5 ms·
A proof that 12=13. Just look at the picture and count the people. (pic)
- dcurtis 19y agoThis is insanely cool, but... optical illusion != proof
- zoltz 19y agoNot an optical illusion. Twelve guys really become thirteen. But they have to pay a price for that: they're somewhat shorter, their heads are slightly smashed in, etc. Basically the same as what happened when hunter-gatherers switched to agriculture: more people but less healthy.
- tlrobinson 19y agoThis is driving me crazy. Time to break out an image editor. edit: if you can't let this go either, save yourself a few minutes: http://tlrobinson.net/misc/illuuusions.png http://tlrobinson.net/misc/illuuusions.png
- hhm 19y agoSome time ago I found this picture and worked on it until I could generate similar animations on my own. It's tricky: the guy that disappears is gone not because it's divided in two parts and both are made into different guys; but because lots of little parts are made into different guys, so making a disappearing complete guy. That is: lots of different parts in different guys disappear in a very obvious way, and if you sum all of them, they complete a single guy (it's not easy to explain, but there is not a single disappearing guy, but a lot of tiny parts of different guys disappearing at once). Try to make it work on paper to understand how it works. Notice that the upper half of the "paper" should be cut in two halves, and those two halves _have_ to be of a different size.
- wallflower 19y agoIngenious. Made my (early) morning. Reminds me of this proof: "The less you know, the more you make" http://tinyurl.com/yu2swe http://tinyurl.com/yu2swe
- jmzachary 19y agoThe guy on the far left counts as an extra person after the shift (and the loss of the top of his head).
- agentbleu 19y agoThis guy is right! Im amazed I thought you all here were smart, it took me 60 seconds to figure it. And im a dumb arse who uses LAMP.
- daniel-cussen 19y agoSo it cuts a line out of like seven people and makes a thirteenth dude, right?
- yters 19y agoNo one's seen the disappearing square trick in math class?
- hhm 19y agoI didn't... How does it work?
- yters 19y agohttp://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=810090 http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=810090 Same sort of idea - makes use of deviations in the picture that are hard to pick out.
- hhm 19y agoAh, but it's not it. The one in the animation is not a geometric problem, it's more subtle (I solved two years ago, see my other comment).
- jory 19y agoThis is worse than the stuff that ends up on the reddit front-page. Please, let's try to keep this stuff away from yc.
- henning 19y agoI don't have time to look at this carefully, but this has to be a dissection fallacy like the ol' "64=65" one. For geometric examples, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DissectionFallacy.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DissectionFallacy.html .
- hhm 19y agoNo, it's not the dissection fallacy, it's a different trick. I gave some details on another post on this thread...
- TheTarquin 19y agoWow, I definitely stared at that for 15 minutes. I know it's trickery, but it's still pretty brain-twistingly cool.
- hernan7 19y agoWasn't this puzzle originally invented by Henry Dudeney like 100 years ago?