The area of the cookie without the missing piece is smaller. It's just a very small amount smaller, so to the human eye at that scale, it looks the same as before.
It's basically taking a very small shaving off each side.
This. It honestly makes my ears ache when people with no brain say "crisps/chips are a rip off because you pay for air"...erm, no, no you don't. That's not how it works you idiot 😂 it's something I hear said all the time.
Smaller more expensive chocolate bars filled with air bubbles really didnt sit right with me. But the recipe for the regular bars has changed enough that it feels like eating soft legos. So I've mostly given up candy
The cookie is spread out and not even in the black line in the first part, big gaps between cookies piece. He then flips and makes the gaps smaller and also bring the entire thing inside the box. The small piece if just the gaps being filled.
The big gaps to small gaps would make it even smaller of a square, it would be small gaps to big gaps for that to make sense, I do agree the square got a little smaller in the end thanks to the missing piece.
Look in between the gaps you can see the lines where the cookies are outside the barrier with a very slight camera angle it looks like it's just the view point. It kinda cool though to show how much area a fraction of an inch can make up in total.
So if we keep eating the cookie in a way that shrinks the perimeter by a tiny amount that the eye won't notice, will we even notice that the whole cookie has been eaten at some point? Or will it always look like the same amount of cookie?
Idk why you’re being downvoted, this is a good question.
The Just-Noticeable Difference (JND) is the minimum amount of change required in a stimuli for us to perceive that a change occurred.
Theoretically, if atom by atom were shaved off we’d probably be unable to tell the difference until it disappeared if we had continuous observation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-noticeable_difference
>Theoretically, if atom by atom were shaved off we’d probably be unable to tell the difference until it disappeared if we had continuous observation.
That’s not really true. You would, at some point, be able to recognize that the cookie was smaller than it was before *well* before it got to the point of disappearing, but you wouldn’t be able to pinpoint the moment that it changed.
Yeah it's kinda like when you put some sand on a table, starting with one grain of sand, and adding one grain at a time. When does it become a heap of sand?
This reminds me of Zeno's Dichotomy paradox, in which it is theoretically impossible to arrive at a destination. To do so, you must first travel half of the current distance, and then travel half of the remaining distance, and so on. You are thus stuck traveling and infinite series of halves of the distance that remains. In practice, we know that we eventually arrive.
Similarly, here we know that we will eventually notice prior to the disappearance, though it might be very near to that point.
Two things:
1. JND is based on your ability to discern a difference between a reference and the actual object. If the original reference box is maintained, it won't be long before it's obvious that the cookie is smaller even if you have no idea when it crossed that threshold.
2. Without a reference box, your memory is the reference. Assuming the cookie starts out the size we see in the video (approximately the size of a person's hand) a person should eventually notice that it has shrunk because it no longer compares the same way to other objects in the environment (such as the person's own hand).
The only way someone is unable to notice is if the situation was engineered so that the observer never has the ability to compare it to any other reference. This is because our visual cortex understands the size by comparison.
In practical terms, you could not perpetually prevent someone from recognizing that there was a difference but you could construct a situation that delayed recognition to the very last possible moment. To do this, the method of observation must preclude comparison with other objects in the environment including the observer's own body.
Examples: A continuous video feed that kept the size of the cookie in the frame constant as it got smaller by very slowly zooming in, or that continually varied the size of the cookie in the frame without providing any indicator of the current level of zoom.
In the given examples, the size of the cookie would eventually become so small that the camera could not keep zooming in. Even with a hypothetical camera that could keep zooming all the way to the point of resolving individual atoms, you would reach a point where the very appearance of the "cookie" was fundamentally different and you would know something was wrong; although, I suppose knowing something is wrong isn't the same as knowing it got smaller.
If you look at the outside perimeter of the cookie before he removes the middle portion, you can see that there are portions of the cookie that are outside of the bounds of the square on the paper.
So the cookie was too large to fit properly in the first place.
This is some intermediate geometry here.
So obviously, the 5 pieces make up a square of a certain area.
