006 | |
| NO all of u r stupid!!! even a year seven gal can figure this out! HA HA HA |
| By: Sami - November 13th 2006 | |
| its hard to figure it out but omni choatic is right ... you see your a genius compared to nick and dk dk dk saying there are 7 brown or something like this... anyway omni chaotic is smart no doubt. |
| By: freezeman68 - November 11th 2006 | |
| th e black line didnt move at all. and i found that it has an irregular slope. i think |
| By: - November 11th 2006 | |
| The Black line is moved a little bit allowing for more space. |
| By: Ashley - November 06th 2006 | |
| Not sure. |
| By: gem\'ashaki - November 02nd 2006 | |
| th ey're both different.. |
| By: mamu - November 01st 2006 | |
it is very simple concept
even an idiot can understand it. |
| By: J0el! - October 27th 2006 | |
| You dont need to think about it! The seperate shapes are simply just in another place so it theres nothing to explain beacuse theyre both different.. this theory can be applied to many shapes |
| By: Sexy_gurl101 - October 27th 2006 | |
| I agree with "OmniChaotic" where they say "" If you took a protracter and measured......."1 extra square""This is true...i asked my geometry teacher and she agreed with the statement!!Peace-out |
| By: blonde **** - October 26th 2006 | |
| i cant see it |
| By: Omnichaotic - October 22nd 2006 | |
| on e square of space :) |
| By: OmniChaotic - October 22nd 2006 | |
| If you took a protracter and measured you realise that moving the Color triangles to new locations decreases the area they take up. Thus not visibly but enough small chunks are given to allow for |
| By: OmniChaotic - October 22nd 2006 | |
| Ni ck and dkdkdk are both wrong ... First off Both Triangles are exactly equal in size AND! the same amount of blocks are filled in with each color! this is where the illusion tricks you :) |
| By: sami - October 21st 2006 | |
| its a hard one you know but i think i know |
| By: NATE_JUNIA - September 19th 2006 | |
All 'yall r retarded!!! It's just an illusion!!!!!!! It's not suppost to fit!
|
| By: Nick - September 18th 2006 | |
| Both pics are not actually triangles. Look at the triangles that make up the hypotinuse. One has a slope of 3/8 one is 2/5, thus the hyp. of the triangle isnt a straight line and the tri isnt a tri. |
| By: Nick - September 18th 2006 | |
| Both pics are not actually triangles. Look at the triangles that make up the hypotinuse. One has a slope of 3/8 one is 2/5, thus the hyp. of the triangle isnt a straight line and the tri isnt a tri. |
| By: Theresa - September 02nd 2006 | |
Simpol !!
1+1=2 da |
| By: wazuupster - September 01st 2006 | |
... e but this means that there is one square spread between 14 so the extra bit is only 1/14 of a square so unseeable with the naked eye
|
| By: wazuupster - September 01st 2006 | |
| its outa line, along the long edge the shape is very slightly larger but not by much atall howether when drawn on a cad program the edges at 90 degrees to oneanother are longer than they were befor... |
| By: the cool kids - August 26th 2006 | |
| its the way its all been mixed around if the purple was in the same place there wudnt be a gap |
| By: Blakie - August 24th 2006 | |
this was stupid as hell 4real
|
| By: Kiwi - August 20th 2006 | |
| It's the way it has been put hA |
| By: Santegoeds - August 17th 2006 | |
| But now i see that is what johnny was trying to say. And the green piece looks cut off indeed Johnny! Greetings from Holland! |
| By: Santegoeds - August 17th 2006 | |
The triangle is 13 long and 5 high. So the formula is: Y= 5/13 X. At point 8 they 'say' its 3 high. Fill in 8 for X. Y = 5/13 * 8 = 3,07
Explanotion: It's a stupid illusion! Greetings from Hollan |
| By: pinky - August 17th 2006 | |
| what eva |
| By: Johnny - August 16th 2006 | |
| And anyone who measured angles is a bit silly. It's totally unnecessary. You just have to see that the green piece looks a little cut off. |
| By: Johnny - August 16th 2006 | |
| The green block does not fit, and this is even slightly evident in the diagram. Appologies, you will have to read the explanation backwards. |
| By: Johnny - August 16th 2006 | |
| y=(5/13 )x . The green block is 2 units tall, and in the second diagram begins @ x=5. Subbing in we find that y=25/13=~ 1.9. because the hyp. does not meet the height req. of the green block @ x=5 |
| By: Johnny - August 16th 2006 | |
| Conside r the slope of the hypotenuse. By observation, we find it to be 5/13. Therefore, ****uming the far left vertice is the origin of our coordinate system, the equation of the hypotenuse is |
| By: pinky - August 16th 2006 | |
| WOW- Tony, gud job, im really impressed |
| By: Tony - August 15th 2006 | |
| Try doing some math for a change, rather then trying to count the spaces. The area for the purple is 12, and the area for the blue is 5 in both pictures. They moved the pieces around, thats it! |
| By: pinky - August 14th 2006 | |
| smart people, some of you are really rude, i think thats not nice though |
| By: Dani - August 12th 2006 | |
| the blue and purple shapes have been swiched, like packin a suitcase, goin to a place u can fit it al in, but comin home u cant. same stuff,same case,jus arranged diff, same applies to this. |
| By: nunya****inbiu sness - August 09th 2006 | |
| they switched the ****in pieces around thats it |
| By: Amber (I is smart) - August 08th 2006 | |
Well, by mesurment I meant the angle is different.
And at the end, I meant 'too' not 'to' |
| By: I is smart - August 08th 2006 | |
LAWL It's not that hard at all.
The mesurment is not the same!
And sence the mesurment is not the same they took a little itty bitty square out and fit the white square in.
