|
8 x 8 = 65?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| victor |
| for the theory to hold true... the area of the little boxes must remain the same... when u slice a box... u ensure that u join that box with a box of equal area... :d |
|
|
| Aled_ |
| Yeah! What he said! :rolleyes: :conf: :D |
|
|
| razzi |
| heheh good one victor |
|
|
| DJ_NRG |
| I'm going with Vic on this one. |
|
|
| MK-S |
| quote: | Originally posted by victor
for the theory to hold true... the area of the little boxes must remain the same... when u slice a box... u ensure that u join that box with a box of equal area... :d |
Yea.. small variations in areas might not be noticeable in a single square but when slicing through many, the difference will add up - and equal exactly one extra square. |
|
|
| kypez |
| wow thats way to intense |
|
|
| Stanza |
| Maybe a translation will help us... |
|
|
| Heinz |
makes you think real hard.
but vic, your right. |
|
|
| victor |
lol... it's actually from graph theory...
if u consider one of the small boxes as a square with 4 nodes then... when u break a segment... u delete a node... but when u add that node back... on a plain piece of paper i can add it anywhere as the length of my segment is not defined!!!
in that case i can prove...
8x8 = 1!!! if i just superimpose the nodes on one another...
thats why the length of the segments must remain the same... or in simpler terms... the area of each box must remain the same...
im doing graph theory at shcool right now thats why i know... this was easy coz we all know that 8x8 is not 65....
but to prove 8x8 = 64 the same way is simply retarded.. LOL |
|
|
| Jpx |
| It is really easy to understand...Just look closer to what happens to the squares |
|
|
|
|