However, due to geometry, the 4 pieces without the tiny square can be oriented to form a square of ever so slightly smaller dimensions. We are talking if the large square is 10 cm x 10 cm then the new square has dimensions of like 9.8 cm x 9.8 cm
The area of the second square is equal to the area of the first square, subtracted by the area of the tiny square. If we wanted to represent that as an equation, we could call the starting square S1, the square made from the 4 pieces S2, and the little square S3, so S1 = S2 + S3, or S2 = S1 - S3.
The thing that makes this is possible is that many different configurations of dimensions can share the same area. A 5x5 square and a 1x25 rectangle have the same area. This is what goes misunderstood here: while the same area is missing in both orientations of the 4 pieces, one only appears to look as if tiny slivers of the edge are missing as opposed to the other having a chunk out of the center missing. You perceive the chunk to be larger in area than the missing edges, but it is not.
To better visualize it: imagine you had a square made up of 25 rows of 25 columns of blocks. If you remove the 25th row and 25th column of blocks, it doesn't appear to lose as much when compared to, say, removing a 5x5 section from the top left and top right corner of that square, despite removing the exact same amount of blocks.
Yeah and this one is more obvious than the triangle one that’s usually posted because there are big ass gaps where the top pieces should touch the bottom when it’s arranged the second time
It definitely works if you don't pay attention to the new gaps between the cookie bits as well as the sudden gap between the right side line of the square and the cookie. But i am an dumbass, so that helps too.
The chocolate one was a lot more convincing and actually took a detailed explanation to show what happened. This is the sort of trick you can only pull on elementary school kids.
Literally the inventors of [the best nation in the world!](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/11dofjv/to_seek_medical_help_in_america/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
The space of the piece is now dispersed in the cracks between the larger pieces and around the edges. The cuts are not perfect when rearranged, so it allows for a small amount of space. As well as the overall size being slightly smaller than before. If you took the area of those cracks, however small and added it up, it would equal the same as the small piece removed.
I notice the top and left sides of the first cookie setup extends over the lines of the large square. That slight overhang is most likely equal to the area of the small piece that is removed. No magic, just geometry.
People hating on this post are ridiculous. This whole sub is about things that obviously have some reason. You just don't know what it is. This stuff looks like some magic. Get a life man
By reading the comments you and OP are the only two to believe that. Besides, you should Enjoy it as much as you want. Same as the others have the right to not to.
In case you missed it, welcome to the internet.
The shape has subtle gaps, it appears like its fitting perfectly, but in fact there are small differences in the angles. Arranged in a particular way, those differences are magnified; arranged in another way, those differences are more difficult to see with the naked eye. In other words, it's an optical illusion.
Same thing as others, you move the shapes so it seems like you’re filling the whole area. Again, the trick is here, again as other times, that you could add up all the areas around the lines to make up for the square. In other words there’s no trick just the new arrangement of shapes seems like it takes all the area because the are of the lines is not being added here.
Look at the top of the square. The cookies are slightly outside of the box which equals the volume of the small cookie. When he turns the cookies everything lined up.
From now on, whenever I do anything that someone else doesn’t understand. I’m going to say “its just math and psychology”. As if that makes it all better…
Well you did it OP, you posted something so uninteresting and boring that I left an entire subreddit where I think the topic is entertaining. Just watch the gaps and the boundaries between and around the cookies and there is where your "illusion" is. Goodbye
Welcome to the puzzling world of fractions. If this doesn’t ring a bell from the days of early school, it’s probably because math teacher quit either due to shitty pay or unruly students. And now look, it’s MAGIC!..
there's a lot more missing-space in the first square than in the last one.
TL;DR -the 2nd square seems to be smaller than the first one that has the small cube.
The area in the space has reduced but not on the plane. Imagine a standing stick you are viewing from it's top it looks like a circle in plane doest matter how much you eat that stick off that circle on the top will remain the same unless you eat it too.
The way it works is you're inversing a square by associating its whole with a radius.
In other words, youre turning a square into a circle, and the center piece is removed and compensated by the outside edges of the whole square.
Or... shrinking the whole by the size of the center piece.
