
Euclid, Schmeuclid - Jebdm
http://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/08/22/euclid-schmeuclid/
======
gyom
My conclusion was actually that the points M and N must be the same point,
which then implies that they also coincide with R.

The drawing can be "faked" by sketching the diameters to be a bit off-center,
which results in M,N and R not being exactly the same point.

No ?

~~~
jeffbradberry
Exactly.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
I don't see the point of this. It's wrong, if you spend a moment's thought
then it's obvious why it's wrong, and it's about as enlightening or
entertaining as the usual proof that 0=1.

Can anyone explain what they like about this?

