Guess where is the missing square

[threaded]

Doh! Just realised what is happening.

Good one Bob you managed to troll me.. Respect

[oliver]

Charming.

Now explain Oliver why it is that you can re-create the bottom triangle and shapes identically, using the shapes from the top one ?

Neither of the shapes are triangles and the fact that you think they are does not change this. The second shape is not the same as the first one which should be abundantly OBVIOUS from the fact that there is your magical trick of the light square/non-square/optical illusion/'blank'(?) present in the second one.

Explain why the top triangle overlays the bottom triangle exactly. How is that possible if the hypotenuse of each are bending in different directions or that both shapes are not even triangles but different shapes from one another altogether.

They are not triangles. There is no hypoteneuse. The line you are thinking is the hypoteneuse is not straight. The two shapes don't overlay each other. This has been explained to you over and over.

Seeing as though you are so clever and know it all. Explain away those little fundamental chestnuts.

See above.

For someone who doesn't recognise a simple jigsaw puzzle, you're inviting a great deal of egg on your face by accusing others of being thick.

The proof of your intellect is plainly evident from your posts. I need make no further comment.

No, I told you already. You don't hear so good so I'll tell you again. It is a 'space', a 'blank'.

I agree with threaded. No-one can be this stupid and you must be trolling.

[BobTheCrate]

The bottom shape can be re-created exclusively from the top shapes - including the space.

Don't believe me ?
Create your own triangle with opp as 5 units and adjacent at 13 units. Subdivide into the internal shapes and colour them the same.

Now cut out the shapes from it and you can re-arrange them to create an identical version to the bottom shape including the single space.

Call me all the names you can think of ... you'll not escape that simple fact.

Instead of calling me names, just try it.

[oliver]

The bottom shape can be re-created exclusively from the top shapes - including the space.

Don't believe me ?
Create your own triangle with opp as 5 units and adjacent at 13 units. Subdivide into the internal shapes and colour them the same.

Now cut out the shapes from it and you can re-arrange them to create an identical version to the bottom shape including the single space.

Call me all the names you can think of ... you'll not escape that simple fact.

Instead of calling me names, just try it.

Now you are getting boring. Pretending to be stupid was funny the first few times you did it but now it is just irritating. I'm not calling you names I'm just gobsmacked by your resistance to any form of logic.

Just answer this very, very simple question and then we can proceed: how many sides do you think a triangle has? Hint: the 'tri' bit should give you a clue.

[oliver]

Hang on, I've worked out the disconnect.

You have misunderstood the original problem.

You seem to be under the impression that nobody but you believes that the second shape is made up of the same subshapes as the second.

It is hard not to LOL at this point.

The problem is to explain why there is an extra square (a square has four sides of equal length - you don't have to believe me but that is what it is) in the second shape.

Answer: the two shapes are different and the 'trick' of it is that people (like you) casually looking at the puzzle jump to the conclusion that they are looking at two triangles.

[BobTheCrate]

Hang on, I've worked out the disconnect.

You seem to be under the impression that nobody but you believes that the second shape is made up of the same subshapes as the second.

It is hard not to LOL at this point.

Just for clarity. Did you mean to key "the second shape is made up of the same subshapes as the second." ?

[oliver]

Just for clarity. Did you mean to key "the second shape is made up of the same subshapes as the second." ?

What do you think? I think I can see why this puzzle has caused you so much difficulty...

[BobTheCrate]

My my you are a prickly fellow aren't you.

I'm just asking you to clarify if you made a typo or not. Any chance of a polite and relevant reply ?

[oliver]

My my you are a prickly fellow aren't you.

I'm just asking you to clarify if you made a typo or not. Any chance of a polite and relevant reply ?

Funny man. Its not me trying change the subject is it?

Come on, have you worked out where you went wrong or will you drag this down into a discussion about typos?

[BobTheCrate]

I ask you politely if you can clarify something you said because I suspected an innocent typo.

And you launch off into another barrage of more insults and now accusations that I'm trying to change the subject.

Do you simply want to exchange insults Oliver ? Because I can do that too as well if I choose to. I choose not to because invariably it isn't necessary and rarely, if ever, accomplishes anything.

It isn't clever to continuously insult someone you disagree with or whom you fail to see a point of view with. It's more ignorant than anything else.

What's it to be ? Insults or dialogue ?

PS
All I am saying is that the same puzzle/effect or whatever you wish to call it, can be easily replicated using a geometrically perfect triangle. Without the use of any curved hypotenuse or visual tricks.

If I cannot persuade you of that and boy I've tried, I fail to see the purpose in continuing if all I get in response are unnecessary insults.