Live data from Hacker News

The mathematical secrets of Barcelona's Sagrada Familia

mappingignorance.org

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: The mathematical secrets of Barcelona's Sagrada Familia

#31
post #16

Call me grumpy, but numerology does not make architecture more beautiful.

That's not grumpy but ignorant. Aspect ratios are not numerology (per se)

FTA:

> the number 12 features heavily in the Bible: Jacob’s 12 sons, the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 apostles and the crown of 12 stars in the Book of Revelation are just a few examples.

And about "aspect ratios" (the article doesn't mention aspect ratios):

> 12 is a number particularly well-suited to establishing proportions, as it has many divisors

> the apse, at 75m (7.5 × 10), followed by the vault of the transept at 60 metres (7.5 × 8). The nave vault is 45m high (7.5 × 6), the side aisle 30m (7.5 × 4), and the choir 15m (7.5 × 2).

neither 10 nor 8 are divisors of 12, and 10 has a factor of 5. TBH it seems like 15m is the base length here, not 7.5, then you get multiples 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, but I'm guessing these sequential integers are not considered "beautiful" numbers by the author so they picked 7.5 to pigeonhole some divisors of 12 in there.

Re: The mathematical secrets of Barcelona's Sagrada Familia

#32
TFA does not quite explain the logic of this and somewhat suggests it as unique when it was the norm. If you are building a church, what better metric is there than the church you are building? There is no reason to measure, you can just subdivide with very basic tools. We want the entrance to be in the center, that is 1/2 church instead of 8.385 meters and that door is 1/6 church wide and 3/4 church tall. We want windows down the sides of the church, those windows are spaced 1/4 church and are 1/6th church wide and 3/4 church high. Windows have panes and doors have panels so lets subdivide those, panels/panes 1/3 window/door.

It is more complex than that and that example assumes the church is a cube but that is the basics of it and generally there is a square in there somewhere and that square is the basic unit. We want a church with no posts in the main space and our trees produce timbers so long, that length becomes 1 square, the church is 1 square wide and 1 square high to eaves, 2 square long, roof peak is 1 square above the eaves. The wisdom of the wood (or what ever material was being used) often played a role.

Personal style in this proportional sense came down to how they used the divisions and their subdivisions and their subdivisions and what random numbers they interjected into the easy divisions, which might be suggested by the divisions and subdivisions or come from just about anything. I am building a cabinet to hold my pots and pans, I have 7 pots and pans so I will figure out a way to get 7 in there so everyone knows it is meant to hold 7 pots and pans, or at least that one random person who got obsessed with that one peculiarity of my cabinet will figure out that 7 had some sort of importance too me. Easter eggs have been with us for a long time.

People often reduce the imperial system/base 12 to the foot and its inches, but it really is this sense and use of proportion that it is built on. If you are building a cabinet for your home, there is no reason to measure, it needs to be as wide as the space it will fit in so use that as your metric, make that one square and subdivide out the rest of the dimensions. Dividers, sector and straight edge are all you need, no need to deal with the fact that the space is 4.738 whatever wide and a sense of proportion to the whole will just happen for free. Admittedly, the sense of proportion might not be the best when you are first starting out but it will have a sense of proportion that could easily not be there if you got fixated on 4.738 and rounding errors in your cad software, and you never have to measure those odd lengths.

Re: The mathematical secrets of Barcelona's Sagrada Familia

#33

Who funds these?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Fam%C3%ADlia#Funding_a...

Construction on Sagrada Familia is not supported by any government or official church sources. Private patrons funded the initial stages. Money from tickets purchased by tourists is now used to pay for the work, and private donations are accepted.

Re: The mathematical secrets of Barcelona's Sagrada Familia

#35
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not grumpy but ignorant. Aspect ratios are not numerology (per se)

FTA: > the number 12 features heavily in the Bible: Jacob’s 12 sons, the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 apostles and the crown of 12 stars in the Book of Revelation are just a few examples. And about "aspect ratios" (the article doesn't mention aspect ratios): > 12 is a number particularly well-suited to establishing proportions, as it has many divisors > the apse, at 75m (7.5 × 10), followed by the vault of the transep…

When I saw the emphasis was on 12, I wondered why it was combined with 7.5 so much rather than say, a more 12-centric nearby number like 7.2.

7.2 = 12 * 12 / 10 / 2

But having integers for ones' for lengths (e.g 90m rather than 84.4) does seem a bit nicer in a way.

I think you make a good point about 15 vs 7.5 and symmetries around 1/2/3/4/5.

It undercuts the 12-centricity though; 15-centricity is just so much more man-centered, not fitting for someone about to be beatified as a saint!

