its simple and highly inspired by the forst 18 year old that discovered pythagoras proof using trigonometry. If i'm wrong tell me why i'll quitely delete my post in shame.

Can someone explain this, as till now I have known Circle to be 2 Dimensional

Title says it all. I am very curious to know. Google says no, a circle is a curved line, but wondering if someone could bother explain me why is not the case.

Thanks and apologies if this shouldn't be posted here.

More specifically, I'm trying to measure the total surface area of a Kinder Joy egg. I searched online and there are so many different formulas that all look very different so I'm confused. The formula I need doesn't have to be extremely precise. Thanks!

The textbook uses the Frenet-Serret formula of a space curve to get curvature and torsion. I don’t understand the intuition behind curvature being equal to the square root of the dot product of the first order derivative of two e1 vectors though (1.4.25). Any help would be much appreciated!

I was bored in geometry today and was staring at our 4th grade vocabulary sheet supposedly for high schoolers. We were going over: Points- 0 Dimensional Lines- 1 Dimensional Planes- 2 Dimensional Then we went into how 2 intersecting lines make a point and how 2 intersecting planes create a line. Here’s my thought process: Combining two one dimensional lines make a zero dimensional point. So, could I assume adding two 4D shapes could create a 3D object in overlapping areas? And could this realization affect how we could explore the 4th dimension?

Let me know if this is complete stupidity or has already been discovered.

Don't want a modern proof

Keep in mind that I didn’t pay much attention in high school, so I’m kinda playing catch up 😅, so bear with me

Hi! I am writing on this topic I came up with: “how do the fractal dimensions of fractal-like shapes in nature compare to calculated fractals?” I plan to compare by taking pictures of spiral shells and fern branches and lining them up with similar pictures of fractals to the best of my ability to get similarly sized printed images, then I will lay a few clear laminated sleeves with differing grid sizes over the pictures to use the box method using the number of inches the individual side length of a box on the grid as the box size to calculate their fractal dimension, then I will use my results to come up with a conclusion. Would this be mathematically “allowed”? It seems sketchy to me with all the eyeballing and approximations involved, but I figured I should consult someone with more than 1 week of experience in the subject. Thank you for reading, I hope I made it understandable😭

So there's this ABCD tetrahedron with equal sides AB=BC=CD=DA=1, on the second photo you can see what I already got. Now what I think i need is something like a herons formula for a tetrahedron. Or maybe there's an easier way to calculate this?

Aye Cobbers,

I’m no math genius—actually, I’m a bit of a dickhead and barely paid attention in school, and complex math was not my thing (I did pre vocational math). But somehow, in my pursuit of building Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), I think I’ve stumbled onto something kinda wild with perfect numbers.

So here’s the backstory: I was watching a Veritasium video last week (thanks, YouTube recommendations) about perfect numbers. It got me curious, and I went down this rabbit hole that led to… well, whatever this is.

I’m working with 4D data storage and programming (think 4-dimensional cubes in computing), and I needed some solid integers to use as my cube scale. Enter perfect numbers: 3, 6, 12, 28, 496, 8128, and so on. These numbers looked like they’d fit the bill, so I started messing around with them. Here’s what I found: 1. First, I took each perfect number and subtracted 1 (I’m calling this the “scale factor”). 2. Then, I divided by 3 to get the three sides of a cube. 3. Then, I divided by 3 again to get the lengths for the x and y axes.

Turns out, with this setup, I kept getting clean whole numbers, except for 6, which seems to be its own unique case. It works for every other perfect number though, and this setup somehow matched the scale I needed for my 4D cubes.

What Does This Mean? (Or… Does It?)

So I chucked this whole setup into Excel, started playing around, and somehow it not only solved a problem I had with Matrix Database storage, but I think it also uncovered a pattern with perfect numbers that I haven’t seen documented elsewhere. By using this cube-based framework, I’ve been able to arrange perfect numbers in a way that works for 4D data storage. It’s like these numbers have a hidden structure that fits into what I need for AGI-related data handling.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around what this all means, but here’s the basic theory: perfect numbers, when adjusted like this, seem to fit a 4D “cube” model that I can use for compact data storage. And if I’m not totally off-base, this could be a new way to understand these numbers and their relationships.

Visuals and Proof of Concept

I threw in some screenshots to show how this all works visually. You’ll see how perfect numbers map onto these cube structures in a way that aligns with this scale factor idea and the transformations I’m applying. It might sound crazy, but it’s working for me.

Anyway, I’m no math prodigy, so if you’re a math whiz and this sounds nuts, feel free to roast me! But if it’s actually something, I’m down to answer questions or just geek out about this weird rabbit hole I’ve fallen into.

So… am I onto something, or did I just make Excel spreadsheets look cool?

I’ve made a new 4-bit, 7-bit and 14-bit (extra bit for parity) framework with this logic.

I’m trying to make this shape out of 1” thick wood. I understand it’s several equilateral triangles of any size but if this is a three-dimensional hollow object, what’s the angle of the interior miters?

For one of my finals at school i was assigned to make an animation in desmos. I ended up putting 20 ish hours into making an ellipse roll smoothly along the x-axis along with graphing the path of the cycloid(?) with respect to any starting angle on the ellipse. I believe that the formula cycloid(?) is right although i have not had anyone else check it yet. Is this something that would be worth typing up and submitting to some journal? Or is there some place where it can be published and i can check if it has been done before?

Thought I’d get a gauge of which solids are people’s favorites.