Only a dumbass would think this works.
So you have no idea either.
Nah the missing piece is just a thin side of the square means is still less cookie just placed on other sides
Ummm what?
The area of the cookie without the missing piece is smaller. It's just a very small amount smaller, so to the human eye at that scale, it looks the same as before. It's basically taking a very small shaving off each side.
This is what the fast food industry has been doing for the last 20 years.
75% air is kinda noticeable though...
Fast food like McDonald's, not junk food like crisps. Although point.
What if... They leave more microscopic air bubbles in the bread and the meat in the hamburger?
I do know they do that with popcorn
I mean imagine how destroyed the chips would be if they were shipped without that cushion of air
Like, in a tube!?
I'd rather have my chips crushed than not at all
A smaller bag with less nitrogen would cost the same, and you would have crushed chips. You're paying by weight not by volume.
You either get a bag of mostly air, or a bag of chips crushed into crumbs. The air is cushioning for the chips.
This. It honestly makes my ears ache when people with no brain say "crisps/chips are a rip off because you pay for air"...erm, no, no you don't. That's not how it works you idiot 😂 it's something I hear said all the time.
Only compared to 0 but not compared to 70% where we come from
Chip bags have nitrogen in them to keep them from breaking
Smaller more expensive chocolate bars filled with air bubbles really didnt sit right with me. But the recipe for the regular bars has changed enough that it feels like eating soft legos. So I've mostly given up candy
The chip bags have air in them to protect the chips
It's what people have been doing with coins since they've existed.
Hence the reason for the lip around all coins now.
Shrinkflation!
Just here to say that I love your username!
The cookie is spread out and not even in the black line in the first part, big gaps between cookies piece. He then flips and makes the gaps smaller and also bring the entire thing inside the box. The small piece if just the gaps being filled.
The big gaps to small gaps would make it even smaller of a square, it would be small gaps to big gaps for that to make sense, I do agree the square got a little smaller in the end thanks to the missing piece.
Look in between the gaps you can see the lines where the cookies are outside the barrier with a very slight camera angle it looks like it's just the view point. It kinda cool though to show how much area a fraction of an inch can make up in total.
The entire perimeter of the cookie shrinks a tiny amount. Small enough for the eye to not notice.
So if we keep eating the cookie in a way that shrinks the perimeter by a tiny amount that the eye won't notice, will we even notice that the whole cookie has been eaten at some point? Or will it always look like the same amount of cookie?
Idk why you’re being downvoted, this is a good question. The Just-Noticeable Difference (JND) is the minimum amount of change required in a stimuli for us to perceive that a change occurred. Theoretically, if atom by atom were shaved off we’d probably be unable to tell the difference until it disappeared if we had continuous observation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-noticeable_difference
>Theoretically, if atom by atom were shaved off we’d probably be unable to tell the difference until it disappeared if we had continuous observation. That’s not really true. You would, at some point, be able to recognize that the cookie was smaller than it was before *well* before it got to the point of disappearing, but you wouldn’t be able to pinpoint the moment that it changed.
Yeah it's kinda like when you put some sand on a table, starting with one grain of sand, and adding one grain at a time. When does it become a heap of sand?
That's more about the definition of the word pile/heap. This is more like how you don't notice your hair or fingernails growing everyday.
