How? Please God someone explain!

[Lewis.J.P_1987]

Unless i cant count. I cant figure it out?  :-k

[*Big Beast*]

it`s clever but simple really :D :D :clap:

[les baty]

Yes very good!!!

[TDi90]

it`s clever but simple really :D :D :clap:

if its that sinmple, how come i dont get it  :-.

[V8MoneyPit]

Is it something to with the fact that the complete rectangle would be 65 squares, but the sum of the surfaces is only 32 squares?

i.e.
red - 8x3/2 = 12
dk green - 5x2/2 = 5
yellow = 7
lt green = 8
Total = 32.

Complete rectangle is 13x5 = 65

Can't get my head around why this makes a difference, but it might!!

[Lewis.J.P_1987]

 :-k You have just confused me some more? If there is a simple answer please some one post it! Or i will not be able to get to sleep tonight! 

[auf_wiedersehen_pet]

Very good.

It's someting to do with the two angles in the slope.

Draw a straight line from the top point to the bottom left point. On the top drawing, there is a gap underneath the straight line. On the bottom drawing there is no gap - the shpes protrude higher than the line. I think the area is "lost" by the very fine slither above the line.

You might need to save the picture and zoom in a little.

[auf_wiedersehen_pet]

Got it.

The overall shape of the triangle is there to confuse. It's actually a quadrilateral. Shifting the shapes about moves the upper edge further upwards creating the space in the bottom drawing.

 :lol: :lol:

[TDi90]

wow.
you see this is why your a teacher.  :clap: :clap: :clap:
well done. im very impressed.  :clap:

[Lewis.J.P_1987]

I don't want to sound thick. However, I do not see how that much area could be gained from that tiny slither? 

[datalas]

I don't want to sound thick. However, I do not see how that much area could be gained from that tiny slither? 

Blame Pythagoras :)

[V8MoneyPit]

Got it.

The overall shape of the triangle is there to confuse. It's actually a quadrilateral. Shifting the shapes about moves the upper edge further upwards creating the space in the bottom drawing.

 :lol: :lol:

Err.... how? The edges are the same number of squares in both cases. Or am I being thick? (Answers on a post card in reply to that question!!)

[generation-x]

im with steve on this im afraid

[Saffy]

Err.... how? The edges are the same number of squares in both cases. Or am I being thick? (Answers on a post card in reply to that question!!)

bare in mind...Both diagrams use the exact same shapes, same size everything, no tricks. But you are not looking at a true triangle in the first diagram arrangement either. As said "Draw a straight line from the top point to the bottom left point" you will see that the two shapes there do not form a flat line, so it's not a real triangle (a real triangle has 3 sides and your looking at 4!). If a prefect best fit triangle is drawn around the both diagrams then you will see that BOTH diagrams will have the same areas of that gap exposed but in the first diagram that area is spread thinly along the non flat upper most face. That tiny slither might not look much but it is in fact the same area as the gap in the second.

[DoubleTop]

I found it easier to explain it when looking at the two triangles.

Let's look at ratios to show the 'entire' shape isn't a triangle.

The smaller triangle is 5across2high
The second triangle is 8across3high

So, to make these comparable in math, we make the denominator the same, making the ratios
15/6 & 16/6.

So the key thing here is that the first image as stated before is NOT a complete triangle, as shown by the line 'test'.  And yes that little simple ratio and clever arrangement is enough to make the extra 'hole' appear, the two shapes are NOT comparable at all.  A slight trick on the eye, but in my head quite easy to show why the gap appears.

To put into some amusing 4x4 related terms, the ascent is steeper on one of the triangles ;)

DT.

[TDi90]

these are quite fun, im learning stuff here, can we have some more math problems please?
 :dance:

[V8MoneyPit]

Err.... how? The edges are the same number of squares in both cases. Or am I being thick? (Answers on a post card in reply to that question!!)

bare in mind...Both diagrams use the exact same shapes, same size everything, no tricks. But you are not looking at a true triangle in the first diagram arrangement either. As said "Draw a straight line from the top point to the bottom left point" you will see that the two shapes there do not form a flat line, so it's not a real triangle (a real triangle has 3 sides and your looking at 4!). If a prefect best fit triangle is drawn around the both diagrams then you will see that BOTH diagrams will have the same areas of that gap exposed but in the first diagram that area is spread thinly along the non flat upper most face. That tiny slither might not look much but it is in fact the same area as the gap in the second.

Yep. I just got round to looking at it again and the angles of the two triangles are different. Then read yout post!!

[auf_wiedersehen_pet]

wow.
you see this is why your a teacher.  :clap: :clap: :clap:
well done. im very impressed.  :clap:

Thank you.

Just to be sure I asked the experts - 22 x Year 9 Graphics pupils (13-14 years old)!

They took just two minutes to give a precise collective answer.

 :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Lewis.J.P_1987]

Look at the image then move your head back then forward.  :-.

[TDi90]

thats good, but its not a mathsy type problem!

MATHS PROBLEMS PLEASE  :twisted:

[mattyme]

I found it easier to explain it when looking at the two triangles.

Let's look at ratios to show the 'entire' shape isn't a triangle.

The smaller triangle is 5across2high
The second triangle is 8across3high

So, to make these comparable in math, we make the denominator the same, making the ratios
15/6 & 16/6.

So the key thing here is that the first image as stated before is NOT a complete triangle, as shown by the line 'test'.  And yes that little simple ratio and clever arrangement is enough to make the extra 'hole' appear, the two shapes are NOT comparable at all.  A slight trick on the eye, but in my head quite easy to show why the gap appears.

To put into some amusing 4x4 related terms, the ascent is steeper on one of the triangles ;)

DT.

WWWWHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!?????? lol  :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?

[Saffy]

MATHS PROBLEMS PLEASE  :twisted:

[Lewis.J.P_1987]

8.5

[clbarclay]

.

thats good, but its not a mathsy type problem!

MATHS PROBLEMS PLEASE  :twisted:

You want a maths problem

What is the maximum stress in a horizontal 1m long rectangular cantileaver beam with a height of 40mm and width of 60mm if a 4000 newton point load is applied downwards at the unsupported end?
If the modulas of elasticity is 200x10⁹, what is the vertical difflection of the free end?

[Dave123]

.

thats good, but its not a mathsy type problem!

MATHS PROBLEMS PLEASE  :twisted:

You want a maths problem

What is the maximum stress in a horizontal 1m long rectangular cantileaver beam with a height of 40mm and width of 60mm if a 4000 newton point load is applied downwards at the unsupported end?
If the modulas of elasticity is 200x10⁹, what is the vertical difflection of the free end?

Still noot a maths problem, that's physics :lol: care to tell us the answer anywho? I'm entrigued but I can't see many getting it to be honest :p

[Lewis.J.P_1987]

Just copy and paste the whole thing into google ;)

Will I see anyone at Avon Dassett tomorrow? (10th May)

[clbarclay]

There is a saying along the lines of "biolagy is actaully just chemistry, chemistry is actually just physics and physics is actually just maths."

What maths actually is I dread to think 8-[ Given the ammount of algebra involved I supose english litriture is the closest subject :shock:

The solution

[Range Rover Red]

What maths actually is I dread to think 8-[ Given the ammount of algebra involved I supose english litriture is the closest subject :shock:

 :clap: :clap: lmao