+1 janjanjan, but i must say both are mindfuck
, the first one just changing everytime i'm looking at it, sometime right, sometime left...
And for the second, here is the explanation :
This figure proves (if there was no tip) 64 = 65, but there is a trap ...
When we compare the two triangles, they appear identical. A quick
inspection, aided by the grid, shows us that we are dealing with two
triangles of 13 tiles wide and 5 tiles high.
In fact, the upper triangle is not a triangle at all, it is a quadrangle. If you
look carefully the hypotenuse (diagonal), you will see it is not quite right,
it is slightly concave. The lower triangle is not a triangle either, it is also a
quadrilateral, but this time the hypotenuse is slightly convex, since the
position of red and green triangles is now reversed.
Both figures are composed of the same pieces. But because the lower
triangle "has a hypotenuse which is convex surface additional vacuum is
the equivalent of a tile, so that's why the lower triangle has an empty box.
I hope this is clear, english is not my first language...
Here is a reason to vomit your coffee (i've got much more if you like this) :