Live data from Hacker News

Discovery of a new irregular pentagon that can cover the plane

theguardian.com

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: Discovery of a new irregular pentagon that can cover the plane

#91
post #39

Besides tiling your bathroom is there any use case for this? Or is this pure for fun and gaining knowledge? Edit: The article is talking about building structures but isn't a triangle the most rigid form? And triangles are already used in building.

I am buying a house and the bathrooms need updating, so tiling your bathroom is actually the first thing that came to mind.

Re: Discovery of a new irregular pentagon that can cover the plane

#92
post #5

"That same year an unlikely mathematical pioneer entered the fray: Marjorie Rice, a San Diego housewife in her 50s, who had read about James’ discovery in Scientific American. An amateur mathematician, Rice developed her own notation and method and over the next few years discovered another four types of pentagon that tile the plane. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Rice

She has a website for her tesselations (which that Wikipedia article links to), but unfortunately is no longer able to respond to queries: https://sites.google.com/site/intriguingtessellations/home/ There's a nice tiling of butterflies there.

how cool is this lady seriously. the symmetric tiling is really astounding and the roses one has a julia-set quality to its edges.

Re: Discovery of a new irregular pentagon that can cover the plane

#93
post #23
post #5

"That same year an unlikely mathematical pioneer entered the fray: Marjorie Rice, a San Diego housewife in her 50s, who had read about James’ discovery in Scientific American. An amateur mathematician, Rice developed her own notation and method and over the next few years discovered another four types of pentagon that tile the plane. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Rice

that's awesome. Outsider math and outsider art deserve as much respect as "outsider" programming ( startups / garage hackers ) garner. Creating semi-closed communities of insiders, united by what are essentially arcane handshakes, and dismissive of value emerging outside of themselves, is really just both a narrow-mindedness that doesn't behoove innovation and also an admission of an unnecessary insecurity about the…

A big part of the problem is scaling. Something I read in the past day or two about "Theories of Everything" made the point that (some|many|most) professional physicists are often inundated by requests from amateurs to review their stabs at a ToE. But if you're a professional, you don't have time to give every such request a thorough review, and still have enough time to do your own work.

I am as uneasy with credentialism as anybody, and I think we need to find better ways around these problems, but it's important to understand that at least some of this community exclusiveness stuff actually serves a purpose.

Re: Discovery of a new irregular pentagon that can cover the plane

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the analogy doesn't hold up very well. Outsider art is often very good, and outsider programming seems like a weird idea (do startup hackers have less training than BigCo employees?) But that's beside the point. If you're looking at the tiny subset of outsider science that's chosen for correctness and publication-worthiness, of course you'll be enthusiastic about it. But these people, like Marjorie Rice, aren't r…

> their proofs of FLT checked. What does FLT stand for? Fermat's Last Theorem?

Yes. Maths cranks are extremely common. If you have an academic maths email, you're likely to receive crank emails with some regularity.

Re: Discovery of a new irregular pentagon that can cover the plane

#95
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's awesome. Outsider math and outsider art deserve as much respect as "outsider" programming ( startups / garage hackers ) garner. Creating semi-closed communities of insiders, united by what are essentially arcane handshakes, and dismissive of value emerging outside of themselves, is really just both a narrow-mindedness that doesn't behoove innovation and also an admission of an unnecessary insecurity about the…

But mathematics is about the only field where merit is clear-cut enough that there's no outsider mathematics, even if crank mathematics is clearly recognizable by professionals and even by college calculus-educated adults. If, as often is the case, someone draws a sketchy proof for an ambitious conjecture that seems promising enough, entire communities of professionals spend thousands of man-hours fixing the holes. W…

Cranks are sometimes hard to recognise. Ramanujan seems like a crank at first glance.

Re: Discovery of a new irregular pentagon that can cover the plane

#96

I wish I had a bathroom to tile - I reckon this could be considered "in vogue" for the next 30 years or so, until they find a newer pentagon. Does anyone know if this can be coloured with 3 colours? Obviously 4 is possible due to the 4 colour theorem and 2 will not work due to to three faces sharing a corner.

> Obviously 4 is possible due to the 4 colour theorem...

Unless your bathroom includes a loop, such as all four walls (even with holes for windows and doors) or over the ceiling. Then the coloured area is no longer a plane, and so the 4 colour theorem does not apply.

Re: Discovery of a new irregular pentagon that can cover the plane

#97
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's awesome. Outsider math and outsider art deserve as much respect as "outsider" programming ( startups / garage hackers ) garner. Creating semi-closed communities of insiders, united by what are essentially arcane handshakes, and dismissive of value emerging outside of themselves, is really just both a narrow-mindedness that doesn't behoove innovation and also an admission of an unnecessary insecurity about the…

IMO the analogy doesn't hold up very well. Outsider art is often very good, and outsider programming seems like a weird idea (do startup hackers have less training than BigCo employees?) But that's beside the point. If you're looking at the tiny subset of outsider science that's chosen for correctness and publication-worthiness, of course you'll be enthusiastic about it. But these people, like Marjorie Rice, aren't r…

The only person throwing accusations around is you. This is a huge blanket blaming statement:

> 99% outsider science is extremely bad, and can't understand why it's bad even after repeated explanations

A challenge dealing with noise in a system is an opportunity for a solution, not a rationalization to censor people. That < .01% may be onto something big.

Re: Discovery of a new irregular pentagon that can cover the plane

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the analogy doesn't hold up very well. Outsider art is often very good, and outsider programming seems like a weird idea (do startup hackers have less training than BigCo employees?) But that's beside the point. If you're looking at the tiny subset of outsider science that's chosen for correctness and publication-worthiness, of course you'll be enthusiastic about it. But these people, like Marjorie Rice, aren't r…

The only person throwing accusations around is you. This is a huge blanket blaming statement: > 99% outsider science is extremely bad, and can't understand why it's bad even after repeated explanations A challenge dealing with noise in a system is an opportunity for a solution, not a rationalization to censor people. That < .01% may be onto something big.

Part of my point was that the 1% with good ideas aren't actually getting censored. If you can find any recent examples to the contrary, please let me know.

Re: Discovery of a new irregular pentagon that can cover the plane

#99
post #36
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean something simple enough to understand, and could be played by average programmer in a IPython Notebook. I didn't mean simple to solve, just lower barrier of entry.

I like this one: http://www2.stetson.edu/~efriedma/squinsqu/ Can be easily generalized to other shapes and more dimensions too.

Does the lack of n = 16 mean that there's no current proof?
Post reply on HN