Pfft, I'm 12, to |
| By: janet - August 06th 2006 | |
| maybe its to do with the lines in the grid little bits shaved off. |
| By: janet - August 06th 2006 | |
| i don't what it is but righto wrong they both have 16 purple square's if u count the tiny bits as well. |
| By: mike - August 04th 2006 | |
| this is to AHH I GOT IT your an idiot the angle area and measurents are the same this is 5th grade math we are dealing with if you are a fourth grader im sorry, and good luck next year |
| By: mike - August 04th 2006 | |
| its called packaging the same ****er that wont let you fold a map, or put your dvd player back in the box |
| By: Bob - August 03rd 2006 | |
| The squares aree the perfect size to fit in one way but rearranged they do not fit. Imidiatlly youre mind says that the squares must be different sizes. But they are not. |
| By: Uhg... - August 01st 2006 | |
| I don't wanna think about it...It's Summer anyway... |
| By: Knowitall - July 26th 2006 | |
| on the top triangle there r 5 sqrs in btm of blue row,2 btm grn row,5 in btm tan row =12 sqrs. the total number of sqrs in entire btm row =13 causing it to appear to have one missing |
| By: bj - May 25th 2006 | |
| blue, green and purple became smaller. it isn't in the same sizes as before. take a look at the points at vertical line 7 and horizontal line 5 and at vertical line 7 and horizontal line 13. |
| By: HPS - May 19th 2006 | |
| The blue and purple triangles have slightly different angles. So while the large shapes look like triangles, they acctually have four sides. Confused the hell out of me for a while. |
| By: banananananas - May 19th 2006 | |
| tha angle for the purple triangle is different in each picture....there you go! |
| By: jlskeptic - May 18th 2006 | |
| Holy ! Neither of them are triangles! Woah! That tweeked my eyeballs. Mathematically, both shapes have four sides. Sweet! |
| By: twisted noodle - May 15th 2006 | |
| the shapes were designed to fit in the first triangle, but when you rearange them there is an extra block because of the shapes...either that or its because there is a full moon tonight |
| By: camperlori - May 14th 2006 | |
We must all think out side of the box,
or just color in the square. |
| By: - May 13th 2006 | |
| one of the triangles wasent drawn to scale(it loks like a triangle but its not). the missing square should be somewere in the in the blu & purple triangle.. lol i failed geometry |
| By: Doodoo - May 08th 2006 | |
| dude its simple. there the same size just there is a slight change of angle in the 4th line. |
| By: no life thats y im writing this - May 08th 2006 | |
| ok guess what i dont like math an that shape is ugly anyways ok...but i solved it its jus not the same size or shape or sum **** like that..how the hell should i kno? |
| By: lozzo - May 08th 2006 | |
| dont no dont care! |
| By: allie - April 30th 2006 | |
| i dont have time to figure that out!!!! |
| By: whoever - April 30th 2006 | |
the first shape is not the same as the second, the hypotenuse of both triangles is not a straight line making up for the extra square
|
| By: Yummy! - April 28th 2006 | |
| I like pie |
| By: RosyBelle - April 23rd 2006 | |
| Yeah .And if you look at the third cut-off square on the top of the purple triangle, and the one at the bottom, the half-cut-off triangle is smaller.I checked.Make sense? |
| By: garry - April 19th 2006 | |
| kool site you have here,optical illusions are great.try this,raise your right leg and move it in a circle clockwise,now draw the number 6 inthe air with your right hand.notice your leg goes counter-cl |
| By: Guest - April 17th 2006 | |
The purple loses space coz it goes up in its non-full shapes
|
| By: me - April 16th 2006 | |
| i kno i kno i kno but im not tellin |
| By: Anna Marie - April 15th 2006 | |
| just rearrange the shapes so they fit like the first one?? |
| By: kronik boy - April 15th 2006 | |
| This Shyt is trippin |
| By: unknown - April 14th 2006 | |
| there is a difference in the area of the purple and the blue |
| By: magic apple - April 10th 2006 | |
| height: 8/13=x/5, Thus x=40/13=3.076923. Also proves blue triangle has a height = 5-3.076923= 1.923077, and NOT =2 |
| By: luna - April 10th 2006 | |
| this is wierd |
| By: onehotmoma - April 10th 2006 | |
| you color one square in white! |
| By: tnj - April 05th 2006 | |
| thats normal man..whatever shape you rearrange, it will leave holes anywhere. u cant expect the shape will be perfect.. |
| By: Nonsense - April 04th 2006 | |
| There ’s actually not a real triangle in any of them. |
| By: Boba Fett - April 01st 2006 | |
| You're driving your canoe down a hill and one of the wheels falls off, how many pancakes does it take to cover a doghouse? Please take a moment to notice that bra is singular and panties plural... |
| By: Stier - April 01st 2006 | |
| The base of both triangles is 13. The height is 5. The only place for the triangle to "give" and allow for there to be an extra sguare is in the slope. Look at the already posted slope equations... |
| By: Rob - March 23rd 2006 | |
| It looks to me as though the black border on the top trinangle is on the 'inside' of the shapes, and on the bottom triangle it's on the 'outside'... |
| By: blondie_chick - March 22nd 2006 | |
| easy...u just make it exactly the same as the 1st one & it adds up |
| By: this place - March 18th 2006 | |
| this place is off the chain homie |
| By: la5848 - March 18th 2006 | |
| u people actually figured out the measurements? gosh get lifes(no offense) |
| By: puay guan lee - March 17th 2006 | |
Alternately using similar triangles to prove purple triangle does NOT have a 3 height: 8/13=x/5, Thus x=40/13=3.076923. Also proves blue triangle has a height = 5-3.076923= 1.923077, and NOT =2 :)
|
| By: puay guan lee - March 17th 2006 | |
Area based on individual shapes(drawn to integer dimensions) = 12+5+4+3+2+6=32u^2
Large st triangle=13x5x0.5=32.5u^2
Theres difference in area, the smaller parts are thus NOT in integer dimensions |
| By: me - March 14th 2006 | |
| Sorry, not my forte'. More of a Scrabble freak. |
| By: - March 14th 2006 | |
| grid ;) |
| By: - March 14th 2006 | |
yes the second image is note : !!! longer + higher
so once the length is fixed by proportion just tilt the higher tip backwards alitlle
so it looks like the first and fits my blazing monitor and g |
| By: someguy - March 06th 2006 | |
| the purple in the top grid occupies all or a portion of 17 squares, the bottom only 16 due to placement of the color. Hence one extra space |
| By: danielle - March 05th 2006 | |
| since the purple and blue switched places theres less blue and purple in the second triangle |
| By: SeymourButts - March 01st 2006 | |
| S omeone who has taken Geometry should know this one because they know all the angles. |
| By: Calibaba - February 25th 2006 | |
| I put this together peice by piece in a 3d program and its impossible! It gains about a 1/12th of a square, which does not add up. |
| By: josh genius - February 21st 2006 | |
| get a notepad or a peice of paper line it up with the top line on the 1st line is straight but the seconed one has the smallest bend its hard to believe but trust me it makes all the difference |
| By: Bj - January 03rd 2006 | |
The small blue triangle has a slightly steeper slope.
|
| By: Bj - January 03rd 2006 | |
| Mordecai has the best answer so far. The answer is found in the fact that the over "triangle" shapes are not triangles at all. Print out the shapes and set a straight edge on the hypotenuse. |
| By: Mitch - January 02nd 2006 | |
| Look at the green & tan area as one piece. 2x8 rectangle fits tighter than 3x15 when combined with the 2 triangles. |
| By: jj - January 02nd 2006 | |
| There is no illusion here. It's like loading a moving van in the most efficient way you can. Print off the page cut out the pieces and you'll see for yourself. |
| By: I LOVE PINK FLOYD - December 30th 2005 | |
Amazin' games on the sites.
Thanks... Thanks alot Awesome!!
