Tag: geometry

  • Beyond Straight Lines

    Beyond Straight Lines

    Do these two statements contradict each other?

    1. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. ~Archimedes
    2. There are no straight lines in nature. ~Antoni Gaudi

    Archimedes is arguably one of the smartest human beings to have ever lived, and I mean that with absolutely zero hyperbole. He’s most commonly known for shouting “Eureka!” as he got into a bath as he realized the amount of water displaced from the tub was equal to the volume his body occupied, and for the water screw which is still in use today in many places.

    In the late 90’s a book sold at auction for $2,000,000 was discovered to be a palimpsest containing 7 treatise written by Archimedes, and two are the only known copies of those works in the world. Researchers also discovered that Archimedes was not only familiar with the concept of infinity, but he outlines seven types of infinity. SEVEN.

    1. On a geometric plane it can extend in both directions to infinity
    2. There can be an infinite number of points on this plane
    3. The number of straight lines drawn between two points are infinite
    4. There are infinite numbers of curves possible between any two points
    5. etc. etc.

    It’s a fascinating story, and if you’d like to learn more about it, you can check out the Archimedes Palimpsest Organization.

    This from a man who lived from 287 – c. 212 BCE.

    Abstract Reasoning

    What made his mind so unbelievably powerful was his ability to use logic and reason to intuit solutions in the abstract mathematical world. His strength was using his imagination to reason his way towards understanding universal truths.

    With this approach, he was able to discover timeless truths about the world, and build his understanding on rock solid foundations built on logic & reason. It’s an incredibly powerful ability to pull order from absolute chaos. This is the way of fighting entropy and decay; find answers that are beyond the mere considerations of this broken-down world we live in; truth lives in a universe beyond the scope of time & space. This is the world of First Principles.

    But, What About the World of Gaudi?

    Antoni Gaudí was an architect born in 1852, and died in 1926. His buildings look like Dr. Seuss drawings brought to life, and they’re absolutely gorgeous. If you’d like to see examples of his work, click here for a Google image search.

    His work “Sagrada Família” in Barcelona looks like a sand castle brought to life, and it will be finished 100 years after his death. It’s a testament to the enduring power of his work.

    He recognized that in the world of nature, there are no straight lines. Even the unerring line of the horizon is actually a curve so large it only appears straight to us.

    And there lies his genius.

    Gaudi lives in the realm of nature. In the real world. Archimedes lives in the realm of abstract mathematics.

    The world that human beings live in never moves in a straight line. It’s curved. It’s messy. It’s pure chaos.

    The World of Chaos

    This fundamental truth about the world we live in is the reason why the most elegant, simple answers lack mathematical beauty. They twist, they turn.

    In the real world, indirect is more effective than the direct.

    Success is usually the byproduct of aiming at something else. The straight line approach is often the longest way to get somewhere.

    Training Artificial Intelligence

    There’s a fascinating exploration in the world of AI that shows us this counter intuitive truth.

    Researchers built systems that were allowed to play inside their environment without any specific goal or outcome; it was given free reign to discover what it could do on its own.

    Later, researchers would establish a specific goal and see how long it would take the system to achieve it. After that, they would increase the difficulty by introducing a variety of obstacles and challenges.

    The AI system took longer in the second case to achieve the goal, but was still able to do what was asked of it.

    The Wrinkle

    Here’s where things got interesting: AI systems built specifically to complete the task were almost completely unable to accommodate the simplest obstacle or challenge.

    The most direct approach (design the tool to do the task) wound up being the least effective when presented with anything other than an optimal environment. The roundabout solution (design the tool to play on it’s own) takes more time & resources, but winds up being profoundly effective even in the face of insurmountable difficulty.

    Our World

    You might live in a perfect fairy tale world, but I sure as hell don’t. I face challenges, obstacles, and frustrations every day.

    That’s why the direct approach rarely works in any context; whether it’s in relationships, a physical confrontation, business plan, marketing, or any other situation involving humans.

    In ideal situations, yes, the abstract world of logic & reason will serve you well. But, we live in a crazy, chaotic swirl of doubt and uncertainty.

    That’s why success is often the result of trying something else.

    Want to make tons of money? Don’t focus on making money. Focus on solving peoples’ problems; the money will follow.

    Want an amazing romantic partner? Don’t focus on finding someone. Focus on being an incredible person who has a lot to offer, and your match will show up.

    Real World Success

    Whatever you want to do in life, don’t aim at it. Look to what naturally creates that successful outcome, and then focus all your energy on that.

    Live in the beautiful, organic, curvy world of Gaudi, not the world of Archimedes (no matter how much you love clean lines).

  • Golden Ratio’s Beautiful 108 36 36 Golden Triangle

    Golden Ratio’s Beautiful 108 36 36 Golden Triangle

    BEHOLD THE GOLDEN RATIO!

    The ancient secret brought to life with 21st century technologies!

    Very cool.

    I’ve written about ratios and relationships before, and the thing I’m holding is my favorite ratio.

    The challenge here is to explain why without getting too deep in the weeds with it.

    Let’s Try

    Back in ancient Greek times there were two competing theories for how the universe works.

    1. Everything can be reduced to its most basic building block, the atom. The atom here is the universally useful common denominator between all things in the universe (hence the use of the term universally useful).
    2. The whole universe is full of an odorless, colorless, weightless “aether.” There are no fundamental particles; it’s all forces transmitted through this invisible gas.

