[–] RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago ↗ 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?
[–] gyom 16y ago ↗ 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 ? [–] jeffbradberry 16y ago ↗ Exactly.
3 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 12.5 ms ] threadCan anyone explain what they like about this?
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 ?