*Pink Floyd Rocks*!!!!! |
| By: me - December 30th 2005 | |
| Leo is right, i discovered the same |
| By: Carol - December 29th 2005 | |
| AND..... . if you look at the top triangle, look at the purple squares. There are 17. Now look at the purple in the bottom. How many are there now...? 16. |
| By: Carol - December 29th 2005 | |
| I counted the squares and parts of the squares inside the triangle. The top triangle has 40 squares/parts of squares. And the bottom one has 40 squares/parts of squares. . . . . including the hole. |
| By: blondie - December 26th 2005 | |
| before you can get on anyone about getting an education maybe you should learn to spell THEY"RE |
| By: Bernard - December 25th 2005 | |
| Weird |
| By: jjjj - December 24th 2005 | |
| jjj |
| By: CFC - December 22nd 2005 | |
| We did this exercise in maths all the shapes are exactly the same size and there is a logical explanation. think about the area of the shapes. |
| By: ellie - December 21st 2005 | |
| i do not understand |
| By: hayden - December 21st 2005 | |
| winson, no they aint...get some contacts |
| By: Mordecai - December 20th 2005 | |
| Why does everyone go on and on about numbers? All you need to know is that the blue triangle is steeper than the red, so the bottom shape bulges more. |
| By: Winson - December 20th 2005 | |
| If you look closely, the shapes (especialy the triangles) in the top triangle are larger than the ones in the bottom triangle. |
| By: LEO - December 18th 2005 | |
| I THINK ALL THESE ILLUSIONS WORK GREAT |
| By: amy - December 18th 2005 | |
| u do not explain enough |
| By: shanny - December 16th 2005 | |
| it is hard but i was sitting here 10 mins workin it out n i think cuz the shapes [robz aint da ame size mite be a ince off |
| By: Jim - December 09th 2005 | |
| More simply put, the "apparent"upper triangle is 1/2 unit smaller than a 5X13 triangle, and the bottom "apparent" triangle is 1/2 unit larger than 5X13. i.e. a dif of one unit. |
| By: Jim - December 09th 2005 | |
| is 3X5. Neither are true. On top, blue is 5+X3, and on bottom, purple is 8-X3.Ao parts do not equal sum if assume triangles are even units. |
| By: Jim - December 09th 2005 | |
| If you assume the area of both triangles is 13X5, or 32.5, hten the obtical allusion becomes clear if you assume (1) that the blue tirangle in the top is 2X5, and (2) the purple triangle in the bottom |
| By: me - December 09th 2005 | |
the wave illusion is pretty good and the weird beans i dont get any of them?
*dizzy* |
| By: Bill! - December 07th 2005 | |
| and therefore the optical illusion is that the long edges that look aligned aren't. the difference comes out in the location of the triangles where they miss the long edge of the 5x13 |
| By: Bill! - December 07th 2005 | |
| the angle of the 2x5 is about 21.8. the angle of the 3x8 is about 20.6. the angle of the 5x13 should be about 21.0. so it bulges or dips depending of arrangement which changes the area |
| By: Bill! - December 07th 2005 | |
| the area of a 5x13 triangle is 32.5 blocks. area of a 2x5 triangle is 5. the area of the 3x8 is 12. this leaves an area of 15.5 block. What happened? one triangle bulges, the other is indented. |
| By: duh - December 06th 2005 | |
| the angles aren't 45 degrees that is why it doesn't work... think about it for a really long time and you might see why. |
| By: Takeroth Tao - December 06th 2005 | |
| Simple, geometrical patternS within A geometrical shape can be rearranged; so as to take up less or more space. |
| By: Rich - December 06th 2005 | |
| The difference is in the green and brown area. one is 5 x 3 = 15 the other is 2 x 8 = 16. The triangles are exactly the same |
| By: Colin - December 06th 2005 | |
| The square grid blocks are not exactly square, they change to give the illusion of equality. |
| By: Jake - December 03rd 2005 | |
| Take the lg triangle & add it to itself to create a rectangle.total sqs are 65. Take1/2 of 65 is 32 1/2. The top triangle uses33 sqs and the bottem one uses 32 |
| By: Will - December 01st 2005 | |
| Each black outline triangle actually covers 32.5 squares. (13*5)/2. The coloured shapes cover only 32 squares in total. Both triangles each fudge 0.5 squares in area. |
| By: Continuation of mortgil below: - November 29th 2005 | |
| .are joined together in a 2x8 rectangle which equals an are of 16 units, leaving one empty space |
| By: continuation of mortgil below... - November 29th 2005 | |
| are joined together in an area equal to 8x2 or 16 units, leaving one empty unit. |
| By: - November 29th 2005 | |
| are joined together in an area equal to 8x2 or 16 units, leaving one empty unit. |
| By: mortgil - November 29th 2005 | |
| In the first set of shapes, the light green and grey squares are joined together in a 3 x 5 rectangle which equals an area of 15 units. In the second set of shapes, the light green and grey shapes ar |
| By: Carl (with a C) - November 29th 2005 | |
Top not 13x5 triangle, only 12.8x4.923, area=31.5units�
Purple is 7.8x3, blue 5x1.923. Bottom _IS_ 13x5 area 32.5unit�.
Bottom border thick cover upperleft green corner sticking out past hypotenouse |
| By: Papaduck - November 29th 2005 | |
| I am no math whizz. I have to put my hands on a problem to solve it. I copied and pasted this image into "paint" and rearranged the pieces. Guess what. THEY ARE ALL EXACTLY THE SAME!!! I give up!! |
| By: joyce - November 29th 2005 | |
| The lines that appear to be perpendicular and parallel are not. They slightly bend out/inward. This accounts for the diff in percieved area. Right? |
| By: Danis - November 29th 2005 | |
| The purple triangle in the bottom is one square shorter, so after the shapes are moved around, there is an empty square. |
| By: smart**** - November 29th 2005 | |
| The top triangle just ate a bunch of food and the bottom one has an empty stomach so it still has more room to add squares. |
| By: Jars - November 29th 2005 | |
| Acute angle of the blue triangle is larger than acute angle of the tan triangle, so in the top figure the hypotenuse bulges in sightly, and it bulges out in the bottom figure. = 1 square diff in area |
| By: Tuscano Siciliano - November 29th 2005 | |
| The colored squares in both equal 15 exactly. The 'missing' additional square in the lower form is caused by the redistribution of colored squares |
| By: Karl - November 21st 2005 | |
I'm lost!
To many puzzles for one night guys.
"just pleae tell me where u get that stuff to work it all out dude!" wink wink |
| By: WiltedRose - November 20th 2005 | |
| Sin ce the blue one is smaller and it moves, it causes the green one to move over, thus leaving a hole. Then the red one gets moved over the green one, and the orange one is not moved! BLAME ORANGE!! |
| By: Rocky - November 18th 2005 | |
| For this to be true, the blue and purple tangents would have to be equal. The blue tangent is 2/5 = 0.4 and the is 3/8 = 0.375, they are close, but not equal! The hypotanous is not a straight line! |
| By: Philippe - November 18th 2005 | |
| the squares of the grid are not all the same size... and the 2 triangles in the bottom figure are not touching each others... |
| By: michaesha - November 18th 2005 | |
it is the way the pices sre put together they all wont fit in every way duh that was so totally easy
|
| By: angel - November 16th 2005 | |
| my brain hurts, does ne 1 no wots going on? plz plz plz howz this possible! |
| By: Papa Smurf - November 15th 2005 | |
| The Red and Blue Triangles aren't at the same slant. |
| By: Steve - November 14th 2005 | |
| The purple and blue triangles inthe top shape are not the same size as the purple and blue triangles in the bottom shape. They're close, but not the same. |
| By: Stephen - November 11th 2005 | |
| If blue triangle is 5 long and 2 high, the angle works out at 21.8 degrees, but if purple triangle is 8 by 3 the angle is 20.5 degrees. So the two shapes are actually quadrangles, both different. |
| By: jinglehat - November 10th 2005 | |
| it has something to do with the areas of the squares |
| By: Cramer - November 10th 2005 | |
| The green and tan irregular shapes are not the same. One has a 2 square 'tongue and the other has a 3 square "tongue". When put end to end theyleave the gap. |
| By: Adrian - November 09th 2005 | |
ahem,
revision.
