The reason it isn't true is because the slope of the triangle's edge is 8/3, while the slope of the trapezoid's edge is 5/2. its simple, the shapes are intentionally distorted during the rotations.
Bill O'Reilly would solve the problem. The catch is that his answer would be that yes, in fact, 64=65. and that would be the absolute truth, only because he said it.
I was referring to the root 64 = 65 post, (hence the 180 degree remark).I figured you were too since that's the only post with a blue triangle.But yeah, you're right about the 'intrepid' post.
Closed AccountJun 9, 2008
It looks like you can't speak English either.
magicgreenmanJun 9, 2008
The reason it isn't true is because the slope of the triangle's edge is 8/3, while the slope of the trapezoid's edge is 5/2. its simple, the shapes are intentionally distorted during the rotations.
Closed AccountJun 9, 2008
Integral r ---> t f(x) dx = F(t)-F(r)since r==64 and t==64 64 dx== C which is zero
Closed AccountJun 9, 2008
They prefer to be called "Asian"!
leetasaurusJun 9, 2008
Bill O'Reilly would solve the problem. The catch is that his answer would be that yes, in fact, 64=65. and that would be the absolute truth, only because he said it.
djdoleJun 10, 2008
I was referring to the root 64 = 65 post, (hence the 180 degree remark).I figured you were too since that's the only post with a blue triangle.But yeah, you're right about the 'intrepid' post.
katarnJun 10, 2008
Yeah it has to be an integer.
lllsecretchimpJun 11, 2008
Why bother animating anything that is true? What good is animation if it can't show us fake stuff?