Re: The mathematical secrets of Barcelona's Sagrada Familia

#36
post #35
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTA: > the number 12 features heavily in the Bible: Jacob’s 12 sons, the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 apostles and the crown of 12 stars in the Book of Revelation are just a few examples. And about "aspect ratios" (the article doesn't mention aspect ratios): > 12 is a number particularly well-suited to establishing proportions, as it has many divisors > the apse, at 75m (7.5 × 10), followed by the vault of the transep…

When I saw the emphasis was on 12, I wondered why it was combined with 7.5 so much rather than say, a more 12-centric nearby number like 7.2. 7.2 = 12 * 12 / 10 / 2 But having integers for ones' for lengths (e.g 90m rather than 84.4) does seem a bit nicer in a way. I think you make a good point about 15 vs 7.5 and symmetries around 1/2/3/4/5. It undercuts the 12-centricity though; 15-centricity is just so much more m…

The earlier Spanish measurement system that changed to meters in Gaudi's lifetime was, like the English system, more 12-centric than 10-centric.

In a way, base-10-centric measurements are the victors of a three thousand year battle between group-by-10s beancounter arithmatical people in Egypt/Mesopotamia and the also ancient 12-centric make-things-easily-divisible architect/construction geometers.

True, 12 doesn't match the number of fingers or toes... but have you ever considered it does match the number of spaces around our fingers and toes?

Re: The mathematical secrets of Barcelona's Sagrada Familia

#37
post #36
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I saw the emphasis was on 12, I wondered why it was combined with 7.5 so much rather than say, a more 12-centric nearby number like 7.2. 7.2 = 12 * 12 / 10 / 2 But having integers for ones' for lengths (e.g 90m rather than 84.4) does seem a bit nicer in a way. I think you make a good point about 15 vs 7.5 and symmetries around 1/2/3/4/5. It undercuts the 12-centricity though; 15-centricity is just so much more m…

The earlier Spanish measurement system that changed to meters in Gaudi's lifetime was, like the English system, more 12-centric than 10-centric. In a way, base-10-centric measurements are the victors of a three thousand year battle between group-by-10s beancounter arithmatical people in Egypt/Mesopotamia and the also ancient 12-centric make-things-easily-divisible architect/construction geometers. True, 12 doesn't ma…

>True, 12 doesn't match the number of fingers or toes... but have you ever considered it does match the number of spaces around our fingers and toes?

We used to learn to count on our fingers instead of counting our fingers, our four fingers have twelve knuckles and our thumb is the pointer. There are quite a few schemes for counting and doing math on our fingers like this, some include the tips of our fingers as well or tips and two knuckles, or the segment between the joints or all of the above, and both hands for complex math and different fingers for different things like place so you could count higher and do math on larger numbers. Someone saying you counted on your fingers was once a compliment, only the unlearned would count in their head, too easy to lose place because of distractions.

Re: The mathematical secrets of Barcelona's Sagrada Familia

#38
post #11

Be sure to visit the basement museum to see the upside-down string + tiny sandbag weights model that was used to simulate the structure. Pure genius.

The Gaudí models themselves were actually destroyed during the Franco years, and so what we see today exists thanks to the successor architects doing reconstructive work on Gaudí’s lost mockups.

Re: The mathematical secrets of Barcelona's Sagrada Familia

#39
post #27
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Designing in an era where calculus exists, using chains and weights strikes me as gratuitous or onanistic. The Ancient Greeks and Romans also used the same or similar empirical geometric methods to generate ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolas in their architecture. The difference is, they were still 1000-2000 years away from having formalized calculus.

He is solving differential equations but with an analogue computer. Doing it faster and with less doubts over fidelity and existence of a solution too. Solving partial differential equations numerically and vetting the solution so obtained is not a trivial matters. Many things can go wrong in non obvious ways. Analogue computers are a worthy alternative when applicable.

No doubt. I call them empirical geometric methods, you call it an analog computer, same thing. He didn’t invent anything though. The method of hanging a chain and adding custom weights to find the ideal shape for a complex masonry structure was invented by Giovanni Poleni in 1743 to fix the dome of St. Peter’s basilica. Poleni himself was extending Robert Hooke's 1675 inverted chain concept for optimal arches. The techniques Gaudi used had already been in use for hundreds of years.

Re: The mathematical secrets of Barcelona's Sagrada Familia

#40

TFA does not quite explain the logic of this and somewhat suggests it as unique when it was the norm. If you are building a church, what better metric is there than the church you are building? There is no reason to measure, you can just subdivide with very basic tools. We want the entrance to be in the center, that is 1/2 church instead of 8.385 meters and that door is 1/6 church wide and 3/4 church tall. We want wi…

A lot of words but I agree with you with all my heart. Proportions best relate to the whole, not some “2 inches from the edge” or whatever arbitrary standard.

What I would add also is the human scale. Along with the dimensions of the space you are filling, the scale of the humans using the cabinet are important as well. Height, eye level, arm length, waist height, etc.

Post reply on HN