Great Magic Triangle Math Puzzle

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jedishrfu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Magic Puzzle Triangle
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a mathematical puzzle involving an optical illusion related to right-angled triangles. Participants explore the geometric properties and reasoning behind the configurations presented in the puzzle, questioning the validity of the shapes and their similarities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the original shape depicted in the puzzle is not a triangle, suggesting that visual inspection reveals inconsistencies in the shapes.
  • One participant points out that the vertex of the smaller triangles does not align with the border of the larger shape, indicating a lack of similarity.
  • Another participant compares the puzzle to the failure of trisection angle constructions, emphasizing the importance of proving intersections in geometric proofs.
  • A participant mentions that basic computations show both triangles are quadrangles, raising questions about their differentiability.
  • Some participants discuss the concept of using multiple proofs to verify geometric claims, suggesting that visual proofs can serve as a supplementary method.
  • One participant shares a related anecdote about a paradox involving an infinite chocolate bar, highlighting the intuitive understanding of geometric properties.
  • Several participants observe differences in the curvature of the hypotenuses of the shapes, further questioning their classification as triangles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the shapes presented in the puzzle are not true triangles, but there are multiple competing views on the reasoning and methods of inspection used to arrive at this conclusion. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these observations.

Contextual Notes

Some participants rely on visual inspection and personal experience to support their claims, while others emphasize the need for rigorous mathematical proof. There is a lack of consensus on the definitions and properties being applied to the shapes in question.

Messages
15,681
Reaction score
10,474
This is quite an interesting puzzle. You know it's wrong but you don't know why by inspection:

The missing square puzzle is an optical illusion used in mathematics classes to help students reason about geometrical figures; or rather to teach them not to reason using figures, but to use only textual descriptions and the axioms of geometry.

It depicts two arrangements made of similar shapes in slightly different configurations. Each apparently forms a 13×5 right-angled triangle, but one has a 1×1 hole in it. [source]

http://twistedsifter.com/2017/07/profs-use-this-puzzle-to-teach-lesson-about-problem-solving/

Can you figure out an easy way to inspect it?

I spotted one way.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: QuantumQuest and Charles Link
Mathematics news on Phys.org
##2/5\neq 3/8##

The original shape is not a triangle.

Edit: You can also rather easily see that the original vertex where the smaller triangles meet is inside the second shape and not on its border. This only works if like here you have access to the grid.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: QuantumQuest, Laurie K, StoneTemplePython and 1 other person
Yeah that's what I noticed after staring at it for awhile that putting the smaller triangle inside the larger one and using the grid you can see they aren't similar.

It reminds me of the common failure of many trisection angle constructions where you can't prove that three intersecting arcs/lines cross at the same point and consequently the proof fails.
 
I'm a formula guy. Some basic computations show that both triangles are quadrangles. Or: the long side isn't differentiable on neither figure.
 
Playing around with "equivalent" angles and tangents got me the same ##\frac{2}{5} \neq \frac{3}{8}##

If you take a belt and suspenders approach with proofs -- i.e. have a proof two independent ways of proving / verifying something-- then picture proofs frequently make a nice set of suspenders.
 
I recently saw similar "paradox" regarding an infinite chocolate bar... I'm not good with math proof but I could tell the bar was shorter after you remove a piece.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link and MarchJanuary
Orodruin said:
The original shape is not a triangle.
As a former fence and deck builder, this was apparent by eyeballing down the long sides of each "triangle", where A appears concaved and B appears convexed.

Edit: You don't need the grid for this inspection.
 
Last edited:
stoomart said:
As a former fence and deck builder, this was apparent by eyeballing down the long sides of each "triangle", where A appears concaved and B appears convexed.

Edit: You don't need the grid for this inspection.
I saw the same thing. Here are the triangles overlaid:
Magic_triangle.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: stoomart
I noticed that the hypotenuse "slope" of the second triangle goes a little bit higher, that means it's not a perfect triangle.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 96 ·
4
Replies
96
Views
12K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
Replies
15
Views
41K