View previous topic | View next topic

I'm pretty sure they got something wrong on Geometry

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

Posital
712490.  Tue May 25, 2010 1:47 am Reply with quote

I'm surprised mr fry didn't milk the "bent" angle for all it's worth...

 
bobwilson
713035.  Wed May 26, 2010 11:44 pm Reply with quote

Posital wrote:
I'm surprised mr fry didn't milk the "bent" angle for all it's worth...


don't worry Posital - he (or his replacement) will do when the move to BBC1 primetime occurs. Probably accompanied by some nobhead explaining the joke.

 
Bondee
713497.  Fri May 28, 2010 11:25 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
Posital wrote:
I'm surprised mr fry didn't milk the "bent" angle for all it's worth...


don't worry Posital - he (or his replacement) will do when the move to BBC1 primetime occurs. Probably accompanied by some nobhead explaining the joke.


At which point bobwilson buys a new record.

 
bobwilson
713628.  Fri May 28, 2010 10:55 pm Reply with quote

Bondee wrote:
bobwilson wrote:
Posital wrote:
I'm surprised mr fry didn't milk the "bent" angle for all it's worth...


don't worry Posital - he (or his replacement) will do when the move to BBC1 primetime occurs. Probably accompanied by some nobhead explaining the joke.


At which point bobwilson buys a new record.


Annoying isn't it - this constant stating of the bleeding obvious?

Now - if we can just get BBC News to realise

that it's news to report that a man has been arrested for the murder of prostitutes, and that it's not news to interview random women in the street about whether they are afraid to venture out at night (and edit the interviews to get the vox pop that they want)

that it isn't necessary to show aerial shots of a car with a meaningless commentary

that it really demonstrates the total vacuity of "news" when an anchorman states "we don't have any results - what does that mean" (for God's sake - they even put it on their own parody show - don't you people get it yet?)

and that it really isn't necessary to have two people to read an autocue

Nope - Bondee's right. I'll get a new record - just as soon as the BBC stops trying to sell me fragments of pre-recorded clips and second rate derivative shows mentored by morons who've come straight out of film school with no talent. And when they stop sending their henchmen around to demand payment with menaces and threats.

 
samivel
713640.  Sat May 29, 2010 2:03 am Reply with quote

Yawn yawn yawn.

 
Bondee
714158.  Sun May 30, 2010 10:54 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
Annoying isn't it - this constant stating of the bleeding obvious?

Now - if we can just get BBC News to realise

that it's news to report that a man has been arrested for the murder of prostitutes, and that it's not news to interview random women in the street about whether they are afraid to venture out at night (and edit the interviews to get the vox pop that they want)

that it isn't necessary to show aerial shots of a car with a meaningless commentary

that it really demonstrates the total vacuity of "news" when an anchorman states "we don't have any results - what does that mean" (for God's sake - they even put it on their own parody show - don't you people get it yet?)

and that it really isn't necessary to have two people to read an autocue


Side two, track 6, if I'm not mistaken.

bobwilson wrote:
Nope - Bondee's right. I'll get a new record - just as soon as the BBC stops trying to sell me fragments of pre-recorded clips and second rate derivative shows mentored by morons who've come straight out of film school with no talent. And when they stop sending their henchmen around to demand payment with menaces and threats.


Track 7.

Volume two will no doubt sound exactly the same as volume 1.

 
Prolekult
715728.  Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:13 pm Reply with quote

oops forgot about this, I was thinking, isn't the use of "similar" for the triangles incorrect here, shouldn't it be "congruent", ie. same size and shape (congruent) as opposed to just the same shape (similar)?

 
Flash
715742.  Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:26 pm Reply with quote

The point is that the two small triangles are not similar: one has its two non-hypotenuse sides ("base" and "perpendicular", we called them in my schooldays) in the ratio of 5:2, while the other has the ratio 8:3. That's the reason why the two hypotenuses don't make a straight line.

 
Prolekult
715757.  Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:04 pm Reply with quote

thanks Flash, I wondered what the ratios referred to exactly, but my point is that "similar" triangles can be different anyway (the same shape but different sizes), the illusion is to convince us they are "congruent" - exactly the same, so the term "similar" is redundant in a mathematical sense, if you see what I mean.

Putting it another way, even if the 2 triangles were simliar, they still wouldn't necessarily be identical, which is what the trick is trying to convince us.

Pedantic - most definitely :)

 
Efros
719384.  Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:25 am Reply with quote



Just in case anyone's bemused about this topic.

 

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group