Pondering an Artist's Perplexing Tribute to the Pythagorean Theorem

Re:Pondering an Artist's Perplexing Tribute to the Pythagore... by jb1991 on Friday April 12, 2024 @02:31PM (#40016152)

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"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pondering an Artist's Perplexing Tribute to the Pythagore... by Izkata on Friday April 12, 2024 @02:53PM (#40016382)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pondering an Artist's Perplexing Tribute to the Pythagore... by jb1991 on Friday April 12, 2024 @03:30PM (#40016752)

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?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pondering an Artist's Perplexing Tribute to the Pythagore... by Izkata on Friday April 12, 2024 @04:14PM (#40017161)

It doesn't. The entirety of my comment is that they're representing the wrong thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pondering an Artist's Perplexing Tribute to the Pythagore... by partdavid on Friday April 12, 2024 @05:58PM (#40018116)

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).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pondering an Artist's Perplexing Tribute to the Pythagore... by jb1991 on Saturday April 13, 2024 @03:25AM (#40021223)

Thank you for literally explaining it to me like I was five, which apparently I am, I can’t believe I missed that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pondering an Artist's Perplexing Tribute to the Pythagore... by lupire on Saturday April 13, 2024 @09:01AM (#40022877)

You didn't miss it. You were focusing on the lattice edges, and PP was focusing on the lattice points. You're both right (except for PP's "No!" which should be "Yes!").

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pondering an Artist's Perplexing Tribute to the Pythagore... by YeGoblynQueenne on Saturday April 13, 2024 @02:20PM (#40024954)

Hi Izkata. I'm a fellow pedant from the Secret Society of Hung-Up Pedants. Finding an interpretation that is obviously different than the intended interpretation and strenuously insisting that it is the only obvious interpretation is highly appreciated in our circles and you have thusly singled yourself out as a possible recruit. Please be on stand-by for our invitation to join our Society, and learn the secret handshake. Your demonstrable ability to clearly and crisply distinguish between ordinals and cardinals will be very useful to memorise the handshake, btw.

[ Parent | on HN ]