I believe my last conclusion gets us nowhere. |
| By: Adrian - November 08th 2005 | |
| In the 1st shape, the point at which the larger triangle meets the smaller triangle corresponds to a point in the 2nd shape's larger triangle at which a square is not "lost". Clever play. |
| By: Lorysa - November 06th 2005 | |
| Oh, I didn't get it... dangit. Saf got it right, though. |
| By: Saf - October 30th 2005 | |
| the gradient of the second triangle is a little gentler than that of the first triangle therefore it would take up more space, even though it still has the same amount of squares. |
| By: jeanie - October 29th 2005 | |
| wow sauvage all i can say is you havea wonderful mind and thats amazing yuor a true genious i love you;) |
| By: Celairiel - October 25th 2005 | |
| Gosh!! count the squares people!! They are both the same size. |
| By: Scott - October 21st 2005 | |
| Just played around with it using Paint. Made the image, then copied it and rearranged the parts. Got the exact same result as it shows; It's just a matter of more "efficient" packing :) |
| By: Eric - October 20th 2005 | |
| This is not an optical illusion. The whole premis of the problem is false. The peices on the top are not the same size as the peices on the bottom. |
| By: Tarian - October 19th 2005 | |
| I've got the answer! Take all the pieces out, Put the red at the bottom and put the green and orange in where it shows in pic. 2 and you'll have to move it up one and left one. Then add the blue! Do |
| By: LMAO - January 27th 2005 | |
| i am not getting this at all |
| By: Solved- just draw it on graph paper - January 27th 2005 | |
| This triangle dosnt add up to be a true right triangle On paper you see that the hypotenuse dosnt meet the two triangles at 5 but at 5 1/2 blue This ruins the shape of the whole picture just draw it! |
| By: rob - January 26th 2005 | |
| too many spelling mistakes. it's pieces not "peices". and rearranged not "rearanged" |
| By: Eppidoo - January 26th 2005 | |
| Briefly, the blue and violet triangles don't have the same angle. If they did, the sides would have the same ratio. 3:8 != 2:5. I don't feel like doing the math to prove it. :p |
| By: ok - July 03rd 2009 | |
| The area of the big triangle is 32,5 but when you measure the parts with your eyes it seems there should have been a half hole in the 1st one too. So it is because of the slight truncating problems :P |
| By: Monica - April 07th 2009 | |
| In the 2nd triangle, the top part of the green section is longer than the bottom part of the pink section thus creating a space. |
| By: Samantha_ - August 31st 2008 | |
same spot as.. the top triangle.
there is a hole, 5 going across and 3 underneath. It works. there will be a hole if you move that group. |
| By: Samantha_ - August 31st 2008 | |
OMG this is actually pretty easy.
its not the size of the triangle thats diff.
you move the top blue to the corner, it fits. take the turquise group and move it to the excat same spot as... |
| By: ? - August 13th 2008 | |
| Erm...yeah.. welll.......i aint that gud in maths..but i like my math teachers bum (its hot)i get horny when i look at it....... |
| By: Trixter - July 25th 2008 | |
| This is not an illusion its a simple geometry problem. its not even really a puzzle as its just logic. |
| By: J_wood - July 08th 2008 | |
| The 2nd triangle is infinitely slightly bigger than the first, so in time, there is enough to make an extra square. In 3 weeks, the infinitely slightly larger triangle will have two holes in it |
| By: tamanna - July 07th 2008 | |
| it is impossible to find it out theres a trick in this so were |
| By: testmachine - June 17th 2008 | |
| 4 and 4 as well |
| By: terry - May 06th 2008 | |
| The two triangles are not simalar. look at the ratio of sides:small triangle, 2/5. large triangle 3/8. although very close, this isnt the same value. to the eye the slopes look the same |
| By: Sarah - May 04th 2008 | |
| the hole is there because the second shape is bigger than the first shape but all the pieces are the same! |
| By: james (countinued) - April 29th 2008 | |
| then i arranged them like the triangle with the space and i was right! just because u can use 4 shapes to make a figure does NOT mean u can use the same 4 to make the same trangle but using less space |
| By: james (countinued) - April 29th 2008 | |
| okay, so i printed this puzzel out, cut out one the triangles, then the 4 shapes within. after that, i took the 4 pieces ( from the upper triagle) and aranged them like it was above. then i.. (c next) |
| By: fart tart - April 29th 2008 | |
| i like pie |
| By: james - April 29th 2008 | |
| just because 4 shapes can be used to make a triangle one way, doesnt mean that the same 4 pieces can be put in the same triangle a differnt way, and use less space. |
| By: Moni - April 27th 2008 | |
| Omg its just an opptical illusion doesn't mean you have to literally work it out, its meant for entertainment and trivking your mind. |
| By: osaga - April 15th 2008 | |
| get real people. it's socery and nothing else. the devil is a math teacher. |
| By: rafael(continu ed) - March 02nd 2008 | |
| This proves that the "squares" actually are not squares. (8x3)/2 + 7 + (5x2)/2 + 8 = 32 |
| By: rafael(continu ed) - March 02nd 2008 | |
| On the other hand if u count the area of the triangle by taking each small part of the triangle and counting its area and in the end you add it up u only find 32 instead of 32.5 . |
| By: rafael - March 02nd 2008 | |
| The small equilaterals that the triangles are drawn on are not squares, they have 1cm width and 1.1cm height. Take in ur consideration they are squares, count the area of the triangle, (13x5)/2=32.5 |
| By: Woooo - January 16th 2008 | |
Ok here is the solution from Wiki:
****en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Missing_square_pu zzle |
| By: ·elitemµsician · - January 04th 2008 | |
| Ok now that colored shape is actually a quadrilateral. Which leaves a very obtuse triangle with an area that equals one square on the grid. The thick border covers up that obtuse triangle. |
| By: ·elitemµsician · - January 04th 2008 | |
| Think of the colored shapes all together as one shape. Then a border around that shape as a triangle. |
| By: Heloise - December 19th 2007 | |
| I don't get it... and I will not spend my time caring for too long... to all those who have it figured out... well done! :) to those who have nothing better to do than **** then get a life. |
| By: Shuey - December 08th 2007 | |
| the 2 short sides on the big triangle are 5 and 13. What you are seeing is the fact that you think the inside triangles are 2:5 or 3:8. After transformation, the purple triangle is actually shorter |
| By: bob (continued again) - November 15th 2007 | |
So in actuality, in the top picture, there are 18 purple squares, but only 17 on the bottom. This accounts for the blank space in the bottom picture. Try and prove me wrong!
