5 ms·

The 2-3-4 right triangle. What's the problem?

by caturopath 2y ago

scoot 2y ago
13 != 16
dudeinjapan 2y ago
The triangle is not right, its wrong.
- lupire 2y ago
  The triangle is right. It's the nuts are nuts.
ploxiln 2y ago
(possible sarcasm detected ;) (A 2-3-4 triangle is not a right triangle, no angle is 90º)
Izkata 2y ago
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 2y ago
  I believe you are responding to a joke.
  - Izkata 2y ago
    I figured they remembered it was three consecutive numbers, but misremembered which three.
    - BlueTemplar 2y ago
      4-5-6 of course.
- jb1991 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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 2y ago
      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 2y ago
        It doesn't. The entirety of my comment is that they're representing the wrong thing.
      - partdavid 2y ago
        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).
        jb1991 2y ago
        Thank you for literally explaining it to me like I was five, which apparently I am, I can’t believe I missed that.
- layer8 2y ago
  The artist meditated, he didn't realize.
gerdesj 2y ago
The piccie has nuts at unit lengths and the first line of the article after the very short intro is: "The artwork references the idea of relating the lengths of the sides of a 3-4-5 right triangle ..." How on earth did you get 2-3-4 for a right angled triangle! I blame booze, drugs, a late night or perhaps a standard issue: "off by one" (this is HN after all) ...
- gerdesj 2y ago
  Whoops: "we see a 2-3-4 triangle" in the article
- alephknoll 2y ago
  You can have a 2-3-4 right triangle if you can find the right axioms for it.
layer8 2y ago
The triangle is right, but three nuts are left.

The 2-3-4 right triangle. What's the problem?

scoot 2y ago

13 != 16

dudeinjapan 2y ago

The triangle is not right, its wrong.

lupire 2y ago
The triangle is right. It's the nuts are nuts.

ploxiln 2y ago

(possible sarcasm detected ;) (A 2-3-4 triangle is not a right triangle, no angle is 90º)

Izkata 2y ago

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 2y ago
I believe you are responding to a joke.
- Izkata 2y ago
  I figured they remembered it was three consecutive numbers, but misremembered which three.
  - BlueTemplar 2y ago
    4-5-6 of course.
jb1991 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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 2y ago
      It doesn't. The entirety of my comment is that they're representing the wrong thing.
    - partdavid 2y ago
      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).
      - jb1991 2y ago
        Thank you for literally explaining it to me like I was five, which apparently I am, I can’t believe I missed that.
layer8 2y ago
The artist meditated, he didn't realize.

gerdesj 2y ago

The piccie has nuts at unit lengths and the first line of the article after the very short intro is: "The artwork references the idea of relating the lengths of the sides of a 3-4-5 right triangle ..." How on earth did you get 2-3-4 for a right angled triangle! I blame booze, drugs, a late night or perhaps a standard issue: "off by one" (this is HN after all) ...

gerdesj 2y ago
Whoops: "we see a 2-3-4 triangle" in the article
alephknoll 2y ago
You can have a 2-3-4 right triangle if you can find the right axioms for it.

layer8 2y ago

The triangle is right, but three nuts are left.