a² + b² = c²

no.

NOBODY CARES

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..

SHH! She is protecting her secret identity!

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

No your friends are wrong and you are right. It's just a math demonstration, not an optic illusion

Oh. Good then!

why the fuck did you feel the need to write this?

are you really that desperate for validation?

No, you silly twat.

Your comment was just a pointless attempt to seem smart of average intelligence.

My comment was a utilitarian move to try and stop you posting asinine shit.

Could I bother you for what he said, in his comments, if you can remember, please?

... 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 elementary-level skillz

...oh and then he wrote in the second comment
"I could say the same about you, couldn't I?"

(his mistake was posing it as a question)

Shit on, we got a mathematical prodigy on our hands. Next you'll tell me he knows his sine, cosine and tangent ratios.

but it's just squares isn't it?

What you see in the gif are bodies, not 2D planes

yes but say they are 3cm thick (i use centimeters and i'm not looking up conversions) all the rest look to be also 3cm thick

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

oh, sorry i mistook your first comment i had thought you meant length and i was so confused

Are you aware of Pythagoras' theorem?

You obviously haven't been here long enough to remember Fucking Science

I'm aware of the existence of Fucking Science, however there is little to no educational value in that channel. It's just gifs of tesla coils and shit. Besides which, this example in particular is not science, it's math.

When Fucking 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.

one of Fucking Science's first posts was a gif showing where π came from. Lots of math and stuff in there, if you just search

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

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 =)

i was just putting it in those terms because volume is normally measured in cubic length

You do realize that those are the same thing right?

can't even begin to explain how wrong you are

Yeah i'm not good at math, I should learn to shut my mouth.

>same thing
lol

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.

I get your point. But it sucks :)

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.

where the fuck are you getting the h? They're all squares, and the squared part is representing the area, so you don't need any height.

No.

To aid in visual learning and demonstrate that there is reason behind the numbers? Just a guess.

Not that it's too hard to understand...

inb4 people red thumb for ponies.