|
| By: bob (continued) - November 15th 2007 | |
| The trick is that the thick border around the top triangle conceals the 41st block (located above the third vertically stacked purple triangle farthest on the right). |
| By: bob - November 15th 2007 | |
| Both triangles are exactly the same. Both of their hypotenuses are exactly the same length, and both are straight lines. Both triangles consist of 41 blocks (this includes partials) |
| By: Auzzie land!! - October 20th 2007 | |
| OMG! look at all the people below, they obviously have: a. no life or b. are just complete nerds! I, on the other hand, am quiet dazzeling, what about yourself??? p.s: auzzies rule! |
| By: Jamie S. - October 08th 2007 | |
| Neither have the same area. The triangular 'pieces' don't have the same ratio. |
| By: Jamie S. - October 08th 2007 | |
| It's as simple as how the pieces are arranged. The pieces can be fit to make the same shape but one will have a hole where the other is solid. |
| By: Oh my... - September 08th 2007 | |
| Of course the angles are off. This is really basic; does 2/5 = 3/8 to anyone here? The simple answer is that this shape is a quadrilateral. |
| By: osh - September 04th 2007 | |
| Got it. Do some trig on the two triangles. The angles are just slightly off. Enough to make up the 1/2 square difference. |
| By: Osh - August 29th 2007 | |
| Gimme a real answer. Both full size shapes are the same size, 5x13, hypotenuse is 13.928. Area is the same. Hypotenuse has the same slope! All the pieces parts have the same areas, where did the p |
| By: Mo - August 21st 2007 | |
| continued: And also as many have already observed, the 1st triangle has a slightly larger slope (8/3 > 5/2), which makes it bigger. |
| By: Mo - August 21st 2007 | |
| It's because the 2nd triangle is smaller (the hypos ARE straight). How? The squares are not of same sizes. Also pay attention to the thick border line and the way it affects the size of the shapes. |
| By: Yup craig is right - July 25th 2007 | |
| yup the hypotenuse is notstraight. Hypotenuse is the longest part of the triangle. you could use a ruler to see. they're both slanted at a slightly different angle. or blur your eyes |
| By: Obscur - April 22nd 2007 | |
| please people... the blue and red triangles have different slopes, that's the answer. 2/5 does not equal 3/8 |
| By: Joe Mama - April 21st 2007 | |
| So in other words, Pi R Squared (3.14), not round, right? But I always though pies are round. |
| By: ichokepeople - April 21st 2007 | |
| w ell. the blue and red triangle were switched then the green was moved down once and to the left 2 times creating a hole. no headache. that was like the first thing i notice about it. good try tho. |
| By: Lame is an idiot - April 19th 2007 | |
| Both triangle have the same area including the hole. That's why it is so weird. |
| By: Lame - April 18th 2007 | |
Yes there is a hole. Why shouldn't there be???
You arrange the triangles in a completlt different matter, of course it's gonna be different... just stupid.
|
| By: ur mamma - April 13th 2007 | |
| took me a minute... but i got it! |
| By: solved - April 11th 2007 | |
| can easily be switched around. (continuation of last post) |
| By: solved - April 11th 2007 | |
| the top 2/3 of the purple triangle is the same size as the blue triangle. now when you move the green shape down and over, the 3 squares on the top dont fit into the brown shape, but the triangles |
| By: RayKay - April 11th 2007 | |
| Don - they're the same triangle, slopes aren't different, it's just piece placing and how they fit one way but not the other. |
| By: Craig - December 26th 2006 | |
| Niether shape is a triangle because although it looks it, the hypotenuse is not straight. |
| By: fuzzy logik - December 10th 2006 | |
| The hypotenuse of the 2nd triangle is not straight. Hold a piece of paper to it & see. They're fudging in a little extra space. |
| By: Henry - December 06th 2006 | |
| I do not possibly see how this will work it is ridiculous and if you ask me it's just playing with your minds and you lot are fools to believe this |
| By: - December 06th 2006 | |
| indeed goood =) |
| By: debby - December 06th 2006 | |
| I GOT IT I GOT IT |
| By: Johnson - December 03rd 2006 | |
I agree with Nick:
By: Nick - September 17th 2006
Both pics are not actually triangles. Look at the triangles that make up the hypotinuse. One has a slope of 3/8 one is 2/5, thus the hyp. of the |
| By: - December 01st 2006 | |
| LEss purple covered sqaures on second |
| By: ... - November 26th 2006 | |
| the purp triangle take less space duh? |
| By: zachmonky - November 25th 2006 | |
| the bold black line that surrounds the entire triangle thingie, is taken away. when the line is mushed altogether it makes a square. no line means an extra square. they just drew the line back |
| By: sarah - November 14th 2006 | |
| its easy coz the way they are rearanged becoz the blur fills up less space were it is now.... very good |
| By: emo - November 14th 2006 | |
| NO all of u r stupid!!! even a year seven gal can figure this out! HA HA HA |
| By: Sami - November 13th 2006 | |
| its hard to figure it out but omni choatic is right ... you see your a genius compared to nick and dk dk dk saying there are 7 brown or something like this... anyway omni chaotic is smart no doubt. |
| By: freezeman68 - November 11th 2006 | |
| th e black line didnt move at all. and i found that it has an irregular slope. i think |
| By: - November 11th 2006 | |
| The Black line is moved a little bit allowing for more space. |
| By: Ashley - November 06th 2006 | |
| Not sure. |
| By: gem\'ashaki - November 02nd 2006 | |
| th ey're both different.. |
| By: mamu - November 01st 2006 | |
it is very simple concept
even an idiot can understand it. |
| By: J0el! - October 27th 2006 | |
| You dont need to think about it! The seperate shapes are simply just in another place so it theres nothing to explain beacuse theyre both different.. this theory can be applied to many shapes |
| By: Sexy_gurl101 - October 27th 2006 | |
| I agree with "OmniChaotic" where they say "" If you took a protracter and measured......."1 extra square""This is true...i asked my geometry teacher and she agreed with the statement!!Peace-out |
| By: blonde **** - October 26th 2006 | |
| i cant see it |
| By: Omnichaotic - October 22nd 2006 | |
| on e square of space :) |
| By: OmniChaotic - October 22nd 2006 | |
| If you took a protracter and measured you realise that moving the Color triangles to new locations decreases the area they take up. Thus not visibly but enough small chunks are given to allow for |
| By: OmniChaotic - October 22nd 2006 | |
| Ni ck and dkdkdk are both wrong ... First off Both Triangles are exactly equal in size AND! the same amount of blocks are filled in with each color! this is where the illusion tricks you :) |
| By: sami - October 21st 2006 | |
| its a hard one you know but i think i know |
| By: NATE_JUNIA - September 19th 2006 | |
All 'yall r retarded!!! It's just an illusion!!!!!!! It's not suppost to fit!
|
| By: Nick - September 18th 2006 | |
| Both pics are not actually triangles. Look at the triangles that make up the hypotinuse. One has a slope of 3/8 one is 2/5, thus the hyp. of the triangle isnt a straight line and the tri isnt a tri. |
| By: Nick - September 18th 2006 | |
| Both pics are not actually triangles. Look at the triangles that make up the hypotinuse. One has a slope of 3/8 one is 2/5, thus the hyp. of the triangle isnt a straight line and the tri isnt a tri. |
| By: Theresa - September 02nd 2006 | |
Simpol !!
