Funny Math 64 = 65?

[TheExaltedPheonix]

I worked it out, it is called scissors, paper and a pen.

我做过，它被称为剪刀，纸和一支笔。

私はそれを働いた、それをはさみ、紙とペンと呼ばれています。

나는 그것을 작동, 그것은 가위, 종이와 펜이라고합니다.

[TheExaltedPheonix]

You altered the angles of the triagles didn't you? The angles between the hypotenuses and the adjacents. The angle between them in the 64 square picture is bigger than in the 65 square picture by a minute fraction.

あなたは、三角形の角度はしなかった変更？斜辺と隣接間の角度。 64平方メートルの画像でそれらの間の角度は微小部分の65平方­メートルの画像に比べて大きいです。

你改变三角形的角度，没有你？之间的斜边与相邻的角度。在64平­方米的图片，它们之间的角度大于65平方米一分钟的一小部分图片­。

당신은 삼각형의 각도가 안 변경한?hypotenuse와 인접 사이의 각도. 64 평방 그림에서 그들 사이의 각도가 잠시 분수로 65 광장 사진 넘었을 수 있습니다.

[TheExaltedPheonix]

If this were real, I would put my money into sqaures like this, and then rotate it like this. By next Wednesday, I would be a millionaire.

[626user]

this happens all the time, if you change the dimensions of the perimeter you change the area

[Shchvova]

lol. tis is jus stupid

[xXxERICxXx8]

ive never counted to 65 twice

[godofawesomeness1]

It's just like Curry's Paradox.

[BSC4PE]

This is a illusion, the one square is in the space between pieces

[dbfan2scfan]

64 = 65 b/c seven ate nine !

[maudite7]

Trying to learn something? Here let me rick roll you... fuggin ppl.

[coong7777]

8x8 not equal 5x13

[Flameon7112000ll]

this is completely wrong you are measuring the blocks and then the area not area then area

[TheNemanjaCvetkovic]

are this fake or real?

[ttopperr]

@TheNemanjaCvetkovic This is real as reality. We do not know what reality is. We, as humans, are still trying to regain knowlage lost in the fire Ancient Library of Alexandria.

[Montyleeny14]

Dude, all he did was change the length of the shape from a square to a rectangle. The area in which case is dependent on the length x width.

[willghass]

@Montyleeny14 exactly, a different perimeter means different area

[froggielover08]

or it could be 60 or 70 if you want to introduce sig figs :)

[s8715053122004]

my mind is full of shits

[vorzak3]

64 does not equal 65, did the math, the center three squares on the 13x5 are off when it is done on paper

[Eonnn84]

try doing that on paper...

[sk8rdman]

It's enough to confuse most amateurs, but, anyone with a sufficient understanding of geometry can tell that the slopes don't match. It's not too difficult to figure out why this doesn't really work. Nice try though. =P

[Tkdkid9]

that 1 missing unit can actually be found using calculus.

[aehtenap]

I found the same answer as enesuzel. So there must be a missing area.

[BC2Player]

whats with the chinese? im only 15. dont hate

[Atheist2006]

The right polygon is not a rectangle, but a hexagon.

[anjanaqa]

fuck urself the waste video

[Farathus]

If you add all the single forms.. 2 trapezoids (40) and 2 Triangles (24) You get 64..

[mariokartrainbowroad]

using similar triangles

3/8 = 5/13

39/104 = 40/104

NO

The trapezoid and the triangle does not form a similar triangle.

[watermage098]

this is what we call the platonian triangle =)

[mwcafac91]

lol, I remember when I tried this out with graphing paper a while ago, I was so confused... the slopes mismatching is a lot easier to notice with paper though

[wuiyang]

the 甲 and 乙 middle got a hole , it is 1*1 so, this is why 64=65

[moises300689]

el area individual de las figuras suman en total 64, entonces el segundo rectangulo que se forma no ensambla bien

[ZamatixNL]

lol at those serious comments.. it's just fun

[Jimnuzzy]

LOL

[DJVM95]

wtf?

