64=65?
The explanation of the paradox according to which a rectangle composed of 65 little squares (5 times 13) would be equidecomposable to a square made of 64 little squares (8 times 8). The “missing little square” is explained by the fact that the 4 points that seem to belong to the diagonal of the rectangle are not aligned. Indeed, they are the vertices of a parallelogram, whose area is equal to one little square.
© matematita
The image belongs to the sections...:
Geoboard and squared paper (2D geometry)
