Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Missing square

The missing square

This is a simple variation of the Missing square paradox, popularized by Sam Loyd and Martin Gardner. I made this puzzle more than twenty years ago (in wood) and haven’t found yet any written reference to it. However, and because its principle is quite simple, I believe it might be hidden is some 19th century puzzle book. The aim of this animation is to puzzle the reader, not to explain the apparent paradox. For a full explanation see the article. Animation created by Joaquim Alves Gaspar

Nominate and support. - Alvesgaspar 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose most of the animation is pointless and confusing. I don'tknow If I ould support it with those extra frames removed, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.179.120 (talk • contribs) .
Oppose, the twirling is pointless and imparts no information while taking up a lot of time. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, this image is the very definition of unencyclopedic. Not only is it misleading, it's deliberately deceptive, as the twirling takes up a lot of time distracting you while quickly flashing away from the reconfigured, larger square. A proper encyclopedic image would reveal the secret behind the illusion, rather than perpetuate it.

- Info The comment about the animation being deliberately deceptive is wrong, the animation is absolutely honest (better to see the article). The square grid, which serves as a reference, is not reconfigured in any way. The truth is the difference between the sides of the original and the final squares is so small that it is quite difficult to perceive without a careful measurement. Maybe the rotation of the quadrangles is superfluous, the reason for it is to show how the pieces should be oriented in the new geometry (by the way, its size is not altered during the rotation...). Alvesgaspar 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's misleading because the simplest, easiest, and most direct way to show the changes would be a simple two frame animation between the two orientations involved. Every other frame just serves to confuse things like a bit of magician's misdirection. We're not here to replicate tricks on the reader, we're here to pull back the curtain in a quick and direct way. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, This annimation is deceptive to make you think the the squares in each configuration are the same size, but in truth the square that revels the open area in the middle is actually bigger than the other. Stanthejeep 04:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For the reasons stated above. --Dschwen 07:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The new version is an improvement. But for me the image lacks a certain wow factor. This is just to plain to me to make it FP for me. --Dschwen 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't agree that it is unencyclopaedic.. The whole purpose of the image is to visualise the illusion. Sure, it isn't necessary to animate it, but it might confuse people more if it wasn't, as the difference in the geometry in the 'before and after' arrangements is so similar. In any case, if anyone is confused by the image, they are probably going to read the article, which is the purpose of the image in the first place. A good point is made that it could be enhanced by showing exactly HOW the illusion works. Perhaps by fading in and out an overlap of the original shape at the end? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the suggestion, but it won't work. The difference between the sides is too smal (0,4%) to be perceptible with a naked eye. Alvesgaspar 10:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about zooming in on a corner? It might not be elegant or simple, but it might work.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's probably the best way to do it but that would make the animation too long. --⁪froth^{T C} 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info and Support - Here is a new version of the animation, more sober and clear than the original. This time I think that the way the illusion works is perceptible. PS: I insist nominating this animation because I believe that puzzles (specially geometric puzzles) are one of the best ways to introduce young (and not so young) people to the pleasure of mathematics. Alvesgaspar 12:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - my great worry about this animation is that the slight increases in the perimeters (the very most important part of understanding the supposed paradox) may appear as bugs in the animation - similar to the one pixel misalignment we saw in early versions of the animated vernier calipers. If the animation relies on a 1px difference to explain the trick (and therefore justify its enc'ness), I'm worried too many people will miss it, and come away thinking geometry is bogus. Debivort 16:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd rather see a diagram that shows how the lines of pixels pulled off each edge have equal area to the empty square in the middle. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And then all the fun will be lost! The main objective of this animation (as I said above) is to fool, deceive, ... puzzle people. A diagram showing how the area of the little square is distributed along the perimeter of the big one would be just boring. Alvesgaspar 21:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understanding the cause behind a famous illusion would be boring? We're about the joy of knowledge, not deception. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the edited version. I like the fact that in the thumbnail version the change in overall size is not apparent, while in the full-sized version it becomes noticeable. Would it be posible to draw a 1px white box around the smaller sqaure to indicate the increase in size? ~ trialsanderrors 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Edit 1 I think it is enc, and it is interesting. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose again even if this annimation clearly showed the solution to the illusion it's not worthy of being a featured picture since it's not a picture and when you know the trick, it's not very interesting. Stanthejeep 16:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First you complanined that the animation was deceptive, now you complain that once you know the trick the interest is lost... Alvesgaspar 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. Encyclopedic, clean, interesting. Redquark 20:01, 30
Oppose You can see the square get bigger and smaller. So how is it interesting? Warhol13 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but I can't help. Interest is always inside people's minds, not outside. It depends on education, inclinations, culture, experience ... Alvesgaspar 20:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps change "seems to remain unchanged" in the caption to "appears to remain unchanged"? maybe that would make it more obvious that the area is in fact changing. --⁪froth^{T C} 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. Very interesting --Fir0002 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1- Very encyclopedic and informative. Interesting little parlor trick. --Lewk_of_S e rthic _contrib ^talk 02:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1, interesting animation -Advanced 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original, but maybe someone could mark the corners like in edit 1 and then up the framerate so it doesn't look like it is not fully loaded. Maybe make the spin a bit smoother... Ilikefood 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted although this was a close one. Raven4x4x 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]