...I did it physically.....wierd.
Err - umm - scratch head - dunno :)
someone must know ???
This has been bugging me for AGES >:(
Has anyone printed it and cut it out. Just taken printer back upstairs so may do soon when it comes down again...
Not logical is it.
As far as I can see looking at the gridlines, the second shape is occupying more space than the first, obviously because it's incorporating that extra square in the bottom line. Follow the top (hypoteneuse) line on the second triangle, and compare it with the same line on the first diagram. It doesn't follow exactly the same angle.
No doubt there's a proper technical explanation for this somewhere on t'web, but I'm definitely not a mathematician. :D
Actually, ignore that last post. It was all rubbish. It has to be the same angle, doesn't it, because it stops and starts in the same places. I dunno! :-\
Get you with your fancy 'hypoteneuse' words Den ;D
WHY DONTCHA GOOGLE IT 8)
XX
I'm down to my last 100 strands of hair....here's hoping someone else is working on it. ???
Sorry Kenkew,
It was resolved - 15th. March 2005.
Right, with Denbee that the top shape occupies more space but from there am lost but then maths and I are not friends.
Telboy - HOW?????
Go to the archive!
http://www.brain-fun.com/Brain-Teasers/TrickyTrianglesAns.php
Well, I don't see a difference in the angles. After printing and cutting it out and l;aying one on top the other, they still look the same.
Look at the top right point of the green triangle in the second picture, compare the position of the line to the same point on the first picture.
Likewise, the bottom left point of the green triangle in the first picture.
The difference is only slight, but you can see it.
Yep. I hate maths. It is not my friend. ???
I don't see the difference, but if there is one then OK. But enough difference to fill the empty square? Still not convinced.
I can't see it either.
Cheers, Mary. At least that's two of us! (Are you mad as a hatter too?)
Despite posting the link to the answer I find it hard to believe a whole square too :-\
So ner, Trixie, I was right. :P :-*
I even used the proper fancy words and everyfink. ;D
Course I didn't have the courage of my convictions. ::)
Quote from: kenkew on June 04, 2007, 21:59:41
Cheers, Mary. At least that's two of us! (Are you mad as a hatter too?)
Yep, but still got my eyesight. :)
This has been driving me bonkers but I think I finally figured something out.
I drew the top outer triangle on graph paper showing millimetres with a fine pencil, then starting in the bottom right corner put in the other shapes, the bottom light green one 2cm tall on the right side, then the orange one above it 1 cm tall.
The top left corner of the orange shape does not in reality intersect with the angle of the outer triangle but sits 1mm below it. Given that the top green triangle is 5cm wide, that accounts for half of the 'empty' square in the bottom diagram.
Not sure where the other half comes from, maybe my fine pencil is not fine enough and there is actually a 2mm gap?
Maybe in Belinda we have a partial solution. Come B...get the compasses and sharper pencil on the job...The world awaits.