Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why nature prefers hexagons

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 64 posts

Re: Why nature prefers hexagons

#11

Post by degenerate »

ineedasername wrote: post #4

I really dislike when articles use words such as "prefer" in this way. It conveys a level of intentionality that is not truly present. It would be better to say "Why hexagons appear often in nature." Or "Why nature produces hexagons" Otherwise, the descriptor is not just imprecise, it is also misleading.

I agree, it makes the reader think the bee has some kind of foresight in the building process, like "hmm. here's my options, and I greatly prefer to build hexagons!"

It's not really their choice to prefer it. It's what works best and thus bees are programmed to do. Imagine an alien reading the headline "Why humans prefer sleeping prone"

Re: Why nature prefers hexagons

#12

Post by tzs »

robbrown451 wrote: post #3

Always wished pixels were hexagonal. Yeah the math would be a bit harder and vertical lines would be fuzzier at low resolution, but still.... https://www.quora.com/Why-are-computer-pixels-square

I wonder how hard hexagonal pixel layout would have been to do on a CRT?

Two ways come to mind. If the basic scan line is kept horizontal, then a small vertical modulation on each scan line could result in a hexagonal layout if you timed it right.

Alternatively, if the grid is tilted (so that the basic scan line is diagonal instead of horizontal), then you just have to offset the odd scan lines by half a pixel from the even scan lines.

I think we are just lucky that we ended up with rectangular screens. Imagine if they had went with circular screens. The scan might then easily have been a spiral starting in the center. That's fairly easy to do. It's just a matter of driving the horizontal and vertical deflectors with sine waves with the right phase difference, with a saw tooth amplitude.

From a television point of view, I don't think it really matters which of these you use, as long as the cameras and the displays use the same scan pattern.

From a computer point of view, though, it would have been a lot more painful if CRTs used a spiral scan. For most graphics applications we'd still need to manipulate rectangular areas, and that would be quite annoying in a coordinate system based on a spiral scan.

Re: Why nature prefers hexagons

#13

Post by labster »

degenerate wrote: post #11
ineedasername wrote: post #4

I really dislike when articles use words such as "prefer" in this way. It conveys a level of intentionality that is not truly present. It would be better to say "Why hexagons appear often in nature." Or "Why nature produces hexagons" Otherwise, the descriptor is not just imprecise, it is also misleading.

I agree, it makes the reader think the bee has some kind of foresight in the building process, like "hmm. here's my options, and I greatly prefer to build hexagons!" It's not really their choice to prefer it. It's what works best and thus bees are programmed to do. Imagine an alien reading the headline "Why humans prefer sleeping prone"

I think I saw that article on a Minbari news site, right next to "The 11 Most Meditative Vacation Spots in the Earth Alliance".

Re: Why nature prefers hexagons

#14

Post by vacri »

degenerate wrote: post #11
ineedasername wrote: post #4

I really dislike when articles use words such as "prefer" in this way. It conveys a level of intentionality that is not truly present. It would be better to say "Why hexagons appear often in nature." Or "Why nature produces hexagons" Otherwise, the descriptor is not just imprecise, it is also misleading.

I agree, it makes the reader think the bee has some kind of foresight in the building process, like "hmm. here's my options, and I greatly prefer to build hexagons!" It's not really their choice to prefer it. It's what works best and thus bees are programmed to do. Imagine an alien reading the headline "Why humans prefer sleeping prone"

Hexagons are what you get when you squish a lot of semi-rigid round things together. It's not like the bees are designing hexagons - look at the cells on the free edges of a comb and you'll see little in the way of sharp hex-ey corners

Re: Why nature prefers hexagons

#15

Post by freshhawk »

saghm wrote: post #8
freshhawk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they, like me, have constant interactions with lay people who constantly understand these things to mean their view of a universe guided by an intelligence is correct. I get it, it's just hard to avoid in English, but it is still a (small) failure in clear science communication.

I think the worst case of this in science is the way that evolution is described in a way that implies an active process rather than just random mutations which may or may not make organisms more fit for survival.

Yeah, I think that's the most common one. Strongly connected with the idea that evolution is "improvement" or some kind of step along a road to being "better", which I've seen trip up a lot of people who normally don't get confused about this kind of thing.

Re: Why nature prefers hexagons

#16

Post by qudat »

freshhawk wrote: post #7
thaumasiotes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may have a more spiritualistic view of "intentionality" than is really warranted.

Or they, like me, have constant interactions with lay people who constantly understand these things to mean their view of a universe guided by an intelligence is correct. I get it, it's just hard to avoid in English, but it is still a (small) failure in clear science communication.

I hate to break it to you but they are going to select for their own bias regardless.

Re: Why nature prefers hexagons

#17

Post by Pulcinella »

You get hexagons because of close-packing.[1] Circles (or a 2D array of spheres) of the same size fit closest together when they are arranged in a hexagonal pattern. Push a bunch of marbles together and that's what you get.

The bees don't know anything about hexagons. They just make circles close together and then as the cells are filled, stepped on, and come into contact with other wax cells, they "ballon out" into a hexagon shape.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-packing_of_equal_spher...

Re: Why nature prefers hexagons

#18

Post by TylerH »

ineedasername wrote: post #4

I really dislike when articles use words such as "prefer" in this way. It conveys a level of intentionality that is not truly present. It would be better to say "Why hexagons appear often in nature." Or "Why nature produces hexagons" Otherwise, the descriptor is not just imprecise, it is also misleading.

I understand the concern, but this concern misses the nuance of what 'nature prefers' means.

Re: Why nature prefers hexagons

#19

Post by chii »

vacri wrote: post #14
degenerate wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, it makes the reader think the bee has some kind of foresight in the building process, like "hmm. here's my options, and I greatly prefer to build hexagons!" It's not really their choice to prefer it. It's what works best and thus bees are programmed to do. Imagine an alien reading the headline "Why humans prefer sleeping prone"

Hexagons are what you get when you squish a lot of semi-rigid round things together. It's not like the bees are designing hexagons - look at the cells on the free edges of a comb and you'll see little in the way of sharp hex-ey corners

it's hard to say what "designing" means - is a box-packing algorithm "designing" the packing pattern when it runs? Or is it just following a series of algorithmic steps "blindly" and yet, being able to reach an outcome that has certain properties (like being very densely packed)?

Re: Why nature prefers hexagons

#20

Post by chii »

huac wrote: post #10

Aren't triangles the strongest shape? https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1393965/are-triangl... https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/619ygo/why_are_...

And what do you get when you have lots of triangles packed together?
Post reply on HN