64 = 65? Yes It Does [Video]

Submitted by: fancylad 7 years ago Science

How is this math fact explained? Just watch and take notes...
There are 44 comments:
Female 1,356
does this work? don`t you have to separate with the units whole?
0
Reply
Female 127
I Understand this. But 64 cant be 65, or 64 would be 65. But 64 is just 64. And thats all.
0
Reply
Male 85
basic algebra.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
The easiest way to explain this is that in the final configuration, the two lines comprising the tops of the green and orange shapes do not together form a straight line. The slope of a line is the rise divided by the run. The line atop the green triangle has a rise of 3 and a run of 8, and therefore, a slope of 0.375. The line atop the orange shape has a rise of 2 and a run of 5, and therefore, a slope of 0.4.

This results in a gap in the shape of a very thin parallelogram with an area, as MrRubik explains, of 1 unit. The width at its widest -- in the center between the green and red triangles -- is approximately 0.117 units. (1/sqrt(73))

0
Reply
Male 1,918
whoever thinks this works is dumb, when you multiply something it wont make the same answer as something else, 8x8=64 5x13=65
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]this one works because its assumed that the lines are all perfectly straight, they aren`t.[/quote]

They are. That`s not how this works. Read the comments.

0
Reply
Male 68
@TKD master
the gap in the middle DOES matter
it`s very thin, but long so it makes 1cm^2.
check out murderous maths.co.uk if u dont believe me.
0
Reply
Male 154
this one works because its assumed that the lines are all perfectly straight, they aren`t.
0
Reply
Male 4,793
"The two "triangles" are slightly concave, so the second square has a minuscule gap in it."

a gap in the middle wouldnt matter, it`d still be 5x13. they very slightly changed every slope, very very very freaking slightly. with many different slopes, they can change each one by just a hair and make it all fit.

0
Reply
Male 44
The two "triangles" are slightly concave, so the second square has a minuscule gap in it.
0
Reply
Male 138
a simply tangram messed up everyone. love it.
0
Reply
Female 9,401
If that doesn`t make you feel dumb, then nothing will.
0
Reply
Male 1,043
Lolwut?
Why do we even try to understand math?
0
Reply
Male 511
1/3*3 only = 1 when 1/3*2 is put to decimal places.

i.e. 0.33333` + 0.33333` = 0.66666`, which is deccmalised to 0.66667, so + 1/3 = 1

so this video is mathematically wrong as generalizations are being used to solve it.

0
Reply
Female 3,574
I hate math.
0
Reply
Female 19
Ngeh.... Nyeh.... Geh... Grr...

GYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.... *head asplodes*

0
Reply
Male 162
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] well .99 equals 1 because 1/3 equals .333 (repeated). 1/3*3=1 and .333(repeated) * 3 = .999(repeated). [/quote]

Yep. 0.999(repeated) does equal 1. Its called math.

0
Reply
Male 1,193
well .99 equals 1 because 1/3 equals .333 (repeated). 1/3*3=1 and .333(repeated) * 3 = .999(repeated).
0
Reply
Male 736
this is one of the original, pre-internet fakes.
0
Reply
Male 3,310
Old geometry joke that requires you to assume precision that the experimenter is counting on you assuming. Slopes of those areas do not align.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]There is no sliver of a gap - It`s because when the pieces are changed around, the slope gradually takes away more white space[/quote]

No. Just no.

0
Reply
Male 31
@dooflotchie, you dont understand this? tough...
0
Reply
Female 27
There is no sliver of a gap - It`s because when the pieces are changed around, the slope gradually takes away more white space (the space in the little squares)... Wasn`t there another similar post like this one?
0
Reply
Male 1,129
again the slopes arent the same so it wouldnt match perfectly
0
Reply
Male 8,302
> Dragonlord
> And for my next stunt, I will prove that 45,000,000,000 is the largest number possible.

45,000,000,001

:-P

0
Reply
Male 734
And for my next stunt, I will prove that 45,000,000,000 is the largest number possible.
0
Reply
Female 336
Damn you, Math! You`re more inconsistent and confusing than my emo ex-boyfriend in high school. This is why I hate you, Math.
0
Reply
Male 959
Its pretty basic. The shapes don`t match up perfectly, so in the final `65` shape there`s a very thin sliver of a gap running like a very narrow kite shape between them. The size of this gap is the extra `1`
0
Reply
Male 2,056
can you smell the maths?
0
Reply
Male 8,302
The sad thing is someone said "Valentines Day" and all the Mathematician could think of was this.
0
Reply
Male 122
Yeah everyone got why this is wrong. Almost all of it doesn`t line up properly but oh well. Maths is always correct!
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Happy Valentines day everyone!
0
Reply
Male 506
It should be 64 == 65, then.
0
Reply
Male 2,372
That`s because mathematics is a scam! Always was and always will be.
0
Reply
Male 339
"Similar to the last one, there`s a small gap in the centre of the 5x13 shape where the four coloured segments don`t match up properly. This gap is exactly 1 unit in size."

Yeah. The thickened lines in the middle of the `after` photo were obviously covering something up. Plus it helps if the shapes are semi transparent too.

0
Reply
Male 1,053
"FAIL changing the perimeter changes the area inside"

Not quite. Take a 4x4 block. The perimeter is 16 units, and the area is 16 square units.

Now take those 16 blocks and lay them in a straight line. The area is still 16 square units, but the perimeter is now 34 units.

0
Reply
Male 25,416
my head hurts!
0
Reply
Male 4,746
I`m not sure why this is puzzling? Isn`t this simple geometry?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Similar to the last one, there`s a small gap in the centre of the 5x13 shape where the four coloured segments don`t match up properly. This gap is exactly 1 unit in size.
0
Reply
Male 354
FAIL changing the perimeter changes the area inside. this is like the one where they have the "missing" piece when a puzzle was rearranged. all it is are the angles of the shapes and where they are placed.
0
Reply
Male 1,254
It`s done with a little editing by the maker of the video. When the pieces are rearranged normally, you would see a very narrow strip between the two triangles that is uncovered. The area of that strip is equal to 1 square, the supposedly missing square.

Here, they tried to cover it up by thickening the hypotenuses of the triangles after they have been flipped. If you look closely, you will see that they are thicker and darker than before.

So 64 = 64. Math wins and cheaters never get ahead.

0
Reply
Female 136
Found the explanation.

Explanation

0
Reply
Male 19,840
Link: 64 = 65? Yes It Does [Video] [Rate Link] - How is this math fact explained? Just watch and take notes...
0
Reply