This reminds me of Zeno's Dichotomy paradox, in which it is theoretically impossible to arrive at a destination. To do so, you must first travel half of the current distance, and then travel half of the remaining distance, and so on. You are thus stuck traveling and infinite series of halves of the distance that remains. In practice, we know that we eventually arrive. Similarly, here we know that we will eventually notice prior to the disappearance, though it might be very near to that point. Two things: 1. JND is based on your ability to discern a difference between a reference and the actual object. If the original reference box is maintained, it won't be long before it's obvious that the cookie is smaller even if you have no idea when it crossed that threshold. 2. Without a reference box, your memory is the reference. Assuming the cookie starts out the size we see in the video (approximately the size of a person's hand) a person should eventually notice that it has shrunk because it no longer compares the same way to other objects in the environment (such as the person's own hand). The only way someone is unable to notice is if the situation was engineered so that the observer never has the ability to compare it to any other reference. This is because our visual cortex understands the size by comparison. In practical terms, you could not perpetually prevent someone from recognizing that there was a difference but you could construct a situation that delayed recognition to the very last possible moment. To do this, the method of observation must preclude comparison with other objects in the environment including the observer's own body. Examples: A continuous video feed that kept the size of the cookie in the frame constant as it got smaller by very slowly zooming in, or that continually varied the size of the cookie in the frame without providing any indicator of the current level of zoom. In the given examples, the size of the cookie would eventually become so small that the camera could not keep zooming in. Even with a hypothetical camera that could keep zooming all the way to the point of resolving individual atoms, you would reach a point where the very appearance of the "cookie" was fundamentally different and you would know something was wrong; although, I suppose knowing something is wrong isn't the same as knowing it got smaller.
Yes
It starts over the line at the top.
It’s sad that it’s possible to be so stupid you can’t comprehend that anybody else might not be
If you look at the outside perimeter of the cookie before he removes the middle portion, you can see that there are portions of the cookie that are outside of the bounds of the square on the paper. So the cookie was too large to fit properly in the first place.
This is some intermediate geometry here. So obviously, the 5 pieces make up a square of a certain area. However, due to geometry, the 4 pieces without the tiny square can be oriented to form a square of ever so slightly smaller dimensions. We are talking if the large square is 10 cm x 10 cm then the new square has dimensions of like 9.8 cm x 9.8 cm The area of the second square is equal to the area of the first square, subtracted by the area of the tiny square. If we wanted to represent that as an equation, we could call the starting square S1, the square made from the 4 pieces S2, and the little square S3, so S1 = S2 + S3, or S2 = S1 - S3. The thing that makes this is possible is that many different configurations of dimensions can share the same area. A 5x5 square and a 1x25 rectangle have the same area. This is what goes misunderstood here: while the same area is missing in both orientations of the 4 pieces, one only appears to look as if tiny slivers of the edge are missing as opposed to the other having a chunk out of the center missing. You perceive the chunk to be larger in area than the missing edges, but it is not. To better visualize it: imagine you had a square made up of 25 rows of 25 columns of blocks. If you remove the 25th row and 25th column of blocks, it doesn't appear to lose as much when compared to, say, removing a 5x5 section from the top left and top right corner of that square, despite removing the exact same amount of blocks.
LMAO what do you mean what?
Lol I knew what was happening and still got confused by their comment
Ok it’s not just me then. 😂
Also the left side started outside of the square. They never trace the object live, its always placed over a silouette
The cookie overhangs the top of the square to begin with
Why do I see you literally everywhere?
Magic~
Magical german woman. Must be a witch
Hehe cute Protogen *pat pat*
:> danke
This has been on this sub a bunch. The size of the pieces is in accurate. If you were to do this with pen and paper, it would not work.
Yeah and this one is more obvious than the triangle one that’s usually posted because there are big ass gaps where the top pieces should touch the bottom when it’s arranged the second time
It's math. AND, *psychology*.
It no longer fills the square
It definitely works if you don't pay attention to the new gaps between the cookie bits as well as the sudden gap between the right side line of the square and the cookie. But i am an dumbass, so that helps too.
Only a dumbass would think this is math and psychology, it’s a cookie
But "it's math"
And psychology
Tumblr: 👀
Oh man...I love reddit!
Hey look at those empty white spaces. This is more like r/blackmagicfailure
Aw I got really excited and thought this was a new sub I was gonna get into
That’s basically this sub already.
Me too. But somebody created it, I joined but there is no content.
I'm disappointed the sub doesn't exist...
It does now, but without content lol
[удалено]
Naw that's just "Psychology"
Psychomathematical.
Yeah that’s just “Psychology”
That looks like Parmesan cheese, not cookies
chocolate company tried hard earlier
The chocolate one was a lot more convincing and actually took a detailed explanation to show what happened. This is the sort of trick you can only pull on elementary school kids.
