It doesn't make sense to me, any of my fellow bf2sers know?
Actually it depends on where and how you put each parts...
Last edited by Andoura (2007-05-15 21:00:41)
Hax?-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me, any of my fellow bf2sers know?
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/08/trigrid.gif
ah HA! Now it all makes sense... H@X.. why did I not think of it before... H@X indeed...UnknownRanger wrote:
Hax?-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me, any of my fellow bf2sers know?
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/08/trigrid.gif
one square bigger, easy. wrong piece, wrong place
1. Print it out.
2. Find yourself a straight edged item (a rule, say).
3. Compare straight edge of straight edged item to the longest side on each triangle.
2. Find yourself a straight edged item (a rule, say).
3. Compare straight edge of straight edged item to the longest side on each triangle.
Indeed.-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:
ah HA! Now it all makes sense... H@X.. why did I not think of it before... H@X indeed...UnknownRanger wrote:
Hax?-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me, any of my fellow bf2sers know?
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/08/trigrid.gif
The hypotenuse on one is curved.
'Curved' isn't quite the right word - but yeah, that was what I was getting at in my post too...{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The hypotenuse on one is curved.
the slopes of the hypotenuses of the trangles changes between pictures
In the bottom, they are the same. but the green is slightly steeper on the top
In the bottom, they are the same. but the green is slightly steeper on the top
Last edited by S.Lythberg (2007-05-15 21:26:56)
I don't get it. What are you asking. If you do not understand how that is possible, the orange is smaller than the red and the green and red sections switch places.
No, they don't.S.Lythberg wrote:
the slopes of the hypotenuses of the trangles changes between pictures
In the bottom, they are the same. but the green is slightly steeper on the top
WHAT? you really don't get it do you...Deadmonkiefart wrote:
I don't get it. What are you asking. If you do not understand how that is possible, the orange is smaller than the red and the green and red sections switch places.
Count the squares, the area has not changed, only the perimeter.
That is not correct - count the squares in each part in each picture - each part is identical in each picture - nothing changes other than their position.S.Lythberg wrote:
Count the squares, the area has not changed, only the perimeter.
The trick is that the larger 'triangle' (formed by all the parts together) is not a triangle.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-05-15 21:36:42)
I meant the colored squares......Scorpoin0x17 wrote:
That is not correct - count the squares in each part in each picture - each part is identical in each picture - nothing changes other than their position.
The trick is that the larger 'triangle' (formed by all the parts together) is not a triangle.
Geometrically, it is possible to dramatically change the perimeter without altering the area.
example:
A 2x2 square has the same area as a 1x4 reactangle
Obviously, the drawing is more complex, but it appears that the hypotenuse is not actually a straight line, which would add area underneath when rearranged and allow for the "hole" to appear
Ah, I thought you meant 'perimeter' as in 'the distance around a given two-dimensional object'. Which in this case (well, if you ignore the 'hole') doesn't actually change.S.Lythberg wrote:
I meant the colored squares......Scorpoin0x17 wrote:
That is not correct - count the squares in each part in each picture - each part is identical in each picture - nothing changes other than their position.
The trick is that the larger 'triangle' (formed by all the parts together) is not a triangle.
Geometrically, it is possible to dramatically change the perimeter without altering the area.
example:
A 2x2 square has the same area as a 1x4 reactangle
Obviously, the drawing is more complex, but it appears that the hypotenuse is not actually a straight line, which would add area underneath when rearranged and allow for the "hole" to appear
exactly.
On the top, the hypotenuse is concave, while it is convex on the bottom, thus changing the area underneath.
And I get to say "thus"
On the top, the hypotenuse is concave, while it is convex on the bottom, thus changing the area underneath.
And I get to say "thus"
For those of you who are geometrically challenged, here is a picture of one "triangle" superimposed over the other. See the difference?
Last edited by Psycho (2007-05-15 22:01:49)
And is what I was hinting at way back at post #6.S.Lythberg wrote:
exactly.
On the top, the hypotenuse is concave, while it is convex on the bottom, thus changing the area underneath.
And I get to say "thus"