News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Pondering an Artist's Perplexing Tribute to the Pythagorean Theorem. Parent comment

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 ]