[High Praise! to Neatorama]
[Think you have a link that’s IMAO-worthy? Send it to harvolson@gmail.com. If I use your link, you will receive High Praise! (assuming you remember to put your name in the email)]
[High Praise! to Neatorama]
[Think you have a link that’s IMAO-worthy? Send it to harvolson@gmail.com. If I use your link, you will receive High Praise! (assuming you remember to put your name in the email)]
Think of it as four quarter-turns.
The arc around the intervening coin consumes two; the straight line consumes four. Thus the arc around the coin will be half as long.
It’s a “paradox” because it’s wrong. The math is literally staring you right in the face as you look at the illustration.
The coin does not make “one complete rotation” in both instances. In the top, it turns 180 degrees. BUT, at the top, as the coin rotates along the arc of half its circumference, it is also BEING rotated along the arc of half the other coin’s circumference. If you try it with an actual coin, you’ll see that when doing this, a given point does NOT make a full rotation, only half of one.
So, whoever worded the problem didn’t understand math, or is deliberately trying to confuse people.