    That’s it.

    SIDENOTE: In all seriousness; the debate is still going thousands of years later. The atomists think they’ve won, but they don’t know they’ve backed themselves into a corner. But I digress.

    The people who supported the first argument (we’ll call them ‘Atomists’ like I already did) had every reason to believe that you could find the universal building block.

    Let’s build their case using some good imaginary lines. We won’t even have to draw them!

    Divisibility

    Imagine you have two lengths of string. One is two inches long. The other is three inches long.

    There’s no way that you can squish three inches to fit into two inches, and there’s no way to stretch two into three.

    What you can do, however, is cut the two inch string into two one-inch pieces. You can also cut the three inch string into three one-inch pieces.

    Now you have 5 pieces of string that are all the same length.

    As a result you would say that one inch is the common unit that is the same to both pieces of string.

    This is (almost) universally true. No matter what units you measure by, you can (almost) always find a way to cut up both lengths that will leave you with the same size pieces.

    The ancient Greeks were proving this left and right. They were using this information to find the area of planes and solids. They were calculating the center of gravity for three dimensional solids.

    Life was good.

    And Then Along Came Phi

    Everything was great until it wasn’t.

    Imagine you’ve spent a lifetime proving that you can always divide string, lines, and measurements into smaller pieces to find their common “atom” size.

    And then someone shows you that doesn’t work.

    It would be like finding out your tidy explanation for life, the universe, and everything has a giant black hole at the center that’s devouring everything right in front of you.

    Warning: This knowledge got people killed in ancient Greece times, and there are people who have been driven mad by it much more recently because their minds simply can’t accept what this means. You have been warned.

    Imagine there was a length of string that you cut into two pieces. Now, when you try to cut it down into inches you realize that there’s always going to be some nubbin left over in one of the pieces.

    So the inch doesn’t work as the “atomic” denominator between them.

    You decide to try centimeters. You cut both pieces into one centimeter pieces, and there’s still a little nubbin left over.

    This means that the centimeter is not the atomic denominator between these two lengths of string.

    Your eyes narrow.

    You decide to cut both pieces into millimeter length sections.

    This will do it for sure!

    Nope.

    There’s still a suuuuuuuper tiny left over piece. It’s less than a millimeter long, but it’s sitting right there mocking you.

    That’s how you know the millimeter is not a common unit of measurement between the lengths.

    This is where the nightmare truly starts.

    No matter how short the length you use to cut the string, you realize there’s always going to be something left over.

    What you’ve just discovered is the monster that eats the atom known as irrational numbers.

    You Already Love Them

    One of the most famous irrational numbers is Pi; the number that helps you compute the circumference of a cirle.

    Tau is lesser known irrational number which is 2pi, and I think you’ve earned a momentary distraction from you existential dread with this wonderful talk by Michael Hartl about Tau:

    And, finally, I want to tell you about Phi.

    That’s what I’m holding in the photo at the top of the post. Since you’ve been reading for a long ass time already, here it is again to remind you:

    The 108, 36, 36 golden ratio triangle known as the "golden triangle."

    Yeah, that’s what it is. But what does it mean? What are you really looking at?

    The piece, at large, is an obtuse triangle with one unique angle of 108 degrees, and two shared angles of 36 degrees.

    The photo makes it look very distorted. I angled it so that the light would reflect off it. Here is a straight-on shot to minimize distortion. I’ve also added dots to reference later.

    Another golden ratio triangle.

    The yellow/green/white angle is 108 degrees. The green/white/blue angle is 36. The green/yellow/blue angle is 36, too.

    Here’s what’s neat.

    The green/blue line divides the yellow/green/white triangle into a smaller green/blue/white triangle with the same 108/36/36 angles.

    Very cool.

    You could continue to cut the smaller triangle into a smaller 108/36/36 triangle down to infinity.

    While that stays the same, here’s what will eventually drive you mad.

    The blue dot cuts the yellow/white line into two sections (yellow/blue and blue/white).

    These two sections have no common denomenator.

    There is no way to divide these two up without having something left over.

    The segments will never find commonality.

    This is provable. It’s demonstrable.

    There are simply some things that will never be reduced to their essence.

    There are things we can know. Things we can know by inference from others.

    And some that will remain a mystery forever.

    21st Century

    That’s the quick outline of what the “Golden Triangle” (or better known as the “Golden Ratio”) is, and how it was discovered.

    The implications are far-reaching, and much too big for this already-too-long post.

    Let’s wrap this thing up by talking about how I created it.

    Late at night on Twitter I asked if anyone knew how to make this idea of mine happen, and within 30 minutes I had a working file in my inbox that I could use with my 3D printer.

    The next morning I ran the file through my Ender3 to make the piece I’m showing in the photos.

    3D printers use a highly sophisticated Cartesian coordinate system to track its position within the context of three planes of motion.

    1. Forward/Back
    2. Left/Right
    3. Up/Down

    Voila. The three dimensions of printing!

    So using these very straightforward (even though they’re complex to execute, they’re pretty simple in practice) processes to create a physical object that embodies a fundamental truth of the universe.


    Today’s post is brought to you by the word: Incommensurability