Euclid, Schmeuclid

Posted by Jebdm on Saturday August 22, 2009 @04:43PM
from the futilitycloset.com dept.

http://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/08/22/euclid-schmeuclid/

( 3 comments | 6 points | on HN )

Re:Euclid, Schmeuclid by gyom on Sunday August 23, 2009 @02:44AM (#780303)

My conclusion was actually that the points M and N must be the same point, which then implies that they also coincide with R.

The drawing can be "faked" by sketching the diameters to be a bit off-center, which results in M,N and R not being exactly the same point.

No ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Euclid, Schmeuclid by jeffbradberry on Sunday August 23, 2009 @10:31PM (#781389)

Exactly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Euclid, Schmeuclid by RiderOfGiraffes on Saturday August 22, 2009 @05:52PM (#779865)

I don't see the point of this. It's wrong, if you spend a moment's thought then it's obvious why it's wrong, and it's about as enlightening or entertaining as the usual proof that 0=1.

Can anyone explain what they like about this?

[ Parent | on HN ]