Can anyone explain this, can it possibly be explained, or is it a glitch in geometry?
818187
The individual pieces are made to look as if they are cut from a large triangle, which is not true.  If the overall figure on top was a triangle, the little triangles (red and green) would have the same angles (the shallower angles of each would be the same).  This isn't the case, for the green triangle, the shallow angle is:\natan(2/5) = 21.8 degrees \nand the red triangle has a shallow angle of:\natan(3/8) = 20.6 degrees\nThus it is an illusion, but a good one!
1065017
I'm writing up a proof right now that this is not possible.\n\nCheck out the pdf at:\nhttp://www.geocities.com/euleratuo/
8264
It's because of the minor imperfections in the placement of the mirrors. Also, because the effect can't be seen without seeing it at an angle, it causes a curve based on your viewpoint.
583757
Your statement is incorrect.  It reads:\n\n"In the image below, there are right angles. How would I prove that they're right angles without a protractor in any triangle?"\n\nActually, it should read:\n\n"In the image below, there are some angles."\n\nAnything else is pure conjecture.  (That means a guess.)\n\nIf you would like us to say something about those angles, you need to tell us how the figure was constructed.  After you tell us that, and ask your question more clearly, your answer will be obtained in short order.\n\nedit...\n\nYou have added some text in your extra text file that doesn't help at all:\n\n"I know that these green points are right angles..."\n\nSo you think a point can also be an angle.  It will be a long time before you get someone (who knows and understands geometry) to agree with that.\n\nIf you start over and explain what you want to know, in correct terms, you may have a chance at getting an answer.
729289
what are you supposed to prove?\n\nedit:\nyou mean why the three vertices of an equilateral triangle are concyclic? i am unable to make out theproblem
1046109
haha i did it on paint sorta messy here and there but hope it helps you =)\n\nhttp://img108.imageshack.us/my.php?image=math5tw.png
48873
well i would like to pretend its a regular hexagon, in this case you would have to draw a line from one vertex to an opposite one, the line should meet at the center of gravity (the point where all 3 lines intersect)
651802
The two "triangles" are not exact triangles, but rather are quadrilaterals.  The error in representation actually adds up to be one unit.  I have done the caculations in AutoCAD, and it turns out to be one square unit missing causing the extra space.
745540
That’s because the slope of the triangle with legs 2 and 5 is different from the slope with legs 7 and 3.  Therefore, the “triangle” isn’t a real triangle.  It just looks like one.\nThe triangles are supposed to look like a 5 by 12 triangle.  But the actual area sum of the parts is only 29.5 compared to 30.
939021
I am only using visual techniques and not math theorems here:\n\nThe first plane will divide space into 2 parts.\n\nIf totally random the second plane will probably not be parallel with the first.  This will divide the 2 parts into 4.  If it did happen to be parallel with the first, then the space is divided into 3 parts.\n\nThe third plane will most likely not be parallel with either of the other two.  It would divide the space into 8ths.  If it was parallel to either of the other two then the minimum parts is 4 and the maximum is 6 parts.\n\nThe fourth plane will most likely not be parallel with any of the first 3, and can divide the space into maximum of 15 parts.  The fifth will make that 26.  Parallel planes will reduce this number.\n\nThe space will be divided into a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 26 parts with 5 planes.\n\nI just found a great description at the site below:
364344
emmmmmm\n\nd. its not a fuction of x in terms of y explicitly. It needs to be rearranged
64159
It's debatable.  Here's an interesting column that addresses the question:\nhttp://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57188.html
642048
Think about it.  If you have an angle drawn on a sheet of paper and you rotate one segment, will the length of the segment still be the same?  Yes, all you're doing is changing its position, the length remains the same.  \nWill the measure of the angle remain the same?  Of course not, by rotating one segment you're automatically changing the angle from it to the other segment.  \nFinally, if you rotate a segment, is it still oriented the same?  No way!  You just changed its position, how can it still be oriented the same way?
164065
The trick with "proofs" like these are generally an obscured division by zero. One of the lines seems to work, though when you divide to cancel out some factors, the quantity you're dividing by could/does equal zero. It's a trick and doesn't say anything substantial about mathematics.
627590
Approach your teacher and ask him or her whether your rule is geometrically valid. This is a very elementary costruction but you may have come up with something which exploits some neglected area of geometry. Once you interact, you will come to know whether it really is a brainwave or whether it already exists or is plain obvious.
151877
Theorytical if the line are formed on a flat gemetrical plane they will not intersect.Or if two tangent in a in the same circle are parallel they will never intersect.\nThe fith postulate of Euclid tackled this question.Later mathematicians, like gauss proved that they could intersect. But this proof was based on a different idea=paralell line having curvatures! Of course they would intersect. So the geometry which based on curvatures was started and was called Non Euclid Geometry.\nActually this could have been proven alot fast with some common sense! In reality it is imposible to construct a perfect circle or a perfect straight line(this is my own postulate).   This is because we are not able to have a perfect resolution of measurement.\nNot matter how you try to measure two parallel line  the results is ether convergence or divergence of the two lines if you make the line long enough!So in practice the 5th postulate of Euclid did have a practical application.
908277
* * * * * * * . I have encrypted the answer for you so that only you can see it and the rest of the readers can't solve it yet. This way your question isn't dead but you know I know the answer. Howzzat!?