That's the one (I think!)

Bjorn

Wayne McKenzie wrote:
> Optical illusion only.
> http://www.sofar.demon.co.uk/b03a.htm
>
> Wayne
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Reef Fish <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 9:20 pm
> Subject: Re: [SCUBA-SE] SCUBA-SE Digest - 24 Mar 2004 to 25 Mar 2004
> (#2004-79)
>
>> 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.