64=65? (math sucks)
Created on: November 28th, 2005
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (4.02) | 424 | 15 | 149 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 64,660 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 1,637 | http://www.wykop.pl/ramka/68379/64-65/ |
| 131 | http://search.daum.net/ |
| 104 | http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-72466.html |
| 45 | https://www.bing.com |
| 32 | http://www.wykop.pl/link/68379/64-65/ |
Awesome find, I give it five stars, but unfortuantely, there is an explanation. *sigh* Anyway, the slope of the diagonal line of the triangle and the diagonal line of the trapezoid aren't the same, they are slightly off. When you put the two triangles and trapezoids back together for the rectangle, the diagonal line is in fact not a line at all, but a paralellogram with an area of 1. I'm surprised no one explained this yet.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link