__Login__or

__Take a Tour__!

What can I say? It's a very intuitive explanation of Gaussian curvatures.

It's *wrong,* though.

Corrogated cardboard gets its strength from *folds*, not from curves. A Pringle is stronger in one direction than a taco shell, but definitely not in the other. The Zaragoza hippodrome derives its strength from *steel*, not from concrete - Gauss describes deformation in either direction, but concrete has zero strength under tension. What makes ridiculous arches viable for architecture isn't Gauss, it's materials science and cooling towers aren't shaped like that for strength, they're shaped like that because it's the optimal profile for convection in evaporative cooling. That's why *only* cooling towers are shaped that way - if the inside isn't full of evaporative cooling you're better off with a stronger structure.

Well, shit. You are correct and to be honest I wondered what are you on about. But now I loaded it again and I have either missed *everything* past "Itâ€™s the pizza trick in disguise." or it loaded wonky in the first place without me noticing. Either way, my bad.

Let's be honest: that little *Wired* article was shared by all the listicles. Gizmodo, Laughing Squid, BoingBoing. But that's because lots of people like to feel clever and math equations make people feel clever. And, because it's math, that means there's some fuckin' clever equation that people can imagine themselves writing on their mirror in sharpie or some shit because everyone is a secret genius.

But it's wrong.

Walk halfway to the wall with each step and you will *not* "never reach the wall" because we don't live in a mathematical world. We live in a practical world. In the practical world, the strength of any construction isn't governed by Gaussian functions, they're governed by centroids which are an applied form of centers of gravity which goes back to fuckin' Archimedes, not Gauss.

Show me the gaussian curvature of this structure.

Show me the gaussian curvature of this one.

Thing of it is, though, you look at that i-beam and you calculate the centroid and you discover that it's the same as if it were a beam of solid steel.

Curves are great. Go curves. they've also been used for primarily ornamental purposes since the invention of the Bessemer process. Sure - every kid learns how strong arches are, and every history student learns about flying buttresses and then they look at a picture of any vaguely large building and if they think about it, they're confronted by the reality that the modern world is made of hard steel angles and glass curtain wall.

And it's not because everyone is stupid.

And that's what's always bugged me about the fuckin' Gaussian pizza.

It's a shitty example.

- Walk halfway to the wall with each step and you will not "never reach the wall" because we don't live in a mathematical world.

But the dichotomy paradox stopped being a paradox when we learned how to play with geometric series, because we do live in a mathematical world, Zeno just didn't know enough math.

The dichotomy paradox has one purpose for philosophical reasoning and another for dimensional tolerance. If it's 1m to the wall, "halfway" is 0.5m. Half of that is 0.25m. Half of that is .125m. Half of that should theoretically be 0.0625m but for practical purposes, "walking" and "half a millimeter" do not coincide in the solution space. The tolerance of human locomotion is on a millimeter scale. As such, it's not 0.0625, it's 0.063, half of that is 0.032, half of that is 0.016, half of that is 0.008, half of that is 0.004, half of that is 0.002, half of that is 0.001 and with your next half step, you're going to bump the wall. Nine steps and your nose touches gyp board.

For Zeno's purposes you can fold a piece of paper in half forever (or never because, you know, philosophy). For an origamist's purposes you can fold it in half four, five times tops before it's an indeterminate wad. Gaussian tacos don't address the fact that a straight fold, where the radius goes (practically) to zero, are every bit as strong as a curve.