[rusi0oo]

no entiendo

[sudokuboy9]

The slopes do not match up. They look like they do to the human eye, but there is really a small sliver of empty space running across the rectangle diagonally

[Thatwierdo13]

You'd better put on a raincoat cause my mind just got blown.

[FallynNephylem]

(8*8)/(4*ab)cd=A b powered

A Bp(12*12)=64

its an equation, the process of losing one number

the sum of one

[erjoalgo]

haha nice, here's the trick.

compute the gradients of the trapezoid and triangle...

trapezoid is 2/5, but triangle is 3/8.

to a common denominator, 16/40 and 15/40.

so the gradients are off by 1/40, a small crack between the figures hardly noticeable

good trick

[MichaelKovarik]

In the second figure, the bottom left and top right corners are NOT right angles so that the figure is NOT a rectangle sot that 5x13=65 is NOT the area.

[almehrez]

8/3=2.6666

5/2=2.5

so red+blue non triangle

so next one is not Rectangle

i hope it is clear

[deathizmylife]

gradients of the lines aint the same so u cant join them up perfectly

[byrlle09]

it doesnt always mean that when the figures in a figure are reaarranged, the area of it is still the same.. that's simple geometry..

[HorrorAlex]

No, an area will always stay the same no matter how it is rearranged. If you cut a piece of paper into pieces and rearrange it, you won't have more or less paper.

[miguelbaptista]

You are right.

But the problem is that the second figure is NOT a rectangle, as explained by others in the comments. So the math cannot be done like in the video.

[essenceofcool]

@byrlle09

wrong. you fail the test.

[xaroken]

*sucks thumb in fetal position*

[Djtobidj]

fucking nerds.

[GoDieInAPoolOfAids]

ROFL u mad? gtfo back to gayscape and level up ur feltch bitch

[Djtobidj]

rofl, gay to actually watch maths on youtube?

get a life doctor

[felah]

Sorry, but pieces don't fit together perfectly. For example you can see it from the line where the red piece touches to the green piece...

[jonnysmpr]

Of course 64=65!!!

That is if you forget about the gaps cause by non-parallel gradients, which cumulatively add up to 1.

Or put simply look they don't fit together properly. 1 stars for trying to manipulate the beauty of maths.

[jonnysmpr]

Oh didn't you know that (10x10)=(33x3)?

That is because if you get a 33x3 grid, cut it out into four parts so that it appears to fit into a 10x10.

Then the above statement must be true.

We can just ignore those silly gaps. Stupid!!!

[sdmitch16]

Show me.

[enesuzel]

x = 2 - ( 3x5)/8 = 0.125

the area of triangles are = 2x ( 5 x 0.125)/2 = 0.625

the are of parallelogram is = 3 x 0.125 = 0.375

the toal missing space is = 0.625+ 0.325 = 1

and thats 64 + 1(which is missing area) = 65

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING POST BELOW

[enesuzel]

Lets figure it out logicly there is a one missing sq. and that makes it 65 and im gonna prove itbecause of the differents of slopes in the rectangle the space appears and its roughly becomes from 3 pieces, the triangle between blue and green, the parallelogram between red and green, and the triangle between orange and green( as same as first triangle) the heights of the triangles are 5 and the base lengths are x. And the height of parallelogram is 3 and the base lenght is x.

[MrFluffy1245]

zerzis you are so freaking smart

you weirdo

[IronMortality]

The shapes would not match up in reality because the trapeziums and the triangles have different gradients, but they are similar enough to make this illustration appear reasonable.

[BloodyAlboz93]

It is much more simpler.

If you draw it yourself ( but correctly ), you would see that you come 0.2 cm short. Now if you multiply 0.2 x 5 = 1 what makes 65-1=64.

Nice try mate but dont manipulate xD!

[xerxis157]

I HAVE THE ANSWER!!!!

The slopes of the trapezoids and triangles do not match

the slope of the trapezoids have a Rise/Run of 2/5

the triangles have a rise/run of 3/8

2/5= 0.4

3/8=0.375

this means that there is a tiny gap between shapes, resulting in about 1 unit

i'm just your neighborhood genius at your service, everybody gets one

if you have any other wonders just send me a message

[kolgezer]

i agree you

2/5=0.4

3/8=0.375

[StanBorys]

I agree with you at all. You can see the gap. Look at the centre of rectangle, where red triangle touch green triangle. The diagonal is really fat.

or...

