If you think Michael`s story is surprising..., three weeksago father inlaw basically also actually earnt $5143 working twenty hours a week at home and their best friend's mom`s neighbour did this for 6 months and made more than $5143 in their spare time at there computer. the advice here, WWW.Buzz75.ℂom
Just imagine... What if these people get paid per comment/red thumb received?..
FunnyJunk would probably be where they're making their "$5,143+ a week.." And they're constantly coming back to brag about each others success to make themselves, and their friends, richer because they know we'll just keep giving them attention..
... i'm tempted to keep it secret, to preserve the mystery. lol
but it actually isn't very interesting, he just decided to ascribe arbitrary values to the cubes in the gif and work them through the (basic) formula to 'prove it'.
Presumably to show off his mad, rad elementarylevel skillz
I can appreciate the math behind it but when I look at them it just seems to me like it would obviously fit. I thought it was just a math demonstration until my friends told me it is supposed to look like the water will overflow.
Yes, that's what I said, that it's the ideal condition where all the bodies' height is the same, therefore it can be ignored.
But that little demonstration of Pythagora's Law goes down the drainer if you troll with the height, therefore increasing the volume.
What do you want? I just woke up when I saw the damn thing and it was the first thing that popped in my head
I'm aware of the existence of ******* Science, however there is little to no educational value in that channel. It's just gifs of tesla coils and **** . Besides which, this example in particular is not science, it's math.
When ******* Science was originally started pretty much all that was posted was actual thought provoking and insightful content and youtube videos discussing education topics. It wasn't reserved for just science, but that is what it was primarily centered around. The channel went downhill after only four days or so (pretty quick even for FJ) and is now reserved only for such gifs as you have described. However, it's original purpose was to share educational material that was also cool enough to get the thumbs the posters desired.
H is a constant because its not relative to anything in the equation its simply a value that one person said "hey that's a cool number lets use that." because you can change H and nothing will happen as long as its constant from all 3 containers. if H changed from side to side to be relative to a/b/c then this would NOT work.
0
#39 to #38

baldrian**User deleted account** has deleted their comment []
You just stumbled, completely by accident, onto one of the biggest stories in recent mathematical history. If you care enough google "fermats last theorem" and check out the wiki page.
I see this is quite interesting as most people would assume it could be done somehow
Has someone really tried this with every number combination possible?
No, that would be impossible as numbers don't have an end, i.e. if you give me a number I can always give a bigger one.
But number theory proofs tend to be iterative rather than exhaustive i.e. if we can prove it works for 1 then prove it works for n+1 then it must work for 1+1 and thus as it works for 2 also works for 2+1 etc etc.
If you're really interested there's a book called "Fermat's Last Theorem" by Simon Singh that doesn't require any mathematical knowledge to understand as it's more of a biography of Andrew Wiles life when he was working on the proof and a bit of history thrown in.
I'm a Math student at Uni and to me a problem that nobody could solve from 1637 till 1995 fascinates me.
Yeah I suppose so but wasn't the largest number supposed to be grahams number or something but i never got it because you could just add anything to grahams number
grahams number is the largest number with a use, it is very large, there are less particles in the known universe but it broke the record for largest number when it was used for a proof in some part of ramsey theory I think... not 100% on that but I bet Wiki would know =)
No because a^3 is not relative to b^3 or c^3 here because the depth of the cylinders is the same for all 3 and not just relative to a b or c
You have to think of it as a(b or c)^2 with a depth of (example) 3cm each
I see the red thumbs have already begun pouring. I stand by my claim:
We are not discussing mere areas here, we are discussing whole volumes, as indicated by the liquid inside each square this requires us to introduce an additional element to our calculation, the height of the liquid containers, which we can only assume is equal for all three cubes. The entire point of my comment was to point out the fact that even though the calculation is more complicated, it can be simplified as so:
a^2 x h + b^2 x h = c^2 x h
h x (a^2 + b^2) = c^2 x h
a^2 + b^2 = c^2 (h removed)
Hence the picture.
Nice catch. i missed that the first time someone posted this. I understand your logic but apparently common sense is lacking anymore.
To everyone else who does not understand math, the H is the height/length of the side that is not equal to a, b, or c. This gif is showing both a^2+b^2=c^2 and a^2 x h + b^2 x h = c^2 x h.
What is a true scientist? Someone with a doctorate or someone who follows rules when trying the scientific process? bill isn't the scientist really all he did was explain something already proven