1+1=2 da |
| By: wazuupster - September 01st 2006 | |
... e but this means that there is one square spread between 14 so the extra bit is only 1/14 of a square so unseeable with the naked eye
|
| By: wazuupster - September 01st 2006 | |
| its outa line, along the long edge the shape is very slightly larger but not by much atall howether when drawn on a cad program the edges at 90 degrees to oneanother are longer than they were befor... |
| By: the cool kids - August 26th 2006 | |
| its the way its all been mixed around if the purple was in the same place there wudnt be a gap |
| By: Blakie - August 24th 2006 | |
this was stupid as hell 4real
|
| By: Kiwi - August 20th 2006 | |
| It's the way it has been put hA |
| By: Santegoeds - August 17th 2006 | |
| But now i see that is what johnny was trying to say. And the green piece looks cut off indeed Johnny! Greetings from Holland! |
| By: Santegoeds - August 17th 2006 | |
The triangle is 13 long and 5 high. So the formula is: Y= 5/13 X. At point 8 they 'say' its 3 high. Fill in 8 for X. Y = 5/13 * 8 = 3,07
Explanotion: It's a stupid illusion! Greetings from Hollan |
| By: pinky - August 17th 2006 | |
| what eva |
| By: Johnny - August 16th 2006 | |
| And anyone who measured angles is a bit silly. It's totally unnecessary. You just have to see that the green piece looks a little cut off. |
| By: Johnny - August 16th 2006 | |
| The green block does not fit, and this is even slightly evident in the diagram. Appologies, you will have to read the explanation backwards. |
| By: Johnny - August 16th 2006 | |
| y=(5/13 )x . The green block is 2 units tall, and in the second diagram begins @ x=5. Subbing in we find that y=25/13=~ 1.9. because the hyp. does not meet the height req. of the green block @ x=5 |
| By: Johnny - August 16th 2006 | |
| Conside r the slope of the hypotenuse. By observation, we find it to be 5/13. Therefore, ****uming the far left vertice is the origin of our coordinate system, the equation of the hypotenuse is |
| By: pinky - August 16th 2006 | |
| WOW- Tony, gud job, im really impressed |
| By: Tony - August 15th 2006 | |
| Try doing some math for a change, rather then trying to count the spaces. The area for the purple is 12, and the area for the blue is 5 in both pictures. They moved the pieces around, thats it! |
| By: pinky - August 14th 2006 | |
| smart people, some of you are really rude, i think thats not nice though |
| By: Dani - August 12th 2006 | |
| the blue and purple shapes have been swiched, like packin a suitcase, goin to a place u can fit it al in, but comin home u cant. same stuff,same case,jus arranged diff, same applies to this. |
| By: nunya****inbiu sness - August 09th 2006 | |
| they switched the ****in pieces around thats it |
| By: Amber (I is smart) - August 08th 2006 | |
Well, by mesurment I meant the angle is different.
And at the end, I meant 'too' not 'to' |
| By: I is smart - August 08th 2006 | |
LAWL It's not that hard at all.
The mesurment is not the same!
And sence the mesurment is not the same they took a little itty bitty square out and fit the white square in.
Pfft, I'm 12, to |
| By: janet - August 06th 2006 | |
| maybe its to do with the lines in the grid little bits shaved off. |
| By: janet - August 06th 2006 | |
| i don't what it is but righto wrong they both have 16 purple square's if u count the tiny bits as well. |
| By: mike - August 04th 2006 | |
| this is to AHH I GOT IT your an idiot the angle area and measurents are the same this is 5th grade math we are dealing with if you are a fourth grader im sorry, and good luck next year |
| By: mike - August 04th 2006 | |
| its called packaging the same ****er that wont let you fold a map, or put your dvd player back in the box |
| By: Bob - August 03rd 2006 | |
| The squares aree the perfect size to fit in one way but rearranged they do not fit. Imidiatlly youre mind says that the squares must be different sizes. But they are not. |
| By: Uhg... - August 01st 2006 | |
| I don't wanna think about it...It's Summer anyway... |
| By: Knowitall - July 26th 2006 | |
| on the top triangle there r 5 sqrs in btm of blue row,2 btm grn row,5 in btm tan row =12 sqrs. the total number of sqrs in entire btm row =13 causing it to appear to have one missing |
| By: bj - May 25th 2006 | |
| blue, green and purple became smaller. it isn't in the same sizes as before. take a look at the points at vertical line 7 and horizontal line 5 and at vertical line 7 and horizontal line 13. |
| By: HPS - May 19th 2006 | |
| The blue and purple triangles have slightly different angles. So while the large shapes look like triangles, they acctually have four sides. Confused the hell out of me for a while. |
| By: banananananas - May 19th 2006 | |
| tha angle for the purple triangle is different in each picture....there you go! |
| By: jlskeptic - May 18th 2006 | |
| Holy ! Neither of them are triangles! Woah! That tweeked my eyeballs. Mathematically, both shapes have four sides. Sweet! |
| By: twisted noodle - May 15th 2006 | |
| the shapes were designed to fit in the first triangle, but when you rearange them there is an extra block because of the shapes...either that or its because there is a full moon tonight |
| By: camperlori - May 14th 2006 | |
We must all think out side of the box,
or just color in the square. |
| By: - May 13th 2006 | |
| one of the triangles wasent drawn to scale(it loks like a triangle but its not). the missing square should be somewere in the in the blu & purple triangle.. lol i failed geometry |
| By: Doodoo - May 08th 2006 | |
| dude its simple. there the same size just there is a slight change of angle in the 4th line. |
| By: no life thats y im writing this - May 08th 2006 | |
| ok guess what i dont like math an that shape is ugly anyways ok...but i solved it its jus not the same size or shape or sum **** like that..how the hell should i kno? |
| By: lozzo - May 08th 2006 | |
| dont no dont care! |
| By: allie - April 30th 2006 | |
| i dont have time to figure that out!!!! |
| By: whoever - April 30th 2006 | |
the first shape is not the same as the second, the hypotenuse of both triangles is not a straight line making up for the extra square
|
| By: Yummy! - April 28th 2006 | |
| I like pie |
| By: RosyBelle - April 23rd 2006 | |
| Yeah .And if you look at the third cut-off square on the top of the purple triangle, and the one at the bottom, the half-cut-off triangle is smaller.I checked.Make sense? |
| By: garry - April 19th 2006 | |
| kool site you have here,optical illusions are great.try this,raise your right leg and move it in a circle clockwise,now draw the number 6 inthe air with your right hand.notice your leg goes counter-cl |
| By: Guest - April 17th 2006 | |
The purple loses space coz it goes up in its non-full shapes
|
