[HN Gopher] An artist's perplexing tribute to the Pythagorean Th...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       An artist's perplexing tribute to the Pythagorean Theorem (2009)
        
       Author : nyc111
       Score  : 23 points
       Date   : 2024-04-12 08:44 UTC (14 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (mathtourist.blogspot.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (mathtourist.blogspot.com)
        
       | caturopath wrote:
       | The 2-3-4 right triangle. What's the problem?
        
         | scoot wrote:
         | 13 != 16
        
         | dudeinjapan wrote:
         | The triangle is not right, its wrong.
        
         | ploxiln wrote:
         | (possible sarcasm detected ;)
         | 
         | (A 2-3-4 triangle is _not_ a right triangle, no angle is 90o)
        
         | Izkata wrote:
         | 3-4-5 is a right triangle, not 2-3-4.
         | 
         | The intent was apparently to use nuts to represent edges, but
         | he put them on points instead.
         | 
         | The artist's realization isn't even correct.
        
           | baruz wrote:
           | I believe you are responding to a joke.
        
             | Izkata wrote:
             | I figured they remembered it was three consecutive numbers,
             | but misremembered which three.
        
           | jb1991 wrote:
           | I still don't get it. The image is a 3-4-5 right triangle,
           | which is mathematically fine. What do you mean by "nuts" and
           | "points"?
        
             | Izkata wrote:
             | The image in the article is of hazelnuts (I originally
             | wrote "stones" then quickly edited it), and it's not a
             | 3-4-5 triangle.
             | 
             | 3-4-5 describes the length of each side - if you count the
             | lengths of the triangle drawn in the image (the lines of
             | chalk visible between the nuts on each side), it's only
             | 2-3-4. To get 3-4-5 you're counting the number of nuts on
             | each side, but those aren't lengths - those are the number
             | of points marking the start/end of each unit length.
        
               | jb1991 wrote:
               | I see, I think you are referring to the unequal spacing
               | of the nuts on each side, i.e. the side with 5 nuts has
               | them closer together than the other sides.
               | 
               | I thought there was some point being made about the use
               | of nuts vs. some other arbitrary item. Why does it matter
               | they are hazelnuts and not something else?
        
               | Izkata wrote:
               | It doesn't. The entirety of my comment is that they're
               | representing the wrong thing.
        
               | partdavid wrote:
               | No!                   X--X--X         0  1  2
               | 
               | That diagram represents a length of 2, not a length of 3,
               | see? Here's three:                   X--X--X--X         0
               | 1  2  3
               | 
               | It's not that the hazelnuts are somehow imperfectly laid
               | out or are an imperfect representation. It's wrong in
               | principle, not practice (I mean it's wrong in practice
               | too but every representation is).
        
       | topherclay wrote:
       | Nice example of a fencepost error.
        
       | baerrie wrote:
       | The rub is the thinking a length of 4 maps to four points when in
       | reality, the points are 4,3,2,1,0, totaling 5. I feel like this
       | could all be helped if in casual counting we started at zero,
       | then our entire concept of where the measurements start would be
       | more in line with math. I think often about these fundamental
       | conflicts in how we casually think about numbers and how they are
       | actually modeled in math
        
       | scoot wrote:
       | _But when he created his pattern, he found that he had three
       | stones left over. Finally, it dawned upon him that the surplus
       | came from counting the corners of the triangle twice.
       | 
       | [...]
       | 
       | Bochner welcomed the rediscovery of this "discrepancy" so many
       | years after he had created the artwork. Yet he also wondered
       | "about the unwillingness to assume that I already knew what they
       | had just discovered (do mathematicians still think all artists
       | are dumb?)._
       | 
       | Apparently so, because he failed to understand that what was
       | being commented on was not the absence of three stones (or
       | wallnuts), but rather of significantly more.
        
         | ElevenLathe wrote:
         | "counting the corners of the triangle twice" is just another
         | way of saying he got the math wrong. It's just a fencepost
         | error. Or am I missing something?
        
       | spacecadet wrote:
       | As an artist who explores mathematics through multi-dimensional
       | art and works with mathematicians, can confirm, they find us all
       | dumb. But! I have genuinely intrigued a few too.
        
       | crubier wrote:
       | There are only two hard problems in computer science: Cache
       | invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors.
        
       | karmakaze wrote:
       | This is taking _artistic license_ too far. It 's different than
       | an explosion making a sound in space in a movie. It's missing the
       | core point of the thing, which could easily been illustrated. Bad
       | math _and_ bad art.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-04-12 23:01 UTC)