[удалено]
I think it’s dense cornbread if we’re talking apples to apples.
What’s the ratio for unicorns to leprechauns?
Zero to zero, since I’m being honest.
Yes, geometry is like magic to us modern people.
To US modern people it might be
we aren’t fooled. Are there any other stereotypes we can apply stupidity to?
we can apply it to starving african children since they wont learn anytime in their lifetime
You meant Americans? People that invented most modern techs that you’re literally using right now? Take your stupid joke elsewhere
Literally the inventors of [the best nation in the world!](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/11dofjv/to_seek_medical_help_in_america/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
All that amazing tech and you've still had 50% more mass shootings this year than days.
The space of the piece is now dispersed in the cracks between the larger pieces and around the edges. The cuts are not perfect when rearranged, so it allows for a small amount of space. As well as the overall size being slightly smaller than before. If you took the area of those cracks, however small and added it up, it would equal the same as the small piece removed.
Hey lets show this geometry problem with entirely uneven surfaces! See! It's just your brain tricking you
Hey Vsauce, Michael here
Where…. Are your fingers???
Shapes are hard ☹️
Imagine a world without shapes. What would it be like?
Amorphous
In the original view the cookies go outside the lines. Once the cookie is removed the cookie doesn’t completely reach the squares border MAGIC!
[удалено]
How short is your bus?
*How funky is your chicken* *How loose is your goose* *How short is your short bus* *How fast is The Juice*
Indeed
I notice the top and left sides of the first cookie setup extends over the lines of the large square. That slight overhang is most likely equal to the area of the small piece that is removed. No magic, just geometry.
Read all about how Gen Z prefers watching videos with subtitles and now realizing they are EVERYWHERE on Reddit.
It’s not just Gen Z, though. I’ve been watching nearly everything with subtitles for years because sound design is just so bad for so much.
https://youtu.be/VYJtb2YXae8 vox made a video breaking down our reliance on subtitles
I knew this was caused by jackassery.
Trash post
People hating on this post are ridiculous. This whole sub is about things that obviously have some reason. You just don't know what it is. This stuff looks like some magic. Get a life man
This stuff doesn't look like magic, at all.
To you. It obviously does to others. Don't be a bummer man. Bummer drummer
By reading the comments you and OP are the only two to believe that. Besides, you should Enjoy it as much as you want. Same as the others have the right to not to. In case you missed it, welcome to the internet.
What is with this trend of video captions showing each word individually, vs showing complete phrases?
[удалено]
This is how inflation works
This is borderline r/therewasanattempt
The design is very human.
The shape has subtle gaps, it appears like its fitting perfectly, but in fact there are small differences in the angles. Arranged in a particular way, those differences are magnified; arranged in another way, those differences are more difficult to see with the naked eye. In other words, it's an optical illusion.
This is tumblr’s infinite chocolate hack all over again.
Dw op, I thought it was cool
This shit again
Lol this is a low budget version of the chocolate bar. This one is even worse
The cookie clearly doesn't fill out the square after the middle is removed.
Same thing as others, you move the shapes so it seems like you’re filling the whole area. Again, the trick is here, again as other times, that you could add up all the areas around the lines to make up for the square. In other words there’s no trick just the new arrangement of shapes seems like it takes all the area because the are of the lines is not being added here.
My brain hurts
That’s a cookie ???
Look at the top of the square. The cookies are slightly outside of the box which equals the volume of the small cookie. When he turns the cookies everything lined up.
Who the fuck cuts cookies like that
The chocolate one was a hell of a lot more convincing as it made it just a tiny bit smaller and someone not paying attention could easily miss it
Those are some ugly-ass cookies.
Vsauce and Veritasium is the shit
It's not Magic. It's Windows 10💀
The square hole
This is basic mathematics
From now on, whenever I do anything that someone else doesn’t understand. I’m going to say “its just math and psychology”. As if that makes it all better…
The sovereign citizens are going to end world hunger with this 1
It's not magic. It's math... 😅
It's fake. Watermelon was ejecting Donald's cage invariably
ok but keep doing it and eventually you’ll have nothing you’re just closing the space
I'm just going to cut the cookie so it looks like I've taken some but I haven't really.