| By: me - April 16th 2006 | |
| i kno i kno i kno but im not tellin |
| By: Anna Marie - April 15th 2006 | |
| just rearrange the shapes so they fit like the first one?? |
| By: kronik boy - April 15th 2006 | |
| This Shyt is trippin |
| By: unknown - April 14th 2006 | |
| there is a difference in the area of the purple and the blue |
| By: magic apple - April 10th 2006 | |
| height: 8/13=x/5, Thus x=40/13=3.076923. Also proves blue triangle has a height = 5-3.076923= 1.923077, and NOT =2 |
| By: luna - April 10th 2006 | |
| this is wierd |
| By: onehotmoma - April 10th 2006 | |
| you color one square in white! |
| By: tnj - April 05th 2006 | |
| thats normal man..whatever shape you rearrange, it will leave holes anywhere. u cant expect the shape will be perfect.. |
| By: Nonsense - April 04th 2006 | |
| There ’s actually not a real triangle in any of them. |
| By: Boba Fett - April 01st 2006 | |
| You're driving your canoe down a hill and one of the wheels falls off, how many pancakes does it take to cover a doghouse? Please take a moment to notice that bra is singular and panties plural... |
| By: Stier - April 01st 2006 | |
| The base of both triangles is 13. The height is 5. The only place for the triangle to "give" and allow for there to be an extra sguare is in the slope. Look at the already posted slope equations... |
| By: Rob - March 23rd 2006 | |
| It looks to me as though the black border on the top trinangle is on the 'inside' of the shapes, and on the bottom triangle it's on the 'outside'... |
| By: blondie_chick - March 22nd 2006 | |
| easy...u just make it exactly the same as the 1st one & it adds up |
| By: this place - March 18th 2006 | |
| this place is off the chain homie |
| By: la5848 - March 18th 2006 | |
| u people actually figured out the measurements? gosh get lifes(no offense) |
| By: puay guan lee - March 17th 2006 | |
Alternately using similar triangles to prove purple triangle does NOT have a 3 height: 8/13=x/5, Thus x=40/13=3.076923. Also proves blue triangle has a height = 5-3.076923= 1.923077, and NOT =2 :)
|
| By: puay guan lee - March 17th 2006 | |
Area based on individual shapes(drawn to integer dimensions) = 12+5+4+3+2+6=32u^2
Large st triangle=13x5x0.5=32.5u^2
Theres difference in area, the smaller parts are thus NOT in integer dimensions |
| By: me - March 14th 2006 | |
| Sorry, not my forte'. More of a Scrabble freak. |
| By: - March 14th 2006 | |
| grid ;) |
| By: - March 14th 2006 | |
yes the second image is note : !!! longer + higher
so once the length is fixed by proportion just tilt the higher tip backwards alitlle
so it looks like the first and fits my blazing monitor and g |
| By: someguy - March 06th 2006 | |
| the purple in the top grid occupies all or a portion of 17 squares, the bottom only 16 due to placement of the color. Hence one extra space |
| By: danielle - March 05th 2006 | |
| since the purple and blue switched places theres less blue and purple in the second triangle |
| By: SeymourButts - March 01st 2006 | |
| S omeone who has taken Geometry should know this one because they know all the angles. |
| By: Calibaba - February 25th 2006 | |
| I put this together peice by piece in a 3d program and its impossible! It gains about a 1/12th of a square, which does not add up. |
| By: josh genius - February 21st 2006 | |
| get a notepad or a peice of paper line it up with the top line on the 1st line is straight but the seconed one has the smallest bend its hard to believe but trust me it makes all the difference |
| By: Bj - January 03rd 2006 | |
The small blue triangle has a slightly steeper slope.
|
| By: Bj - January 03rd 2006 | |
| Mordecai has the best answer so far. The answer is found in the fact that the over "triangle" shapes are not triangles at all. Print out the shapes and set a straight edge on the hypotenuse. |
| By: Mitch - January 02nd 2006 | |
| Look at the green & tan area as one piece. 2x8 rectangle fits tighter than 3x15 when combined with the 2 triangles. |
| By: jj - January 02nd 2006 | |
| There is no illusion here. It's like loading a moving van in the most efficient way you can. Print off the page cut out the pieces and you'll see for yourself. |
| By: I LOVE PINK FLOYD - December 30th 2005 | |
Amazin' games on the sites.
Thanks... Thanks alot Awesome!!
*Pink Floyd Rocks*!!!!! |
| By: me - December 30th 2005 | |
| Leo is right, i discovered the same |
| By: Carol - December 29th 2005 | |
| AND..... . if you look at the top triangle, look at the purple squares. There are 17. Now look at the purple in the bottom. How many are there now...? 16. |
| By: Carol - December 29th 2005 | |
| I counted the squares and parts of the squares inside the triangle. The top triangle has 40 squares/parts of squares. And the bottom one has 40 squares/parts of squares. . . . . including the hole. |
| By: blondie - December 26th 2005 | |
| before you can get on anyone about getting an education maybe you should learn to spell THEY"RE |
| By: Bernard - December 25th 2005 | |
| Weird |
| By: jjjj - December 24th 2005 | |
| jjj |
| By: CFC - December 22nd 2005 | |
| We did this exercise in maths all the shapes are exactly the same size and there is a logical explanation. think about the area of the shapes. |
| By: ellie - December 21st 2005 | |
| i do not understand |
| By: hayden - December 21st 2005 | |
| winson, no they aint...get some contacts |
| By: Mordecai - December 20th 2005 | |
| Why does everyone go on and on about numbers? All you need to know is that the blue triangle is steeper than the red, so the bottom shape bulges more. |
| By: Winson - December 20th 2005 | |
| If you look closely, the shapes (especialy the triangles) in the top triangle are larger than the ones in the bottom triangle. |
| By: LEO - December 18th 2005 | |
| I THINK ALL THESE ILLUSIONS WORK GREAT |
| By: amy - December 18th 2005 | |
| u do not explain enough |
| By: shanny - December 16th 2005 | |
| it is hard but i was sitting here 10 mins workin it out n i think cuz the shapes [robz aint da ame size mite be a ince off |
| By: Jim - December 09th 2005 | |
| More simply put, the "apparent"upper triangle is 1/2 unit smaller than a 5X13 triangle, and the bottom "apparent" triangle is 1/2 unit larger than 5X13. i.e. a dif of one unit. |
| By: Jim - December 09th 2005 | |
| is 3X5. Neither are true. On top, blue is 5+X3, and on bottom, purple is 8-X3.Ao parts do not equal sum if assume triangles are even units. |
| By: Jim - December 09th 2005 | |
| If you assume the area of both triangles is 13X5, or 32.5, hten the obtical allusion becomes clear if you assume (1) that the blue tirangle in the top is 2X5, and (2) the purple triangle in the bottom |
| By: me - December 09th 2005 | |
the wave illusion is pretty good and the weird beans i dont get any of them?
