I hope they don't. The argument for removing it is basically that if you understand geometry, then the conclusion is obvious; but since this is an area where most people's understanding of geometry is incorrect (myself included, before today), the article is valuable. I don't see how it's different from articles on other mathematical paradoxes (Simpson's paradox, for example).
I hope they don't. The argument for removing it is basically that if you understand geometry, then the conclusion is obvious; but since this is an area where most people's understanding of geometry is incorrect (myself included, before today), the article is valuable. I don't see how it's different from articles on other mathematical paradoxes (Simpson's paradox, for example).