I HAVE SECOND ANSWER!!!

The whole is more than the sum of its parts :D

[ohmydinosare]

phew, you've saved the day, xerxis157, I really was quite horrified when I saw this video- 64=65.... ??? noooooooo! that would be terrible. thank you for saving maths. I like maths.

[belle31998]

Are you like some sort of math genius? You're so good!

[DimsimMaster]

no its cos of the fibonaci sequence numbers...

[PivotMakeranimations]

@xerxis157 what?

[spaceshipable]

@xerxis157 Wasn't that obvious to everyone?

[EpicSmartAss]

That makes you genius? If you are in like 3rd grade maybe but thats like standard knowledge by 5th grade.

[kynAxiz]

@xerxis157 well done

[DaFleegsta]

@xerxis157 i didnt know the exact numbers or the exact cause, but why isnt it obvious to anyone else that theres a bit of unfitting.. i know these videos imply that they're not doing this, buts its so obvious that its fake.. idk it just confuses me why people dont consider it

[WarDude50]

@xerxis157 way to ruin it

[Moonjokers]

@xerxis157 I want you in my neighborhood :(

[ttopperr]

@xerxis157 It is good for you to have the answer; I have it also. You might be a in my neighborhood but any smart person could watch this and figure out why it works the way that it does so as for you being a genius. I am highly skeptical about that notion.

[dbfan2scfan]

@xerxis157

could I purchase a pocket version of you for my daily use?

[ZukunftMorder]

@xerxis157 lol u still dum

[Isaac289]

I'M SCARED!

[1337ownz]

MIND = BLOWN

[kitteyandkat]

MIND BAFFLING!! =P

[GraveUypo]

it's NOT a perfect fit.

you can see the lines getting thicker just as the pieces start to move to form the new 5x13 retangle, so it becomes less noticeable.

[DirkVolker]

There is a small crack along the two sides of the 13x5-rectangle. The maximal width (d) of this crack is 0.125, d = 2 - ((3 / 8) x 5) = 0.125. The total area (A) of this crack consists of three pieces, A = A triangle1 + A triangle2 + A parallelogram. This total area equals 1, A tr1 = ((5 x 2) / 2) - ((5 x (2 - d)) / 2) A tr1 = 0.3125 A tr2 = A tr1 A tr2 = 0.3125 A pa = d x 3 A pa = 0.375 A = 0.3125 + 0.3125 + 0.375 A = 1

[BobDole2343]

ill take your word for it!

[yrgymnstamanda]

its still 64 because the new rectangle created is not exactly 5x13. There are small pieces that are cut off but there dispersed over a large enough area that you don't notice it. if you look closely enough, the lines aren't perfectly aligned. But if nothing is added or taken away, it is (according to current math and science) impossible for the area to change.

[peterkframe]

cutting it in half might have something to do with it

[danedaworld]

this is real, i did it on graphing paper, it really fit....freaky

[djanmin]

???

[duck7759]

this is a joke don't take it so seriously. why so serious

[playerlazar73]

the center line thickness..

[someoneinlv]

red and blue have different slope....it does NOT for a triangle....and the same for the other two colors....that simple...

[cxlin0]

the new line, which combined by the side of blue and red, is not a straight line, because their slope is different apparently. It's just a vision jorrery..

[merl0c]

Aye, optical illusion, one of the sides are concave.

[interceptor6]

yes i see now. the red and green block have a slope that gains 3 blocks per 8. the blue and salmoncoloured one (couldnt they pick yellow?) raise 2 by 5.

