3 ms·
not explicitly, but the implication is strong. otherwise the cube would be almost any size
by c249709 1y ago
not explicitly, but the implication is strong. otherwise the cube would be almost any size
- florbnit 1y agoThe cube is “almost any size” it’s literally overshooting by 50%
- jerf 1y agoJust for fun, the maximum sized cube you could make with a single layer of them facing flat and then entirely hollow on the inside would be about 41 meters or so on a side. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=sqrt%28%28area+of+a+united+states+dollar+*+1000000%29+%2F+6%29 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=sqrt%28%28area+of+a+uni...
- stavros 1y agoI can't argue with the math, but intuitively that just seems really small? It means that you can lay down 166,000 $1 bills on the floor of a very small flat?
- dogecoinbase 1y ago41 meters is the height of a 13-story building.
- padjo 1y agoA flat with very high ceilings? Edit: even still 41x41 floorspace is a very large flat.
- kaffekaka 1y agoThe square side would be 41 m meaning ~1600 square meters per face, if I read correctly. So quite a large flat.
- stavros 1y agoOh, the side? That makes sense, I thought 41 sqm.
- jerf 1y agoSorry, yes, 41m-on-a-side cube, not 41m^2-sided cube. The outermost square-root in the expression takes the area of one side of the cube (which is the area of the dollars, divided by 6 to account for needing to cover the 6 sides of the cube) and pulls it down to the cube's length of one side.
- stavros 1y agoYeah, you said it correctly, but I'm not a native speaker and brainfarted "41m on a side" into "each side is 41 sqm". I thought "face", rather than "edge".