this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
264 points (96.8% liked)

Memes

45619 readers
571 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Now, I'm wondering if we have a thriving Desire Paths (that's what these paths are called) community somewhere on here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Don't know but that sounds like a great idea of one. LOL

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I said a thriving community. There hasn't been a post there in three months.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Be the change you want to see in the world.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I think this is more a case of the triangle inequality in metric spaces, as you don't have to calculate any particular edge to see the shortcut, as well as that it applies to any even non-rectangular triangle.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

But if you want to know your saving, you will need to dust off the old formula. And if you do, you find the maximum saving to be around 41% (in the case of isosceles right triangle where the hypotenuse is a factor of sqrt 2 shorter).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

That's true (y)

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago (2 children)

all the student needs to know is c<a+b, not the actual formula or theory behind it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

This is actually a case of the Cauchy-Scwartz inequality: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy%E2%80%93Schwarz_inequality

load more comments
view more: next ›