*dizzy* |
| By: Bill! - December 07th 2005 | |
| and therefore the optical illusion is that the long edges that look aligned aren't. the difference comes out in the location of the triangles where they miss the long edge of the 5x13 |
| By: Bill! - December 07th 2005 | |
| the angle of the 2x5 is about 21.8. the angle of the 3x8 is about 20.6. the angle of the 5x13 should be about 21.0. so it bulges or dips depending of arrangement which changes the area |
| By: Bill! - December 07th 2005 | |
| the area of a 5x13 triangle is 32.5 blocks. area of a 2x5 triangle is 5. the area of the 3x8 is 12. this leaves an area of 15.5 block. What happened? one triangle bulges, the other is indented. |
| By: duh - December 06th 2005 | |
| the angles aren't 45 degrees that is why it doesn't work... think about it for a really long time and you might see why. |
| By: Takeroth Tao - December 06th 2005 | |
| Simple, geometrical patternS within A geometrical shape can be rearranged; so as to take up less or more space. |
| By: Rich - December 06th 2005 | |
| The difference is in the green and brown area. one is 5 x 3 = 15 the other is 2 x 8 = 16. The triangles are exactly the same |
| By: Colin - December 06th 2005 | |
| The square grid blocks are not exactly square, they change to give the illusion of equality. |
| By: Jake - December 03rd 2005 | |
| Take the lg triangle & add it to itself to create a rectangle.total sqs are 65. Take1/2 of 65 is 32 1/2. The top triangle uses33 sqs and the bottem one uses 32 |
| By: Will - December 01st 2005 | |
| Each black outline triangle actually covers 32.5 squares. (13*5)/2. The coloured shapes cover only 32 squares in total. Both triangles each fudge 0.5 squares in area. |
| By: Continuation of mortgil below: - November 29th 2005 | |
| .are joined together in a 2x8 rectangle which equals an are of 16 units, leaving one empty space |
| By: continuation of mortgil below... - November 29th 2005 | |
| are joined together in an area equal to 8x2 or 16 units, leaving one empty unit. |
| By: - November 29th 2005 | |
| are joined together in an area equal to 8x2 or 16 units, leaving one empty unit. |
| By: mortgil - November 29th 2005 | |
| In the first set of shapes, the light green and grey squares are joined together in a 3 x 5 rectangle which equals an area of 15 units. In the second set of shapes, the light green and grey shapes ar |
| By: Carl (with a C) - November 29th 2005 | |
Top not 13x5 triangle, only 12.8x4.923, area=31.5units�
Purple is 7.8x3, blue 5x1.923. Bottom _IS_ 13x5 area 32.5unit�.
Bottom border thick cover upperleft green corner sticking out past hypotenouse |
| By: Papaduck - November 29th 2005 | |
| I am no math whizz. I have to put my hands on a problem to solve it. I copied and pasted this image into "paint" and rearranged the pieces. Guess what. THEY ARE ALL EXACTLY THE SAME!!! I give up!! |
| By: joyce - November 29th 2005 | |
| The lines that appear to be perpendicular and parallel are not. They slightly bend out/inward. This accounts for the diff in percieved area. Right? |
| By: Danis - November 29th 2005 | |
| The purple triangle in the bottom is one square shorter, so after the shapes are moved around, there is an empty square. |
| By: smart**** - November 29th 2005 | |
| The top triangle just ate a bunch of food and the bottom one has an empty stomach so it still has more room to add squares. |
| By: Jars - November 29th 2005 | |
| Acute angle of the blue triangle is larger than acute angle of the tan triangle, so in the top figure the hypotenuse bulges in sightly, and it bulges out in the bottom figure. = 1 square diff in area |
| By: Tuscano Siciliano - November 29th 2005 | |
| The colored squares in both equal 15 exactly. The 'missing' additional square in the lower form is caused by the redistribution of colored squares |
| By: Karl - November 21st 2005 | |
I'm lost!
To many puzzles for one night guys.
"just pleae tell me where u get that stuff to work it all out dude!" wink wink |
| By: WiltedRose - November 20th 2005 | |
| Sin ce the blue one is smaller and it moves, it causes the green one to move over, thus leaving a hole. Then the red one gets moved over the green one, and the orange one is not moved! BLAME ORANGE!! |
| By: Rocky - November 18th 2005 | |
| For this to be true, the blue and purple tangents would have to be equal. The blue tangent is 2/5 = 0.4 and the is 3/8 = 0.375, they are close, but not equal! The hypotanous is not a straight line! |
| By: Philippe - November 18th 2005 | |
| the squares of the grid are not all the same size... and the 2 triangles in the bottom figure are not touching each others... |
| By: michaesha - November 18th 2005 | |
it is the way the pices sre put together they all wont fit in every way duh that was so totally easy
|
| By: angel - November 16th 2005 | |
| my brain hurts, does ne 1 no wots going on? plz plz plz howz this possible! |
| By: Papa Smurf - November 15th 2005 | |
| The Red and Blue Triangles aren't at the same slant. |
| By: Steve - November 14th 2005 | |
| The purple and blue triangles inthe top shape are not the same size as the purple and blue triangles in the bottom shape. They're close, but not the same. |
| By: Stephen - November 11th 2005 | |
| If blue triangle is 5 long and 2 high, the angle works out at 21.8 degrees, but if purple triangle is 8 by 3 the angle is 20.5 degrees. So the two shapes are actually quadrangles, both different. |
| By: jinglehat - November 10th 2005 | |
| it has something to do with the areas of the squares |
| By: Cramer - November 10th 2005 | |
| The green and tan irregular shapes are not the same. One has a 2 square 'tongue and the other has a 3 square "tongue". When put end to end theyleave the gap. |
| By: Adrian - November 09th 2005 | |
ahem,
revision.
I believe my last conclusion gets us nowhere. |
| By: Adrian - November 08th 2005 | |
| In the 1st shape, the point at which the larger triangle meets the smaller triangle corresponds to a point in the 2nd shape's larger triangle at which a square is not "lost". Clever play. |
| By: Lorysa - November 06th 2005 | |
| Oh, I didn't get it... dangit. Saf got it right, though. |
| By: Saf - October 30th 2005 | |
| the gradient of the second triangle is a little gentler than that of the first triangle therefore it would take up more space, even though it still has the same amount of squares. |
| By: jeanie - October 29th 2005 | |
| wow sauvage all i can say is you havea wonderful mind and thats amazing yuor a true genious i love you;) |
| By: Celairiel - October 25th 2005 | |
| Gosh!! count the squares people!! They are both the same size. |
| By: Scott - October 21st 2005 | |
| Just played around with it using Paint. Made the image, then copied it and rearranged the parts. Got the exact same result as it shows; It's just a matter of more "efficient" packing :) |
| By: Eric - October 20th 2005 | |
| This is not an optical illusion. The whole premis of the problem is false. The peices on the top are not the same size as the peices on the bottom. |
| By: Tarian - October 19th 2005 | |
| I've got the answer! Take all the pieces out, Put the red at the bottom and put the green and orange in where it shows in pic. 2 and you'll have to move it up one and left one. Then add the blue! Do |
| By: LMAO - January 27th 2005 | |
| i am not getting this at all |
| By: Solved- just draw it on graph paper - January 27th 2005 | |
| This triangle dosnt add up to be a true right triangle On paper you see that the hypotenuse dosnt meet the two triangles at 5 but at 5 1/2 blue This ruins the shape of the whole picture just draw it! |
| By: rob - January 26th 2005 | |
| too many spelling mistakes. it's pieces not "peices". and rearranged not "rearanged" |
| By: Eppidoo - January 26th 2005 | |
| Briefly, the blue and violet triangles don't have the same angle. If they did, the sides would have the same ratio. 3:8 != 2:5. I don't feel like doing the math to prove it. :p |
Warning: date() expects parameter 2 to be long, string given in /home/hostblif/public_html/commenter/commenter.php on line 7
| By: - | |
|