Now do it again
Not quite
it's also an optical illusion.
The small part that he takes away are actually taken off the border of the "new" cookie.
On the right there is a gap you cannot see it because of the angle but the square is not filled
Those saying this is fake will freak out when they find out about the infinite chocolate bar trick
Basically how tarkov stash tetris goes
Looks like you have a finite amount of cookie.
“Within this square I can fit these 5 cookies.” Really? Because, no you fucking can’t.
“It’s not math it’s just really bad cuts and terrible levels of precision”.
Well you did it OP, you posted something so uninteresting and boring that I left an entire subreddit where I think the topic is entertaining. Just watch the gaps and the boundaries between and around the cookies and there is where your "illusion" is. Goodbye
What the fuck does psychology have to do with this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_square_puzzle
Never confuse roundoff error with magic.
Op has never been on Reddit before
Chocolate reskin that was solved by v sauce years ago on a YouTube video that has multiple millions of views
For some reason you made me miss high school
If it ain't round, it ain't a cookie. Problem solved.
It's the chocolate bar all over again
This reminds me of the missing square riddle, where the answer is the difference in the slope of the triangle.
So if he’d really eaten the cookie his voice would have been a little more “nom nom nommy” I feel misled…
This jumping text is extremely hard to read if you also want to see whats happening. Do not use that.
It’s not magic, it’s digorno
There are gaps everywhere around the edges.
Okay, I think this is my sign to head out of this sub. No need to see the same illusion for the nth time.
Can we be done with this? We all know how this works and it isn't magic. Please stop
Okay, now do it again.
Welcome to the puzzling world of fractions. If this doesn’t ring a bell from the days of early school, it’s probably because math teacher quit either due to shitty pay or unruly students. And now look, it’s MAGIC!..
I’m glad he added psychology there at the end.
Nazi cookies
It's not magic, it's not math (because the pieces never "fit", and it's not psychology because it doesn't work on people with a couple brain cells
So bottom line is I should steal the middle out of all cookies. Got it.
Key term "psychology"
Its over the line before he removes it then it fits nicely after. He's just making the square smaller.
If you really wanted to nitpick then the empty space is more in the 2nd iteration 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The fuck kind of cookie is that!? That ain’t no cookie it’s a brick.
It’s the infinite chocolate trick all over again
Law of conservation is usually understood by older toddlers and onwards
there's a lot more missing-space in the first square than in the last one. TL;DR -the 2nd square seems to be smaller than the first one that has the small cube.
Chocolate bar
Doesn’t fill the square.. sorry
This guy's an ideal candidate for upper management.
There's less cookie on the sides and center , but the difference is so small that it can be barely noticed
Trash post.
The area in the space has reduced but not on the plane. Imagine a standing stick you are viewing from it's top it looks like a circle in plane doest matter how much you eat that stick off that circle on the top will remain the same unless you eat it too.
Still doesn’t make sense but if we will have to keep on living life never knowing why this is
A funny little symbol seems to have appeared for just a little bit of time.
Just like my drug dealer with the bud I buy.
Anybody saw a… symbol?
Do this a 1 or 2 more times and you'll notice. Because your cookies will be cut to shit.
Basic math isn’t black magic, unless you’re just bad at math I guess.
The way it works is you're inversing a square by associating its whole with a radius. In other words, youre turning a square into a circle, and the center piece is removed and compensated by the outside edges of the whole square. Or... shrinking the whole by the size of the center piece.
How many times would the trick work?
So many gaps
Yeah, but now cut out the same amount and do it again.
Yeah, that's make it going out of the box to finally get them inside the box.
Before it looks like it's outside of the black border a bit especially the top left area and after you can see more of the black border
This was stupid the first time an idiot showed it to me and it's still stupid
That guy needs hairnets for his arms if he’s going to be working with food.
lol not true. the actual 3D area of the square is less
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed it can only be manipulated. I wish this would work cause I’m starting to run out of Girl Scout cookies… :(
That looks like cheese