Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Given the miniscule difference, I don't think that has much to do with
> >> it. (I am, however, baffled as to why there's an area difference at 
> >> all...)
> > 
> > You're baffled as to why two different rectangles with different side 
> > lengths but equivalent diagonals have different areas?

> Yes. I was under the impression that the square of the diagonal was 
> equal to the sum of the squares of the sides, which _should_ mean that 
> as one side gets shorter, the other side gets longer by exactly the same 
> amount, holding the area constant.

  That would mean that if one of the sides had zero length, then the other
side would have the same length of the diagonal and the area would still
be the same. Which is obviously impossible.

  You are confusing the sum of the squares of the side lengths with the
product of the side lengths. Obviously they are different things.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message