5/2 doenst equal 8/3

it's only a small difference, and i don't notice it changing while its playing, but yet enough to make 64 into 65

[MumboJ]

look carefully at the shape at 0:24, the bottom left corner of the red triangle goes slightly beyond the horizontal grid line.Because the shapes do not fit together perfectly, there is a small gap between the red and green triangles, which spreads slightly across the entire diagonal, and although it doesnt look like much, the gap has a total area of exactly one square, so although the shapes themselves only take up 64 squares, the shapes plus the small gap inbetween them take up 65 :)

[BriDirt]

but u can clearly see and count 65 squares, never could understand that

[BTColton]

haha yes, good observation...all i could find before i read your comment was in the square the green one had 17 peices of squares (no matter how small) and in the rectangle it only had 16...idk if that would make a difference or not but still... :)

[Shmily271]

The parts apparently cannot line up perfectly to make a rectangular. The hypotenuse of the triangle has a slightly different slope compared to the split line in the rectangular. The difference in angle shouldn't be more than 2 degree, that's why most people wouldn't be able to notice.

[Persian274]

but the size did not change at all! thats the wierd part

[hellsegundo]

The triangles arent really triangles. The "hypotenuse" has two parts ( its cut)

[SSJ1Igor]

:P I get it! Since the first square thing has 8x8 dimensions, in order for the next object to have the same size, the dimensions must be 8+x and 8-x. So what this does is: dimensions become 8-3 and 8+5. which makes the new object different in size since the dimensions didn't change by the same value, in other words 3 IS NOT 5. There ya have it.

[VEGETADTX]

Yeah my friend, but size didn't changed at all as you see, and THAT'S what actually confuses me...

Just the simplest logic, if you change its shape but KEEP SIZE the same then the shape is changed but the SIZE is the SAME...I mean damn confusing...

[gfyoutried]

there's not 64 squares in the 1st square that's why. count them there's 65

[VEGETADTX]

no there is 64 :S?

And you know what is the first logical question that confuses me, its -

If you change something's SHAPE but not the SIZE only the shape, then THE SIZE MUST REMAIN THE SAME DAMN IT!? RIGHT?!

And that confuses the hell out of me!??!

Its really not some growing trick... so its even more confusing, but I only watched this shorlty, I will take about 10-15 minutes and watch it over again carefully few times.

[nagyl86]

did you count 65? How in hell have you done that? :D:D:D

[samwellomar]

VEGETADTX, there is a gap between the red and green triangles. It's just a bad picture quality. Do this with paper and you will see it doesn't work. :)

[VEGETADTX]

Thank you! I didn't spent much time on it so I didn't notice it ;) But yes definitely is what you say. Its a small visual trick including shrinking of the red triangle somewhere on 0:17, right when the red triangle is moving(cause its less noticeable then).

[needingalife]

cool vid :)

[atb1248]

no, there's no "grow" trick, it's because everybody is wrong... it's a well know magic trick but I don't remember the little trick in it. All the piece are identical after the move...

[contingentpurpose]

The answer is quite simple: In the bigger square, all the margins grow a bit and that truly makes 1 of those tiny squares more. Kinda tough to explain in English.

Finnish/suomeksi:

Eli suuremman neliön reunoista tulee kuperat ja pienemmän neliön reunoista koverat. Se todellakin tekee sen yhden pienen neliön eron näiden kahden neliön välille.

[cornicle953]

its someting called area... learned it once lol

[G3org3Master]

omg you didnt listen in class did you.

[sciencoking]

the squares between the green and the others grow, and there´s another form where the area gets 66 cm² but i dont know it anymore

[nintendo1980]

this is this the triangle and hole in it

[Jamesdisdaboss]

the green overlaps

[mlc10101]

the green overlaps its self

[StratomasterT]

私は理解しない。 私はギターを演奏する。 私のビデオを見なさい。

[Harpmaster9000]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[TheRealStig]

Wrong. :)

If you look at the gradients on the inside lines of the 5x13 rectangle, you'll notice that they don't tesilate and there's a gap betweeen them. A gap of 1cm^3 which is where the 65 comes from 64.

Neat trick though.

[abr71310]

It's actually 1cm^2 (squared) but yes, I see it too.

I didn't truly see it until I read the comment.

But thanks for the clarification. ;)

[TheRealStig]

Typo sorry.. I meant squared. :)

[abr71310]

It's alright mate - together we pwn'd the system! <3

[valtermaialol]

if you change the perimeter the are will change too -.-

[bladez100]

..... interesting