On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:42:04 +0700, Susanne Vitoux <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>> Bjorn, you're a remarkably well-read man about mathematicians even
>> though he couldn't even find the error in the clever Chinese proof
>> that 64 = 65.  :-)
>>
>
>Would you please share this proof? Just out of curiosity.

Bjorn should share it, because it is really a VERY CLEVER proof
that required NO mathematical background, and it stumped one of
our Great Minds, Bjorn!  :-)  Besides, I don't have the pictures
of the geometric figures that constituted the proof.


>In the very
>unlikely case you never saw the one on 0.99999(ad infinitum) = 1,
>I'll be happy to give it.

Please do.  I've never seen it put that way.  But that's a truth
in limits or asymptotics.  :-)   Something like the opposite of Z
eno's paradox ... 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 1.
>
>Jean-Marc

-- Bob.